 |
|
|
|||||
Blame Ryan Reynolds. Or maybe the Trump family. Or, if we must, three beloved sitcom stars from the early-to-mid 2000s. But the recent news, first reported by Business Insider, that Jimmy MrBeast Donaldson and his Beast Industries were planning to launch their own wireless service by sometime in 2026, needs someone to blame for this harebrained idea. Way back in June, I wondered, is mobile the new tequila? Meaning, is wireless service the latest industry where a celebrity can start a company (or invest in one), market it using their face and charisma, and hope for a nine- or ten-figure exit? The short answer is (or should be) absolutely not. In this premium piece, youll learn: What a MrBeast wireless service would have to overcome to be successful Why wireless brands and celebrity brands really dont mix The six secrets to Ryan Reynolds success as a marketer that are increasingly hard to replicate How the major wireless carriers could co-opt the trend of famous people selling mobile service Were deep into the DTC, social marketing era that has seen legacy brands of all stripes get threatened by upstarts. The modern consumer is constantly craving something new. That has not only fueled these brands but also traditional players embracing gross-out marketing, superstar collaborations like the recent Oreo-Reeses team-up, anthropomorphic Nutter Butters on TikTok, and stolid middle-of-the-grocery-store staples from Kraft and Heinz (soon to be two companies again!) doing too many attention-grabbing, culture-hacking moments to count. @fastcompany Strange food combos are always a marketing hit. Brands are at it again, and our team tested some of the latest gross out foods. @brachscandy Tailgate Candy Corn and @tropicana Crunch Cereal. #brandingtips #grossout #weirdfoodcombos #eatwithme #marketing original sound – Fast Company But is wireless really the same as the candy aisle? [Photo: Roy Rochlin/Getty Images/MTV] Beast Mode You watch MrBeast’s YouTube videos and maybe even his Amazon Prime Video reality series. You eat his Feastables candy. You may even have scarfed down a MrBeast Burger before that business went bust. By you, I refer, of course, to a 13-year-old boy. Now imagine if MrBeast was also your mobile service. Donaldson laid out the logic of his expansion into consumer goods a couple of years ago, outlining that brands simply couldnt pay what it should cost to sponsor his YouTube videos as they routinely attracted more than 100 million views. So to get the value from his work, he needed to create his own brands.Donaldson already has a successful chocolate bar brand called Feastables, launched in 2022, as well as a toy brand called MrBeast Lab, and a snack brand called Lunchly. What do all those things have in common? Theyre all products targeted predominantly at MrBeasts younger audience. Theyre also all ostensibly fun. You know whats not fun? Selecting a wireless plan. So far as we know, the candy business at least is working, as its reportedly profitable and generating almost as much revenue as the media side of the business. If Donaldson werent so committed to overspending on his videos, where he lost more than $100 million last year. And for what? No idea why he had to build a maximum security prison, for example, for whats basically an episode of a game show, which is supposed to be a cheap format! If Beast could make highly profitable media, he could focus his other pursuits on growing his CPG Feastables brand, which just expanded into cookies. When Feastables bars first launched, I interviewed Donaldson, who told me that Feastables had been made so that he could enjoy them even with his Crohns Disease, which requires him to eat carefully so as not to inflame his condition. But as Beast Industries has grown, that sense of personal connection to the brands being aunched is dissipating. If MrBeast has a compelling personal story for why hes starting a wireless company, I cant wait to hear it. But a wireless service largely strays from everything that makes sense for celebrity brand extensions: Celebs thrive in such sectors as fashion, booze, and beauty in part because it’s easy for them to personalize those products and people already want to spend money on those goods. Services-based businesses carry much greater risk because people expect, yknow, ongoing service versus just delivering what you promised in a package. Celebrity products can double as badge brands, signaling your affinity for the celebrity and doubling as free marketing for everything they do. How do you even signal that youre a customer of a particular wireless carrier? Well, you could tell people, but when was the last time you heard anyone say, I love my wireless carrier? What about Ryan Reynolds, you ask? Lets break down Reynoldss success with Mint Mobile. The Reynolds Mirage Its easy to be hypnotized by Reynolds Deadpool-forged, meta-advertising approach to Mint. In 2019, he bought a 25% stake in the company, made a slew of self-aware and funny ads, its app downloads soared by 34% in the first 12 months, and the company was then acquired by T-Mobile for $1.35 billion in 2023. Easy-peasy, right? There are about as many reasons why Reynolds’ success with Mint would be near impossible to replicate, as there is why the success of Deadpool is so tough for Marvel to replicate (except with Deadpool himself). It’s currently 2025, not 2016. Reynolds was early to the game. His promotional work for the first Deadpool movie gave him a clear identity as a pitchman. In 2018, he started a marketing agency, Maximum Effort, so he had the infrastructure to produce his own ads. The Deadpool 2 campaign and his work promoting Aviation Gin (a spirit thats, well, a harder sell than tequila) allowed him to developand perfecta style that fit perfectly with his movie star persona. Reynoldss ads dispensed with the unspoken artifice of adland, breaking the fourth wall, and acknowledging it was all rather ridiculous. As he told me last year, Audiences know theyre being advertised to, so if you can acknowledge that invisible contract, its a bit more authentic . . . My feeling is always that its just a fucking commercial. Who gives a shit? Just make sure that its fun. By the time he invested in Mint Mobile, he knew exactly how to position the brand as a no BS marketer. From a delightfully lo-fi Powerpoint presentation to somehow convincing Rick Moranis back in front of the screen, it all had the air of a comedy sketch. Mint was a discount carrier, which has traditionally been the only piece of the market where a brand can break through against the major players. Because of Reynoldss marketing approach, he managed to sell cheap phone service without cheapening his own brand. Reynolds also knows when to be in your face and when to go away. After 2024s Deadpool v. Wolverine onslaught, which helped the movie be the second-largest box office smash of the year with $1.3 billion in worldwide grosses, he became far less omnipresent, a luxury that YouTubers and podcasters (and the attention-starved Trump family) cant afford. So yeah, its easy for stars (and their agents and business reps) to see dollar signs as they rush into a category like wireless. But historically, building a branded wireless service has been a tough road. MVN-uh oh Technically, MrBeast isnt actually launching a telecom company. Although I would love to see him try, just for the videos wed likely get out of it. Imagine I Built 100,000 Cell Towers in 100 Days! or Survive 100 Days Without Cell Service, Win Wireless for Life. If his mobile plans do materialize, it would be a MVNO, a mobile virtual network operator. These are brands that buy excess network capacity from the major carriers, and profit from the difference between that price and what they charge customers. For the majors like AT&T and Verizon, its a way to cash in on unused network capacity, while smaller brands get to offer up cheaper mobile plans and some brand variety for customers. In addition to Mint (before its acquisition), there have been other successful MVNOs such as Cricket and Google Fi. But the path is also littered with the graves of failed brands. Remember Ampd? Founded in 2005, the brand aimed its brand at younger people who wanted to consume content and games on their phones. (This was pre-iPhone.) It went on a full-on brand blitz, signing up MTV as a content partner, Snoop Doggs youth football league, Coachella, and more. But by mid-2007, it had burned through $360 million and declared bankruptcy. ESPN, perhaps the most powerful brand in American sports, launched its own MVNO in 2006and shut it down later that same year. This was due to a slew of factors, not the least of which was the $300 phone it expected users to buy to go with it. On a slide deck, the mobile business must look like a no-brainer: four entrenched players, no real brand affinity, not a lot of overt customer innovation. In reality, its incredibly competitive. The U.S. market is saturated. Because most people already having mobile phones, growth for any new brand largely comes from stealing users from a competitor. This is done primarily through race-to-the-bottom price promotions, but major brands like Verizon and T-Mobile are also increasingly using perks such as tickets to sports and concerts to build loyalty. What could MrBeast posibly offer to compete with these? Itll take more than a free candy bar, or even one of his massive giveaways. Although it would make sense for MrBeast to sell an entry-level wireless service given his young fan base, hed be taking a huge risk if he slaps Beast on the name. The logical move would be to call it Beast Mobile, just as the SmartLess guys dubbed their phone service SmartLess Mobile. But the best a wireless brand can hope for with consumers is not to be hated, to be fine, a utility in peoples lives. Donaldson also carries the additional burden of being MrBeast, so hes not only the face of the brand but hed be tying his personal brand to the fate of his wireless startup. Cash grab vs brand strategy Celebrity-backed brands are no longer a novelty, so their reason to exist must stem from an actual passion of the celebrity themselves. Thats the key for what we like about a person to transfer over to whatever products and services theyre hawking. When a celebrity venture feels like an organic extension of what theyre already known for, it resonates differently with consumers, Rethink New York chief creative officer Tara Lawall, who worked with the Smartless crew to launch its mobile brand, told me back in June. Millions of people listen to SmartLess on their phones, which makes mobile a natural fit for the brand. That connection sounds a bit tenuous, as people do almost everything on their phones. By that logic, everything from ChatGPT to Fortnite should have a wireless service. (Oh, please no.) Exactly no one is emotionally invested or passionate about their wireless plan, and Beast is not a good enough actor to convince anyone that he has an actual passion for the sector. Which is why a mobile brand feels like such a naked cash grab. (The SmartLess trio can more or less play the Reynolds card of making a joke out of it, and well see if that can deliver for an older audience.) These all still feel like a stretch, and are pretty clearly ventures built to be acquired by one of the major carriers, just as Mint Mobile was. So why dont we skip the middle step? Famous Wireless Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile should just mimic fashion brands and release their own celebrity-backed mobile plans. Think of it as a version of the McDonalds Famous Orders campaign but for wireless. Could you imagine a Taylor Swift-branded mobile plan that offered merch, ticket perks, and advance clues to her next moves? Or a Philadelphia Eagles plan? These could essentially be the same MVNO, just skinned Fortnite-style to fit different fan cultures. (Maybe Fortnite should have a wireless service?) We find ourselves in a moment when Buffalo Bills quarterback and NFL MVP Josh Allen can say, Its really about the authenticity of itnever putting my name on something that I personally dont believe in or I wouldnt use. Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, there’s Sydney Sweeney who says she needs to take every brand offer in order to make up for Hollywoods shortfall. If I just acted, I wouldnt be able to afford my life in L.A., she told The Hollywood Reporter in 2022. I take deals because I have to. Both approaches can work, but what they symbolize is that celebs cant be cynical about how they monetize their brands beyond the primary source of their fame. Remember that in 2023, Donaldson and his company sued Virtual Dining Concepts, its partner on MrBeast Burger, claiming the company had taken advantage of his brand to expand rather than focusing on the quality of the food. The bulk of online reviews for MrBeast Burger outlets had less than two out of five stars, and used words like, disgusting, revolting, and inedible. Dropped calls and monthly fees are a world away from a sloppy burger. And much tougher to swallow.
Category:
E-Commerce
The modern city is a paradox. Designed to bring people together, it increasingly keeps us apart, stranded in traffic, saddled with debt, and choked by air pollution. The root cause isnt a mystery. We built our cities around cars, not people. This design wasnt accidental. It was the result of a century-long entanglement between public infrastructure and private interests, what we call the car-industrial complex. Cars were sold to Americans as symbols of freedom and progress. In reality, they’ve become financial traps, consuming vast portions of household budgets while gutting public space and mobility options for everyone. Car-centric planning has hollowed out our cities. Zoning regulations, freeways, and cheap fuel gave rise to sprawling suburbs and isolated communities, dependent on personal vehicles for even the most basic tasks. Its a system that punishes the poor, marginalizes the elderly and disabled, and makes public life thinner and more precarious. The car promised freedom, and delivered debt, pollution, and dependence. Meanwhile, local governments, seduced by auto industry lobbying and federal subsidies, doubled down on road-building and car-friendly development. The result is a vicious cycle: more cars mean more roads; more roads mean more sprawl; more sprawl means more cars. And all of it costs taxpayers dearly. Cities are now stuck maintaining bloated road networks while struggling to fund basic services like public transit, schools, and housing. Reallocating space So how do we begin to reverse this? First, we must redesign our cities around people, not cars. This begins with reallocating space. Cars are the most spatially inefficient form of transport ever invented. They sit idle 95% of the time, yet take up 50% or more of urban space in some cities. The solution? Reduce car lanes. Convert parking lots into housing, green space, or local commerce. Make streets walkable and bikeable by default, not as an afterthought. This can be done and is already being done in cities from Barcelona to Bogota. Second, we need to invest in public transit, not just as a social good, but as core infrastructure for economic resilience. This means buses, trains, but also microtransit, demand-responsive services, and protected cycling infrastructure. Public mobility must be convenient, affordable, and desirable. A truly resilient city isnt one where everyone can afford a car, its one where nobody has to have one one to thrive. Third, housing and mobility must be planned together. For decades, we built homes far from jobs, schools, and groceries, and then told people to drive. Inverting that logic is essential. Cities should incentivize mixed-use, infill development and eliminate minimum parking requirements that bake car dependency into every building project. Fourth, we must confront the car-industrial complex at its core: finance. Car debt in the U.S. now totals more than $1.6 trillion. Thats more than all outstanding student loan debt. Eighty percent of new cars and 35% of used cars are purchased with loans, many predatory, high-interest, and longer than the expected life of the vehicle. This isn’t mobility, its a form of economic capture. Governments cant fix this by tinkering at the edges. Subsidizing electric cars or building a few charging stations wont solve the deeper problem: the financial architecture of car dependency. We need policies that actively disincentivize car ownership and use, congestion pricing, car-free zones, and removing subsidies that make driving artificially cheap. At the same time, we must support families through affordable alternatives, dense, walkable neighborhoods, better public schools, and reliable transit. Fifth, we must reimagine how we measure success. For decades, traffic engineers and city planners envisaged good planning in terms of how fast and efficiently traffic could flow. We need to shift that metric toward human flourishing and what makes a city liveable in the 21st century. Is it safe to walk your child to school? Can a teenager get to a job without a car? Are parks and clinics accessible without driving? If not, the system is failing. Not a dream Reversing car-centric design is not a utopian dream. Cities around the world are already doing it. Paris is removing 70,000 parking spaces to make room for bikes and trees. Barcelona is expanding its network of superblocks that prioritize pedestrians and eliminate through-traffic. Oslo removed cars entirely from its city center and saw foot traffic, and local business, surge. Cities in the Global South are pioneering new forms of green micormobility, such as Jakarta where the government has set a target of electrifying 2.1 million motor cyles by the end of 2025 These changes we need in cities arent just about mobility. Theyre about public health, economic equity, and climate resilience. Theyre about repairing the social fabric that cars have slowly unraveled. And most importantly, theyre about freedom, not the isolated, debt-ridden version sold by car commercials, but the real kind: the freedom to move, to breathe clean air, to live in a thriving community.Adapted from Roadkill: Unveiling the True Cost of Our Relationship with Cars, by Henrietta Moore and Arthur Kay. Copyright 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Category:
E-Commerce
For the last 17 months, Antonio Gianfrancesco has been working on the Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Islanda sprawling wind farm that was designed to have 65 turbines and generate enough power for 350,000 homes. On August 22, Gianfrancesco was at home when he was awakened by a phone call. It was my coworker, who said that they had randomly stopped the Revolution project, he says. Honestly, I was pretty shocked about it. It came out of nowhere. And I was pretty uneasy because I didnt know if I was going to have a job in a weekand I still dont know if Im going to have a job in a day or a month. Everythings up in the air. The stop-work order came from the Trump administration, which cited unspecified national security concerns and told rsted, the Danish co-developer running the project, to pause everything. (A national security expert and former naval officer says that security concerns were already well vetted by the Department of Defense and others before the project was approved, and he points out that energy security is also a critical part of national security.) Attendees during a media tour of the Revolution Wind construction hub at the Port of Providence in Providence, Rhode Island, on Thursday, June 13, 2024. [Photo: Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg/Getty Images] Trump has opposed the wind industry ever since he failed to stop a wind farm near one of his golf courses in Scotland in 2006. After reportedly promising fossil fuel executives last year that he would deliver their policy wish list if they donated $1 billion to his presidential campaign, Trump stepped up attacks on renewable energy after taking office. (Fossil fuel companies didnt give $1 billion, but donated $450 million to influence Trump and Congress, according to one report.) When he took office in January, Trump issued an executive order to stop new leasing for wind projects and fast-track oil and gas production on federal land. In April, he issued a stop-work order on the Empire Wind 1 offshore wind farm in New York, though he backed down after advocacy efforts from New York politicians and labor unions. In July, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ended tax credits for new renewable energy projects that start construction after July 2026; it also added new restrictions on foreign parts that will make it harder for projects to qualify. (Another executive order called for agencies to tighten the definition of what it means to “start construction.”) Trump also said federal waters would no longer be eligible for offshore wind development. This month, Trump told agencies to step up attacks against the wind industry. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that the Health and Human Services Department would be studying electromagnetic fields from wind farms, although previous studies have not found any health risks. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pulled $679 million in funding for infrastructure to support offshore wind power. All of this is happening while Trump argues that there is an energy emergencyand wind projects like Revolution Wind were poised to begin providing power. For the workers, its baffling. Revolution Wind is 80% complete. It could have been finished as soon as December and be powering the grid by next year, if everything had continued on schedule. Residents would have saved money on electric bills. After around two years of construction work on the project, Gianfrancesco says, Its kind of a slap in the face. Gianfrancesco, like hundreds of other workers on the project, went through hours of training to do specialized work on the project. His role, as a balance of power technician, includes safety inspections of anchor points, basic repairs, and other work on the massive 873-foot-tall turbines. Prior to his specialized training, he worked on building the concrete platforms that support the wind turbines. Until the project was frozen, workers rotated in weeks-long shifts on a large vessel 15 miles offshore. Gianfrancesco would work long hours for two weeks, and then have two weeks off. (Others spent even longer periods on the ship, in six-week shifts.) He happened to be on land when the work stopped, but some of his coworkers were stuck on board, unable to do anything but wait. “Some of the guys go to the gym four times a day,” one worker told The Wall Street Journal. When we spoke, Gianfrancesco was temporarily offshore again at Sunrise Wind, another rsted project off the coast of Long Island. But because that project is at a much earlier stage, theres little to do. A lot of people are just sitting out here, he says. Theres no progress. rsted sued the government on September 4, arguing that the stop-work order was illegal. The states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which would both get electricity from the project, joined the suit. “This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we’re suing to stop it,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 workers are in limbofrom union carpenters to electricians. If there are layoffs, “I’m not sure if I would be able to pay the rent,” Gianfrancesco says. “Other people here support their families. I support my sisters. The fact that it’s all up in the air is a strange feeling. “There were so many trainings that I had to do in the course of two years to be out here,” he adds. “It just feels like it’s all for nothing, especially since 80% of the project is done. And I was proud to be working on Revolution. It’s in the nameit’s revolutionary.” The project would have been only the fourth offshore wind farm in the U.S., and the largest one by far.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||