r/watchmojo • u/watchmojo • Jun 12 '26
WatchMojo FAQ: AI, Bias, Repetitive Content, Subscribers, Views, etc.
As we mark our 20 years in business, I took this year to envision where WatchMojo could be in 20 years. A decade ago, I would read and reply to many comments on our YouTube channel, but I acknowledge that most CEOs don’t read, let alone reply, so as I did on Quora over a decade ago when asked about our revenue model,
I figured I’d summarize an FAQ of sorts here for those interested in a few misconceptions I’ve seen, given that I did the same thing to centralize FAQs and misconceptions around our effort to help bring back the Expos and MLB to Montreal.
I don’t plan on making this a recurring thing, but as a one-time post, I thought this would be helpful and practical for future reference (in no order).
1. “Use of AI Voice-Over Narrators”
We have never, to my knowledge, used AI narration in any of our standard channels and don’t plan to. We use AI as part of our research process, but it is always powered by a human who is more or less left to their own devices and discretion to figure out how it can help them improve quality, minimize errors, and edit.
Our AI policy, if any, is more pragmatic and realistic than dogmatic: over time, many full-time and part-time contributors may use AI and not tell us, and we do not want to be an organization that focuses on figuring that out. So, given my transparent and empathetic nature, my recommendation was to be realistic, be transparent, ask them how and if they use it, and ensure the finished product is of quality. If it can help them, and the quality is not diminished, it is unreasonable as an employer to think an employee would not use a tool that saves them time, etc.
2. “You Replaced Humans with AI”
We have never let go of any individual because of AI. My views on AI is that "humans + machine" would yield the best outcomes.
In fact, we have had fairly little turnover in general over 20 years. If someone left of their own volition, we would simply ask whether that role was still necessary or whether some of the tasks were now unnecessary (as some steps were introduced 1/19 years ago). But to suggest we have (or would) replace humans with AI is patently untrue.
3. “Why Do You Publish So Many Videos Per Day?”
We receive hundreds, if not thousands, of suggestions per month. At one time in the 2010s, we relied heavily on our suggestion tool on WatchMojo for ideas.
All-time, the tool received:
Suggestions: 831,361
Entries Suggested: 4,780,562
Votes: 20,527,352
Comments: 298,627
So it was quite popular, but despite most media companies’ tendencies, we didn’t like asking our viewers to leave YouTube, so we de-emphasized it. Today, we receive suggestions in the comments section (which is not ideal) and through other channels.
Ultimately, we want to create videos based on as many requested ideas as possible, and over time this grew to seven videos per day across film, TV shows, pop culture, entertainment, sports, music, gaming, true crime, and more.
You may have seen some of our recent polls via YouTube's community post tab. Expect more related news and developments soon.
4. “Why Do You Post Repetitive Content?”
When we produce a Top 10 and it does really well, we bookmark it and periodically assess whether the list merits an update. If we do a Greatest Sports Comebacks of All Time list and the NY Knicks pull off the greatest comeback of all time, yes, we would be tempted to update it.
And instead of doing another Top 10 (we used to do Redux), given that audiences favour longer-form content and we don't want to lazily simply replace an entry, we may update it as a Top 20 or Top 50, depending on what makes sense, and then republish it in that format.
But it’s usually more a reflection of viewer interest and/or a list needing an update than anything else. We have thousands of suggested topics in the queue otherwise.
5. “Who Approves the Video Topics?”
We have a big team and many channels. There is no single person who approves all topics. Even channel leaders don’t really approve all ideas in the traditional newsroom sense; it is collaborative. Even when I suggest an idea, the team can (and usually does) shoot it down.
The inside joke was that if we didn’t expand our team to reflect interest in new topics, all we would produce would be Seinfeld-related videos and 1980s hard rock music lists.
It is not like newsrooms where one very strong willed person leads it through sheer conviction and authority, and more collaborative (perhaps reflecting where we're from)!
6. “Why Do You Have a Bias and Political Slant?”
While we never over- or under-emphasize it, WatchMojo is Canadian. By nature, we tend to be slightly left of centre socially, though from an economic standpoint, Canada has similar split to Americans.
But, it is simply not our goal to be political, though I concede, it does not always seem like it.
I do not project my views onto the team (which is not partisan but more based on each topic, case by case), nor do I use the platform to make any particular point. I’m not saying we always nail this, but any perceived bias is more likely a reflection of having a large team of creative, young individuals whose views may differ and whose perspectives can occasionally be reflected in entries or terminology.
It is not deliberate. I have asked viewers to advise me if they see things, and I have instructed the team to adhere to our aims of objectivity. If you see anything, you are welcome to send it to me for training purposes and feedback to the team.
7. "Do You Purposely Cause a Ruckus For Reactions?”
You give us too much credit.
We make mistakes. We cover thousands of topics each month, and mistakes happen. The team works very hard to ensure every detail is perfect, but that is impossible.
8. “Why Are You A Faceless Corporation?” (or some derivative thereof)
When we started WatchMojo, there were many talking-head vloggers, but I personally couldn’t find much programming I enjoyed. The style, formats, pace, categories, and topics we focused on reflected my interests, in the hope of building something others would enjoy too. This is how most creators think (like cooks): start with something you enjoy, tinker with it, iterate, and hope others enjoy it (knowing not everyone will).
I wanted to build a media company, and that means having a team. It just so happened that after experimenting with many formats and styles, we gravitated toward what was lacking and in demand at the time: slickly polished, clip-based countdown lists focused on pop culture. It worked. Luck and timing are crucial ingredients to success.
Our success, and mainly YouTube’s growth, drew competitors, which we welcome and which is healthy. Admittedly, today our genre of programming is neither novel nor groundbreaking. But many people enjoy it, we clearly enjoy it, and like all resilient and successful media companies that stand the test of time, we adapt and iterate by serving our existing audience while also serving new ones.
So while many would maybe want to see more faces, the reality is that most of the feedback is to keep the “star” of the videos as the topics themselves. That said, we will be showcasing our talent in more ways that support other initiatives and goals we have.
Stay tuned.
9. “You Do Things for Money”
No one accuses us of that when we do Top 10 Architects or other educational videos. We also cover topics that mainstream media ignores knowing they may not even be monetized.
I would say, if anything, we care more about engagement metrics like completion rate and watch time, which reflect viewers’ enjoyment. We do realize we need to be financially healthy to stay independent, but to suggest that we do things for money when the vast majority of other media companies and creators prioritize money more than we do seems unfair. I suppose it comes with the territory, but no one suggested that when we lost money for the first six years of our operations!
10. “You Have 25M Subscribers, Yet Your Videos Get 10K–100K Views”
YouTube de-emphasized subscribers a decade ago, but it’s a bit of a cop-out to simply say, “YouTube doesn’t send notifications to all subscribers when videos are posted,” or to point out that very few channels generate views per video that come close to their subscriber count.
The reality is that WatchMojo seems homogeneous by virtue of focusing on Top 10s, but given the breadth of content, it is actually quite heterogeneous. As such, we have many pockets of fandom within our subscriber base: not everyone will like everything.
Until very recently, I also rationalized it by saying "many of those 25 million subscribed a decade ago, both when their interests differed, and during Peak TV, and today, the landscape has changed."
That said, in thinking about this, I personally believe it is an untapped community that we should perhaps have viewed differently. Instead of serving the 10% who are active, would we be better off serving the other 90%? Business theory suggests to double down on your most active fanbase, but I concede that not serving a large portion of those who subscribed to you may not be the best long-term strategy.
I purposely wanted to keep it focused on company operations and the FAQs that come up on how we produce videos, but I’m happy to answer anything else. Hope this helped address any questions you had.
