Search

On MCNs

On MCNs

On MCNs

The one piece of history to know.

It’s not that this is a “hot term” anymore, but I used to work directly under creator legend Ezra Cooperstein for a few years. And, although I haven’t run the idea of creator investing by him specifically, I will say that he probably had the better perspective of what ideas tried and failed in the larger creator industry.

With that, there are some elements of MCN-ness in some of the deal structures of “creator investing” generally - and even just working with operating partners on elements of the Creator’s business.

So in hopes of not repeating not-so-correct history, here’s MCNs.

What’s an MCN Agreement?

An MCN agreement is an agreement between a “creator” (loose definition) and a “third party” (loose definition) and want to “partner” (another loose definition) to grow the business. The third party would get some distribution or “cut” of the business doing well.

What do MCNs do?

Generally, MCNs did the following:

  1. Monetization Support
    1. Ad Revenue Management
    2. Brand Deals & Sponsorships
  2. Access to more advances tooling
    1. Content ID and CMS. MCNs provided access to YouTube’s Content Management System (CMS), a powerful toolset unavailable to most independent creators back then. With Content ID, creators could track and monetize their content if others uploaded it, or block unauthorized use. CMS also offered detailed analytics and video management options.
    2. Copyright Protection. Navigate copyright claims, either by defending against false claims or managing music licensing through partnerships (e.g., with record labels).
  3. Production & Creative Support
    1. Resources and Facilities. Bigger MCNs like Maker Studios offered physical perks—studio spaces, cameras, lighting, and editing software—to help creators polish their content.
    2. Collaboration Opportunities. Not as common in 2025 as it was in 2015, MCNs would encourage their talent to induce cross-promotion within their network. A small channel might get a shoutout from a bigger one, boosting subscribers and views.
  4. Audience Development
    1. Optimization Guidance. From what I heard, this was less effective than when the Creators did it, but nonetheless MCNs advised on thumbnails, titles, tags, and posting schedules to maximize discoverability—especially in older creator algorithms.
    2. Cross Platform Push.
  5. Administrative and Legal help
    1. Contract Management (per deal basis, sponsorships)
    2. Talent Management (career moves)

Did MCNs take equity in Creators?

MCNs did not take direct equity in creators. It was a rev share basis, meaning often 20-50% of the creator’s 55% cut from YouTube, after YouTube took its 45%) or a slice of brand deal income.

With that being said, the speed and opportunity for M&A from creators was not as prevalent as today. However, there was:

  1. Decently aggressive contracting. Some MCNs, like Machinima, included clauses granting them broad licensing rights to a creator’s content. This didn’t mean they owned the IP outright, but they could use, distribute, or monetize it in ways the creator might not have anticipated—like syndicating videos elsewhere or creating derivative works. Machinima’s infamous “perpetual” contracts sparked backlash for this reason.
  2. Exclusivity. Certain deals locked creators into exclusive arrangements, limiting where they could post content.

Equity-Like Arrangements:

  1. Profit Sharing Beyond Ads. A few MCNs negotiated deals where they got a cut of all channel-related revenue (e.g., merch, crowdfunding), not just YouTube ads.
  2. Investment Models. Rarely, an MCN might invest cash or resources into a creator’s channel (e.g., funding a big project) in exchange for a quasi-equity arrangement. This was more common with high-profile creators or when MCNs pivoted to “media company” status, but it wasn’t the norm.

Why didn’t MCNs take equity?

There’s a lot of ways to answer this. First of all, unless you tie your content under a subsidiary that own the IP & distributions of the channel, your content is tied to individual Google accounts, not MCNs. Transferring equity or IP would require creators to sell their accounts or content outright. This is, of course, still mostly true unless you go through a HoldCo/IP ownership agreement between your holding company and the channel.

As always, if you have any particular questions, feel feel to reach out to em@pre-founder.com.