Why I Invested in Skool After 4 Years of Promoting Nothing

In my video, I break down exactly why I chose to invest in and promote Skool, addressing the controversies around referral programs and defending business models that often get unfairly criticized. This isn’t just another promotional piece—it’s a deep dive into strategic brand partnerships, network effects, and why the internet’s hatred of certain business models is often misplaced.

I explain the exact framework I use to evaluate partnerships and why reputation protection matters more than quick cash grabs.

In this conversation, I walk through the strategic thinking behind one of my biggest business moves in recent years.

Why I Finally Decided to Promote Something After Four Years

For four years, I created business content without promoting anything. That’s an intentionally long runway because I was building trust and reputation before ever asking my audience to buy or join anything. When I analyzed my audience composition, I discovered something fascinating: despite making exclusively business content, about 60% of my viewers are aspiring entrepreneurs who haven’t started a business yet, while only 33% actually own businesses.

This demographic split is actually impressive when you consider that only 9% of people own businesses while 91% don’t. My audience has a three to four times over-representation of business owners compared to the general population, but there’s still this massive segment of people who want to start but haven’t taken the leap yet. That realization sparked a question: could I create something scalable that helps this larger group get started while providing value to everyone?

The Strategic Evaluation Process Behind My Skool Investment

I get approached by countless companies wanting to leverage my audience and distribution. Every content creator with significant reach faces this constant barrage of partnership requests. But I’m extremely protective of my reputation because one bad promotion could damage years of trust-building. That’s why my evaluation process is so rigorous.

I had been following Skool since 2018 and knew founder Sam for years before making any moves. What impressed me most was watching the platform compound month over month purely on word of mouth—zero marketing spend. The company demonstrated amazing customer retention both for community creators and community members, which meant both sides of the marketplace were having positive experiences.

From a macro perspective, I saw a broader movement toward communities, and the timing felt right. But beyond timing, the platform has network effects built into its structure. Even in an AI-dominated future, I believe these network effects will help Skool thrive. The platform serves both aspiring entrepreneurs who need a starting point and established business owners who want a better community hub than email lists or Discord servers.

Addressing the MLM Criticism Head-On

One criticism I’ve seen is that Skool has an “MLM aspect” because people create communities teaching others how to make money on Skool. Let me address this directly: YouTube channels exist about growing YouTube channels. Podcasts exist about podcasting. Whenever someone figures out how to generate a living from something, other people will teach that thing. This is inevitable and not inherently problematic.

The “MLM” label is technically inaccurate because multi-level marketing has multiple levels, while Skool has a single-level referral commission. It’s just an affiliate program—if you refer a friend, you get a percentage. This is standard practice across the internet. The internet doesn’t deal well with nuance, so it gets labeled as MLM when it’s really just single-level marketing.

The Free Speech Approach to Community Content

Regarding what types of communities people can create, we take a pro-free speech, anti-censorship stance. If it’s legal, you can create a community about it. Whether it’s painting, Facebook ads, finding the perfect cologne, painting model cars, making beats, or yes, even making Skool communities profitable—all are allowed.

With tens of millions of users on the platform, we can’t start making arbitrary rules about acceptable topics. You either go down the endless rabbit hole of rule-making or you draw a clear line: communities can be about whatever you want as long as it’s legal. That’s where we decided to draw the line.

What’s Actually Wrong With MLMs and Information Products

I’ll state something controversial: I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with MLM structures. The problem isn’t the structure itself but how it’s often misused. The real issue is deception—specifically when the promise doesn’t match the deliverable. That’s it. False expectations drive virtually all the criticism.

Most people advertising in the information space don’t advertise compliantly. They make promises they can’t keep, creating false expectations. But is there something inherently wrong with someone saying, “I learned how to do this, compiled everything into a course, and if you like my teaching style, you can buy it”? I don’t think so. Colleges profit from education and often deliver zero ROI, yet most people don’t consider them scams. Why? Because colleges don’t promise anything specific.

If you simply don’t make outlandish promises—if you say, “Here’s a course on what worked for me as a realtor, I make no promises about your results, just sharing what worked”—reasonable people won’t have an issue. The hatred for information products and MLM structures stems from bad actors who make deceptive claims, and the good operators take heat for the bad ones.

Why MLMs Are Actually More Ethical Than Traditional Advertising

Here’s an interesting perspective: from a business model standpoint, MLMs take the entire allowable customer acquisition cost and distribute it to the salespeople actually closing deals rather than to advertisers. They incentivize salespeople to recruit other salespeople, creating a distributed sales force where everything is performance-based instead of paying base salaries.

The multi-level structure functions like any business hierarchy. All businesses are pyramids—you have leadership at the top and expanding teams below. There’s nothing inherently nefarious about this structure. The problem is brand association: MLM has accumulated enough negative associations that even legitimate MLM businesses take heat for the bad actors.

Capitalism, Voluntary Exchange, and Moral Judgments

I don’t claim moral superiority over different ways of making money. Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange between two parties where both believe they’ll be better off. The belief component is where deceptive practices enter, but inherently, I don’t have an issue with any legal business model. Some business models generate cash flow without creating inherent enterprise value—that matters to investors but doesn’t make them “bad” businesses. They’re just different.

When it comes to business models I might dislike, I don’t secretly hate any legal, profitable model just because it seems intellectually or morally lazy. Different business models serve different purposes and markets. My personal preference doesn’t make something objectively wrong.

Why Competitors Can’t Just Copy Skool

When asked why someone couldn’t just copy Skool and create a competitor, the answer is simple: network effects. We already have tens of millions of users. It’s the same reason you can’t just “copy Facebook”—people aren’t there. Even if another influencer backed a competitor, the product is detail-driven in ways that aren’t immediately visible.

The algorithms that surface content, the programming architecture, the user experience details—these aren’t things you can replicate by copying colors and layout. Plenty of people have already attempted to move on similar platforms, but they don’t gain traction. The compounding advantage of an existing, engaged user base combined with sophisticated product details creates a massive moat that’s difficult to overcome.