Ownership and operations
Economics Explained shaped how I think about YouTube businesses: not as channels with subscriber counts attached, but as operating companies with audience demand, revenue streams, dependencies, and risk.
About Christian Mullican
More specifically, I care about the point where YouTube stops being a place to upload content and starts becoming an asset someone can own, operate, improve, and eventually sell or keep compounding.
A lot of people have opinions about YouTube. Fewer people have had to deal with the unglamorous parts: research throughput, upload cadence, sponsor sales, hiring, production misses, founder bottlenecks, seller expectations, buyer risk, and all the small operational problems that decide whether a channel is actually a business.
That is the world I've spent most of my working life in.
I ran an early creator agency before I had clean language for any of this. At the time, I mostly just understood that YouTube was becoming a real business ecosystem faster than most people around it were willing to admit.
Later, I worked at ScaleLab during the era when it represented creators like MrBeast, Jake Paul, Team 10, and a lot of the early creator businesses that helped define that period of YouTube.
From there, I moved closer to ownership and operations. With a business partner, I acquired and operated Economics Explained, which became one of the most successful branded educational channels on YouTube.
Economics Explained shaped how I think about YouTube businesses: not as channels with subscriber counts attached, but as operating companies with audience demand, revenue streams, dependencies, and risk.
After exiting Economics Explained, I spent more time around branded educational channels, including work with channels like MagnatesMedia and Alux, among others.
The channels that looked simple from the outside usually had a lot of fragile machinery underneath them: production systems, sponsor inventory, research, packaging, cash flow, creative judgment, founder energy, and team reliability.
In 2025, I started Galactic to acquire and operate YouTube-native media businesses.
What would this look like if it were an asset instead of a content habit? That question shows up in slightly different forms across the companies I'm building.
Mullican Holdings Private holding company Ownership company The holding company for my long-term operating work, media assets, and company-building activity.
Mullican Holdings is where the ownership layer lives. The point is to own things that can compound: companies, media assets, IP, and operating systems that do not depend on chasing a new project every week.
It keeps the whole thing honest. I am not interested in content for the sake of content. I care about media when it becomes something a business can actually own, improve, and operate.
Galactic YouTube channel acquisitions Primary operating company Galactic is where I buy and operate YouTube-native media businesses instead of just writing theories about them.
Galactic acquires underbuilt YouTube channels and turns them into better businesses. Usually that means better production systems, better sponsorship monetization, cleaner operations, and a more serious view of what the channel could become.
The interesting channels are rarely perfect. Perfect channels are expensive. I am usually looking for real audience demand with obvious fixable problems: low output, weak sponsor sales, bad packaging, or a founder doing too much alone.
Alveum helps companies build and implement owned media strategies that can become real business assets.
Alveum is the consulting firm for companies that want owned media to become more than a campaign, content calendar, or founder-led posting habit. The work is about deciding what media asset the company should own and what operating system it needs to make that asset durable.
It comes from the same bias as the acquisition work: useful media needs strategy, production discipline, monetization thinking, and operating structure. The goal is not just to publish more. It is to build media the business can actually own, improve, and compound.
Most companies are already paying for attention one way or another. They buy ads. They sponsor creators. They publish clips. They hire agencies. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it just becomes another expensive habit.
YouTube is one of the few platforms where the owned-media question can become very practical. A good channel can build trust, rank in search, earn platform revenue, sell sponsorships, support recruiting, educate customers, and create leverage for the rest of the business.
But it only works if someone treats it like an operation. That means making decisions about audience, format, monetization, production, hiring, editorial standards, and the business model underneath the content.
That is what I write about here.
Audience demand and revenue quality matter more than surface-level channel metrics.
Production systems, sponsor inventory, research, packaging, and team reliability decide whether a channel compounds.
The hard part is rarely deciding to start a channel. The hard part is building something that survives normal business reality.
This site is where I think in public about the larger category: buying, building, and operating YouTube-native owned media.
The essays are mainly for channel owners, creators, media operators, and founders who are trying to understand YouTube as more than a creative outlet, a hobby or a marketing channel.
If you are trying to figure out whether a channel is acquirable, why a production system keeps breaking, how sponsor revenue changes the math, or what kind of media asset a company should actually own, the writing here is for you.