Hank Green's Bold Move: Why Complexly Became a Nonprofit [2025]

Introduction: The Founder Who Gave Away His Company

Hank Green just did something that makes most entrepreneurs uncomfortable. He and his brother John Green voluntarily gave up ownership of Complexly, their educational media company, and converted it into a nonprofit. No acquisition. No buyout. Just a decision to let the company they built from nothing in 2012 become owned by the public good instead of by themselves.

If you've been paying attention to the internet for the last decade, you know Complexly. It's the company behind Crash Course, a YouTube channel with over 15 million subscribers that's taught chemistry, history, biology, and literature to millions of students worldwide. It's behind SciShow, which breaks down science news and deep-dive explorations. It's behind Mental Floss, the weird-knowledge machine. It's the operation that turned Hank and John Green into not just creators, but educators shaping how people understand the world.

But here's what makes this move matter: Hank Green isn't just some idealistic YouTuber making pocket change. Complexly is valuable. The company was generating real revenue, building a real brand, and creating content that millions of people depend on. Walking away from ownership of something like that, in the middle of your career, when you still have plenty of earning potential ahead of you, is the kind of decision that forces you to think hard about what actually matters.

And that's exactly what Hank wants to talk about. In a recent conversation, he got unusually animated about several things: where money flows in media, why YouTube's algorithm incentivizes the wrong kind of content, how billionaires shape what we see on the internet, and why he believes the future of sustainable media might not be what most people think it is.

This isn't a story about sacrifice or virtue signaling. It's a story about business structure, creative control, and the ruthless economics of trying to do something meaningful on platforms you don't own. It's about looking at the internet in 2025 and realizing that the constraints you're working within might be designed to prevent you from succeeding the way you actually want to.

Let's break down what Hank Green is really saying, and what it means for creators, educators, and anyone trying to build something that lasts.

TL; DR

• The nonprofit conversion: Hank and John Green gave up ownership of Complexly to create sustainable, mission-driven educational content without profit pressures
• YouTube's algorithm problem: Platforms optimize for engagement and watch time, not educational value, creating misalignment between what creators want to make and what the algorithm rewards
• Money flows to the wrong places: Billionaires and platform owners capture most of the value created by creators, leaving educators struggling to fund meaningful work
• Platform dependency is risky: Building on YouTube, TikTok, or other platforms means surrendering control over distribution, monetization, and algorithmic visibility
• The structural solution: Nonprofits can align incentives with mission, attract different funding sources, and potentially create more sustainable media in the long term

Estimated data shows that entertainment and drama capture the majority of media funding, while educational and news content receive significantly less.

The Story Behind Complexly: Building Education at Scale

To understand why Hank Green made this choice, you need to understand what Complexly actually is and how it grew. The company wasn't born from a strategic business plan. It grew out of the same place a lot of internet culture grows out of: two brothers with a camera, an internet connection, and something they thought was worth explaining.

John Green, the famous novelist, started vlogging on YouTube in 2007 with his brother Hank. They were just making videos to connect with each other. But the internet had other ideas. People started watching. Lots of people. The vlogbrothers channel, which still exists, became the foundation for a community that actually cared about ideas and learning.

Then in 2012, they launched Crash Course. The concept was almost laughably simple: take complex subjects and explain them in a way that's entertaining, accurate, and fast. They'd make videos about chemistry, history, biology. No frills. No dramatic music. Just clear explanations with good visuals.

Crash Course exploded. Teachers started using it in classrooms. Students started learning from it independently. The channel became a resource. Not a luxury, not optional content. A resource that millions of people depended on to understand things. That's when Hank and John realized they'd built something bigger than a YouTube channel. They'd built a media company.

They started adding shows. SciShow explored science stories and concepts. The Mental Floss channel did deep dives on weird history and trivia. Crash Course Kids introduced young learners to ideas. Eventually, they launched Crash Course Business, Economics, Literature, and more. The company grew to employ dozens of people, all working toward the same mission: make complex ideas accessible.

But here's the thing that Hank wants people to understand: none of this was supposed to work on YouTube. YouTube's algorithm doesn't care if your content is educational. It cares if people watch it. It cares if they watch it again tomorrow. It cares if they stay on the platform. Educational content often conflicts with those goals.

Educational videos tend to be longer, slower-paced, and less designed to trigger algorithmic rewards than other content. A 12-minute explanation of photosynthesis isn't going to generate the kind of engagement that YouTube's recommendation system naturally boosts. But Crash Course kept growing anyway, which meant that Hank and John had figured something out: there's actually massive demand for this stuff. People want to learn. They just need someone to make it good.

So Complexly grew into a real company. It generated revenue through YouTube's ad system, through sponsorships, through merchandise, eventually through a free tier and a paid membership model on their own platform. They hired people. They paid them salaries. They invested in production quality. They built something that actually mattered.

And then, after more than a decade of growth, Hank and John decided to give it away. Not bankrupt it. Not sell it for cash. Give it to a nonprofit structure. Which means they walked away from ownership, from future profits, from the equity they'd built. They did it on purpose.

Gambling and crypto channels receive significantly higher CPM rates compared to educational content, highlighting a misalignment in financial incentives. Estimated data.

Why a Nonprofit? The Incentive Alignment Problem

This is where Hank gets really animated in conversations. The core issue, as he sees it, is that profit incentives and educational mission incentives aren't always aligned. Sometimes they conflict.

When you're running a for-profit company, your shareholders (including yourself) want maximum profit. That's the goal. It's not a moral failing. It's literally the structure. To maximize profit in media, you optimize for things that drive revenue. And on YouTube, that means optimizing for watch time, engagement, and the algorithms that reward those things.

But the best educational content isn't always the most engaging. Sometimes you need to slow down. Sometimes you need to explain something in a way that's correct but not flashy. Sometimes you need to make something that 100,000 people will really understand rather than something that 10 million people will partially understand. The incentives conflict.

As a nonprofit, Complexly doesn't have that conflict anymore. There's no shareholder demanding maximum profit. There's a board of directors focused on the mission. The mission is to create educational content that works. Not content that generates the most ad revenue. Not content that maximizes watch time. Content that actually teaches.

This matters because YouTube's algorithm, by Hank's account, creates constant pressure to optimize the wrong way. The platform doesn't ask: "Is this content making people smarter?" It asks: "Is this keeping people on YouTube?" Those aren't the same thing.

Hank has been watching this happen across the platform. He's seen educational creators constantly fighting against algorithmic incentives. They want to make slow, thoughtful content. The algorithm rewards fast, shocking, cliffhanger-driven content. They want to explain things thoroughly. The algorithm rewards content that keeps people watching just one more video. The pressure is constant, and it's structural. It's not because YouTube's engineers are evil. It's because the platform is optimized for a metric that isn't aligned with education.

By moving to a nonprofit structure, Complexly can make decisions without that pressure. If a video is educational and important but won't perform well on YouTube's algorithm, they can still make it. They can make it because the company's structure isn't pressuring them toward maximum revenue.

But here's the question that naturally follows: how do nonprofits make money? How do they survive if they're not optimizing for profit? And that's where Hank's perspective gets even more interesting.

The Money Question: Where Does Funding Actually Come From?

This is the part where Hank gets fired up. He's deeply frustrated by how media money flows, and he has some specific thoughts about where most of it ends up.

Let's start with the obvious: there's a lot of money in media. Billions of dollars flow through advertising, sponsorships, subscriptions, and direct payments. The question is: where does that money actually go? And more importantly, who captures the value?

In the traditional YouTube ecosystem, the money flows like this: advertisers pay YouTube for access to audiences. YouTube takes a cut (usually around 55% of ad revenue goes to content creators). The creator gets paid based on how many people watch their content. It's a direct transaction: views equal money.

But this creates a problem. The money goes to whoever can generate the most views, regardless of whether that content has any actual value beyond entertainment. A conspiracy theory video that gets 10 million views generates more revenue than an educational video that gets 1 million views. The algorithm doesn't care about truth or learning or social benefit. It cares about watch time.

So most of the money in media ends up going to entertainment, to drama, to whatever triggers engagement. Educational content, news content, investigative reporting, long-form analysis: these things don't generate the engagement that maximizes ad revenue. So they don't get the resources.

Meanwhile, billionaires who own platforms or companies that benefit from ad-driven business models keep getting richer. They own the infrastructure. They set the rules. They capture the surplus value created by everyone on their platform.

Hank thinks this is backwards. The work that actually makes the world better should get the funding. Education should be funded. Science communication should be funded. News should be funded. But instead, these things are struggling to survive while drama and entertainment consume all the resources.

As a nonprofit, Complexly doesn't depend entirely on ad revenue. They can pursue grants. They can seek foundation funding. They can approach organizations and wealthy individuals who care about education and ask directly for support. They can develop partnerships with institutions that benefit from educational content. They're not locked into the algorithmic revenue model.

This opens up entirely different money sources. Educational foundations, universities, governments, individual donors who believe in the mission: these are all potential funding sources for a nonprofit that weren't really available when Complexly was a for-profit company trying to maximize shareholder value.

It also means Complexly can make decisions based on mission impact rather than revenue impact. They can prioritize reaching students in underserved areas. They can create content that's educationally optimal rather than algorithmically optimal. They can say no to sponsorships or partnerships that conflict with their mission, without feeling pressure from shareholders demanding maximum revenue.

But Hank is also realistic. He knows that nonprofit funding is hard. It's inconsistent. It requires constantly making the case that your work is valuable. It requires relationships and networking and luck. You're not going to get rich running a nonprofit. You're not going to build personal wealth the way you might as an entrepreneur building a for-profit company.

So why do it? Because he believes it's more sustainable in the long run. Because he believes it aligns incentives better. And because he's frustrated enough with how the current system works that he's willing to take the hit to try something different.

Sensational content generally scores higher on key algorithmic metrics like watch time and click-through rate compared to educational content. Estimated data based on typical trends.

YouTube's Algorithm: The Enemy of Nuance

Here's something Hank keeps coming back to: YouTube's algorithm is fundamentally misaligned with education. And he's not talking about it from an idealistic perspective. He's talking about it as someone who's built a massive business on YouTube and watched the platform change.

When Crash Course started in 2012, YouTube was different. The platform was smaller. The algorithm was less sophisticated. There was more room for different types of content. Educational videos, weird videos, niche videos: they could all find audiences because the algorithm wasn't pushing relentlessly toward engagement metrics.

But YouTube evolved. It became more competitive. The algorithm became smarter. And it became clearer what the algorithm actually wanted: watch time, click-through rate, average view duration, and the propensity to make people click the next video. These metrics don't measure whether content is good. They measure whether content is addictive.

Nuance doesn't perform well on YouTube. If you're making a video about climate change and you spend time explaining the actual science rather than outrage, the algorithm notices. Your watch time metrics go down slightly. Your click-through rate is lower because the thumbnail isn't provocative. Your average view duration drops because people aren't anxiously clicking forward hoping to hear something shocking.

Meanwhile, a video that presents a simple, emotionally charged narrative about climate change (whether that's climate alarmism or climate skepticism) will perform better algorithmically. People will watch longer. They'll click it more. They'll watch the next video in the series. The algorithm will push it out to more people.

This creates constant pressure on creators. Do you make the content you think is best, knowing it might underperform algorithmically? Or do you compromise and optimize for the algorithm, which means making content that's more sensational, more cliffhang-y, more designed to trigger emotional responses?

Most creators can't afford not to optimize. They need the revenue. They need the views. So they compromise. A little bit. Then a little more. And gradually, the quality of information on the platform shifts away from accuracy and nuance toward whatever the algorithm rewards.

Hank's argument is that Complexly's move to a nonprofit structure is, in part, a way to insulate from this pressure. As a nonprofit with diverse funding sources, they don't need to optimize purely for YouTube's algorithm. They can make videos that are slow, thoughtful, and nuanced because they're getting funded by sources that value those things.

But he's also aware that this doesn't solve the problem. YouTube still controls the distribution. Even if Complexly isn't desperate for algorithm optimization, the algorithm is still going to decide whether millions of people see their videos or whether they stay invisible. The platform still holds the leverage.

That's what Hank finds most frustrating. YouTube is a distribution moat. You can't reach people without it. But the platform's incentives are misaligned with good education. So you're stuck. You can optimize for the algorithm and compromise your mission, or you can refuse to optimize and struggle with distribution. There's no good option.

Platform Dependency: Why Control Matters

Hank is blunt about this: building on someone else's platform is a strategic mistake. Not a tactical mistake. A strategic one. It's a risk that most creators haven't fully processed.

When you build on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, or any other platform, you're building on land you don't own. The platform can change its terms of service. It can change its algorithm. It can change its monetization rules. It can decide to shut down your entire operation. You have zero control.

Let's say YouTube decides tomorrow that educational content doesn't align with their new strategy. Hypothetically. They could demonetize educational channels. They could adjust the algorithm to push educational content down. They could change their terms to prohibit certain types of educational content. None of Crash Course's subscribers would matter. The relationships they've built would evaporate overnight. Two decades of work could be devalued in a month.

This isn't paranoia. Platforms change. YouTube has changed its algorithm dozens of times. Twitter became X and fundamentally changed its business model. TikTok faced potential bans. Instagram pivoted toward Reels and away from photos. The platforms that creators depend on are constantly shifting, and creators have no control over those shifts.

Hank's point is that by converting to a nonprofit, Complexly is actually trying to create more stability and control. As a nonprofit with a mission and a board, they're less vulnerable to the pressure to chase trends or optimize for whatever new algorithm change just happened. They can take a longer view. They can build relationships with institutions, not just with algorithmic metrics.

But here's the thing: he's not suggesting creators stop using platforms. He's suggesting they stop depending entirely on them. Build on the platform. Use the platform to reach people. But also build your own audience through email, through your own website, through direct relationships. Have a place where you own the audience. Have diverse channels so that a change in one platform doesn't destroy you.

As a nonprofit, Complexly can pursue institutional relationships that a for-profit company couldn't. Universities could embed Crash Course content into their curriculum and provide funding to support it. Governments could fund educational content as a public good. Foundations could provide grants. None of these relationships work well if the company is desperate for short-term profit. But a nonprofit can say: "We care about education. We're not trying to extract maximum value from it. How can we partner?"

That's a different position of strength.

Estimated data suggests that Crash Course is the largest segment of Complexly's content, followed by SciShow and Mental Floss. This distribution highlights the diverse educational focus of the company.

The Billionaire Problem: Concentration of Wealth in Media

Hank doesn't mince words about this. He thinks billionaires have too much control over the information landscape, and he thinks it's a problem.

Consider the economics. When you create content on YouTube, you're creating value. That value gets captured by multiple parties: the advertiser gets access to your audience, YouTube gets a platform usage fee, the creator gets paid for views. But the value isn't evenly distributed. YouTube captures a huge portion. Advertisers capture value. Creators typically get the smallest piece.

But it's even worse than that. The billionaires who own platforms also own the rules. They decide what's allowed. They decide what's promoted. They decide what the algorithm rewards. They have a fundamental conflict of interest: they're supposed to be neutral platforms, but they also have financial incentives to promote certain types of content and suppress others.

Take Elon Musk and Twitter (now X) as an example. He bought the platform. He now controls what billions of people see. He can make changes that benefit his interests or his political views. He can decide which content gets visibility and which gets suppressed. That's not a platform anymore. That's a personal media empire.

Hank's argument is that this concentration of power in the hands of billionaires is fundamentally misaligned with good information. Billionaires have interests that aren't your interests. They have political views. They have financial incentives. They have egos. When they also control the platforms that determine what information reaches billions of people, you have a structural problem.

The solution, as Hank sees it, isn't to hope that billionaires become more benevolent. It's to reduce their power. Build alternative structures. Support nonprofits. Fund education directly. Create systems where wealth isn't so concentrated that a handful of people can unilaterally decide what the world sees.

Complexly's move to nonprofit status is a small step in this direction. It's saying: "We're not going to be dependent on a billionaire's platform. We're going to diversify our funding. We're going to build mission-driven structures." It's not a solution to the entire problem. But it's a recognition that the current system is broken and a willingness to try something different.

What Creators Can Actually Learn From This

So if you're a creator watching this happen, what should you actually take away? Hank's advice is practical, not just idealistic.

First, understand the incentives you're working within. If you're on YouTube, understand that the algorithm doesn't care about the quality of your work. It cares about metrics. Make peace with that. Decide whether you're going to optimize for those metrics or whether you're going to make what you believe in and accept that the algorithm might not help you.

Second, build something you own. Whether it's an email list, a Patreon, a community Discord, a website: have somewhere that's yours. Have a relationship with your audience that doesn't go through a platform. When the platform changes, you're not stuck.

Third, think about sustainability early. Most creators don't think about this until they're already struggling. But business structure matters. Whether you're a sole proprietor, an LLC, a corporation, or a nonprofit: these decisions shape what you're incentivized to do. Think about what kind of business you actually want to run, not just what seems easiest right now.

Fourth, consider the ethics of your funding sources. If a sponsor pays you to promote something you don't believe in, you're compromising your integrity. If a platform's business model depends on engagement metrics that you think are unhealthy, you're participating in that. These are choices, and they have consequences.

Fifth, if you're building something bigger than yourself, think about governance structure early. If you ever want to pass it on, if you ever want it to outlive you, or if you want to align incentives with mission, you might need to think differently about ownership. Nonprofits aren't for everyone, but they're worth understanding.

For-profit media companies prioritize profit and engagement, while nonprofits focus on educational quality and mission alignment. Estimated data.

The Crash Course of Creator Economics

Let's talk specifics about how creators actually make money and why the system is broken.

On YouTube, creators get paid based on CPM (cost per thousand impressions) and RPM (revenue per thousand impressions). These rates vary wildly depending on the type of content and the audience. A technology channel might get

This creates a broken incentive: the money flows toward content that advertisers want to reach people with, not toward content that's most valuable to society. Advertisers want to reach gambling enthusiasts because they might gamble more. They don't particularly want to reach students learning chemistry because students aren't a high-value advertising demographic.

So the financial reward structure of YouTube is fundamentally misaligned with education or public benefit. The system is working as intended. It's just that the intention is to maximize ad revenue, not to serve the public interest.

Crash Course gets around this partly because it has such a massive audience that even a lower CPM generates significant revenue. But Hank's point is that this shouldn't depend on scale. Educational content should be financially sustainable regardless of whether it reaches 10 million people or 10 thousand.

Sponsorships create another layer of incentive misalignment. A creator can take sponsorships from basically any company that wants to reach their audience. If a creator has an audience interested in learning, they can be sponsored by educational products, learning apps, textbooks, universities. But they can also be sponsored by products that aren't aligned with their audience's interests. Pressure builds to take sponsorships from higher-paying companies regardless of whether they're a good fit.

Membership and subscriptions address some of this. If a creator's revenue comes from their audience directly (through Patreon, YouTube membership, Substack, etc.), they have more freedom. They're answerable to their audience, not to advertisers or platforms. But even this model has limits. Most audiences can't afford to directly fund creators at the scale required to build full media companies.

This is where Hank's nonprofit model becomes interesting. Nonprofits can access funding that for-profit companies can't. Grants from educational foundations, government funding for public goods, donations from individuals who want to support the mission. These are substantial funding sources that don't exist in the for-profit world.

But nonprofits also have constraints. They can't distribute profits to founders. They have to operate transparently. They have to serve the public interest. They can't make certain business decisions that would maximize revenue. For most creators, these constraints aren't appealing. But for Hank and John, they're acceptable because their goal isn't personal enrichment. It's educational impact.

The Sustainable Media Paradox

Here's the thing that Hank keeps circling back to: nobody has figured out how to build sustainable media for education, news, and investigation at scale. Everyone's struggling.

Newsrooms used to be funded by classified ads. Those ads moved online. Google and Facebook captured them. Newspapers collapsed. Now newsrooms struggle to survive through subscriptions and donations, or they're owned by billionaires with agendas.

Educational content has the same problem. It could be funded by schools and universities, but they're underfunded. It could be funded by advertisers, but advertisers don't value it highly. It could be crowdfunded by audiences, but most audiences can't afford it.

So you have this paradox: the content that society most needs (accurate information, education, investigation) is also the hardest to fund sustainably. And the content that's easiest to fund (entertainment, drama, engagement-bait) is often harmful.

Some people think the solution is to wait for government funding. Public broadcasting exists in some countries, but it's chronically underfunded and facing political pressure. Hank's not confident in that solution.

Some people think the solution is patronage. Wealthy individuals or foundations fund important work. That works, but it creates a different dependency: you're dependent on the patrons' approval and interests.

Some people think the solution is direct patronage from audiences through membership or Patreon. That works for some creators, but it doesn't scale to the level required to build full media companies.

Some people think the solution is nonprofits with diverse funding. That's what Hank's betting on. You combine YouTube's reach with foundation grants, institutional partnerships, direct donations, and other revenue sources. You're not dependent on any single source, and you're not dependent on ad revenue optimization.

But he's also realistic that this isn't a perfect solution. Nonprofits have their own problems. Finding diverse funding is hard. Governance is complicated. There's less flexibility in how you operate. You can't pay founders as much. You can't make decisions as quickly.

It's just that he thinks it's more sustainable in the long run. Even if the short-term revenue is less reliable, the long-term mission is more secure.

Nonprofit with diverse funding is estimated to be the most effective model due to its resilience and multiple revenue streams. Estimated data based on model descriptions.

Why John and Hank Could Actually Afford to Do This

Here's something worth acknowledging: most creators couldn't make the choice that Hank and John made. They depend on personal income from their company. They've built their financial lives around that revenue. They have families. They have expenses. Walking away from ownership of a profitable company isn't an option.

Hank and John could do this because they're already financially secure. John Green is a bestselling novelist. His books generate significant income. Hank has built a massive platform. They don't depend on Complexly's profits for survival. They can afford to care about mission alignment over personal wealth.

This is actually important context that Hank doesn't shy away from. He's aware that his position is a luxury. Not every creator has the ability to make sacrifices in service of mission. Most creators are struggling to survive, not trying to optimize their business structure for sustainability.

But he also argues that this makes the move more important, not less. If people in positions of privilege and security don't take risks on different business models, then nothing changes. The system stays locked in place. The opportunity to try something different only comes when you have resources and leverage.

So Hank's not saying everyone should do what he did. He's saying that the system needs people to try different things, and he had the resources to try something different, so he did.

The Tech Industry's Relationship With Educational Content

There's another interesting angle here. The tech industry benefits enormously from educational content, but it doesn't fund it proportionally.

Crash Course has taught millions of people chemistry, biology, physics, and history. Many of those people went on to careers in STEM. Universities and tech companies benefit from this pipeline of educated people. But they don't fund Crash Course. They don't fund science education more broadly.

Instead, they benefit from the content created by educators on platforms like YouTube, and then they capture value through advertising, through data collection, through the platforms themselves.

Hank's argument is that tech companies should be funding educational content if they benefit from it. Not out of charity, but out of self-interest. If they want an educated workforce, they should fund education. If they benefit from people learning computer science, they should fund computer science education.

But the incentive structure doesn't point that direction. So companies underfund education while funding entertainment marketing. It's a collective action problem. Everyone benefits from having an educated society, but nobody wants to pay for it, so they all free-ride on whatever educational content exists.

Complexly as a nonprofit potentially opens the door to different relationships with tech companies. Instead of just advertising on the channel, they might fund specific educational initiatives. They might partner on curriculum. They might support the organization's mission directly.

Hank is optimistic that if you change the structure and the ask, you can access different funding sources. A tech company probably won't give money to a for-profit educational media company just to be nice. But they might fund a nonprofit because they believe in the mission and they benefit from having an educated ecosystem.

Alternative Models: What Could Actually Work

So if the current system is broken, what could actually work? Hank has some thoughts, and they're worth exploring.

One model is direct government funding. Public broadcasting in the United States exists, but it's chronically underfunded (about $1.5 billion annually for the entire network, compared to billions spent on military budgets). If governments made education funding a priority, they could directly fund educational content creators. But this requires political will that currently doesn't exist in most countries.

Another model is foundation funding. Large foundations (Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc.) already fund some educational initiatives. But most of their funding goes to direct services: schools, programs, interventions. Content creation gets less attention. If foundations prioritized funding high-quality educational content, that could move the needle.

A third model is institutional partnerships. Universities, schools, and educational organizations could partner with content creators. They could fund specific content in exchange for exclusive or semi-exclusive access. They could integrate the content into their curriculum and provide financial support. This works, but it requires the institution to value the content and have budget to support it.

A fourth model is membership and patronage. Patreon, membership platforms, and direct funding from audiences can work if the audience is large enough and engaged enough. But it requires critical mass. You need tens of thousands of people paying at least a few dollars monthly just to support a small team.

A fifth model (which is Hank's choice) is nonprofit with diverse funding. Combine small amounts of revenue from multiple sources: YouTube ad revenue, memberships, donations, grants, sponsorships, partnerships. None of them are the entire business. Together, they're sustainable.

The advantage of the fifth model is that it's more resilient. If one funding source disappears, you have others. It's more aligned with mission because you're not dependent on any single optimization target. But it's more complex to manage and requires constant fundraising effort.

Hank's confident that the nonprofit model, when combined with the existing reach and audience that Crash Course has built, can work. But he's also realistic that it will require constant fundraising and careful management.

The Information Ecosystem We're Building

Here's the bigger picture that Hank is thinking about: what's the information ecosystem going to look like in 10 or 20 years? And does the way we fund media now determine what that looks like?

If we keep the current system, where media funding is based on ad revenue and engagement metrics, we get a world where misinformation, drama, and outrage are overrepresented because they drive engagement. We get platforms that are increasingly controlled by billionaires who have their own agendas. We get educational content that's chronically underfunded because it doesn't maximize engagement.

If we shift toward nonprofit and public funding models, we get a world where education and accuracy are actually valued. Where content can be slow and thoughtful without algorithmic pressure. Where creators don't have to compromise mission for revenue.

But the shift doesn't happen automatically. It requires people to make different choices. It requires creators to think about business structure. It requires foundations to fund content. It requires audiences to support media that's in their interest but not designed to be addictive.

Hank's move with Complexly is an experiment in what that could look like. It's small. It's one company. But it's a public statement that you can structure things differently, and the statement matters. It shows that there's another option.

What Happens Next

So what actually happens now that Complexly is a nonprofit? The content doesn't change overnight. The team is the same. The mission is the same. But the incentives are different, and that has to shift how decisions get made.

Complexly can now pursue funding sources that weren't available before. They can approach educational foundations and ask for support. They can partner with universities. They can seek government funding. They can ask for donations from people who care about education.

They can also make content decisions based on educational impact rather than revenue impact. If there's an important science topic that's underexplored, they can make a series about it even if the CPM is going to be lower. They can invest in infrastructure and tools without obsessing over immediate ROI.

But they also face new constraints. As a nonprofit, their governance is more transparent and more formal. They have legal obligations around how they use their resources. They can't pay founders as much. They can't make quick, unilateral decisions.

They also have to prove, constantly, that their work matters. Nonprofits exist to serve a public purpose. They have to be able to articulate what that purpose is and show evidence that they're accomplishing it. That's more rigorous than a for-profit company, where the purpose is profit.

So Complexly's next chapter is about building sustainable funding and proving that the nonprofit model can work at scale for educational media. It's an experiment. If it works, it's a template that other creators could follow. If it doesn't, it's a cautionary tale about the limitations of mission-driven structures in a world that runs on ad revenue.

Hank's betting it works. And he has the resources and the audience to make that bet credible.

Beyond YouTube: What Creators Should Think About Now

Looking at Complexly's move and Hank's perspective, there are some broader implications for creators thinking about their futures.

First, platform dominance is getting more, not less, entrenched. YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter: these platforms control distribution. That's not changing. But the algorithms are getting smarter, the metrics are getting more sophisticated, and the pressure to optimize is getting more intense. Creators who want to maintain control and mission integrity need to build alternatives.

Second, the business model of ad-supported digital media is not sustainable for content that doesn't maximize engagement. If you want to create something that's thoughtful, accurate, and mission-driven, you need to think about other revenue models. Subscriptions, memberships, patronage, nonprofit structures: these aren't optional. They're necessary if you want to do work that the algorithm doesn't naturally reward.

Third, scale matters. Small creators can't afford to be as mission-driven because they're struggling with survival. But creators who reach millions of people, who have built audiences and credibility, who have financial security: they can afford to make different choices. And if they don't, nobody does.

Fourth, governance structures aren't sexy but they're important. Most creators don't think about business structure until something forces them to. But the choice between sole proprietorship, LLC, corporation, and nonprofit has real implications for what you're incentivized to do and how sustainable your operation is.

Fifth, relationships matter more than algorithms. The creators who are going to thrive long-term are the ones building genuine relationships with their audience, not just optimizing for metrics. Direct support, community building, genuine interaction: these things are more stable than algorithmic reach.

The Idealism vs. Realism Tension

One more thing worth noting: Hank's framing this as idealistic, but it's not. It's actually pragmatic.

Complexly going nonprofit might sound like Hank and John sacrificing personal wealth for the greater good. And in some sense, it is. They're giving up ownership of a valuable asset.

But it's also strategic. They're building an organization that can survive longer because it's not dependent on any single revenue source. They're creating alignment between incentives and mission, which means fewer internal conflicts about what to make. They're positioning themselves to access funding sources that for-profit companies can't. They're building something that can outlive them and continue the mission.

So while it's framed in terms of values, the actual decision is pragmatic. It's about building something more sustainable and more resilient. The idealism is in recognizing what the goal actually is. The realism is in structuring the business to accomplish that goal.

Hank gets frustrated when people treat this as purely idealistic or purely business. It's both. The values and the structure are aligned, and that's actually rare. Most businesses have values and structure that conflict. That creates constant tension and forces people to compromise. Complexly's trying to eliminate that conflict.

Conclusion: The Next Decade of Media

So what's actually at stake here? It's not just about one educational media company or two brothers making a decision about their own business. It's about what the next decade of media looks like.

We have a moment where ad-supported digital media is clearly broken for content that doesn't maximize engagement. We have growing awareness that platform dominance creates problems. We have creators who are increasingly frustrated with algorithmic optimization pressures. And we have some resources and willingness to try different things.

Complexly's conversion to nonprofit status is a signal that different models are possible. It's not a solution to all the problems in media. It won't fix the fact that billionaires control platforms. It won't change YouTube's algorithm. It won't solve the fundamental problem that most audiences can't afford to directly fund creators.

But it's a demonstration that you can structure things differently and still reach millions of people. You can focus on mission and impact rather than engagement and revenue. You can build something sustainable without depending on ad revenue optimization.

For other creators, educators, and media companies watching this, the lesson is: understand the incentives you're working within. Decide what you actually want to optimize for. Recognize that your business structure shapes what you're incentivized to do. And if the current structure pushes you toward compromises that conflict with your mission, consider alternatives.

It won't be easy. It will require more careful thinking about business structure, funding, and governance. It will require willingness to take risks and try things that haven't been proven at scale. It will require persistence to build funding relationships when you don't have a clear playbook.

But the alternative is staying locked in a system that clearly isn't working, hoping that your personal integrity is strong enough to resist constant optimization pressure. And Hank doesn't think that's sustainable.

The media landscape is going to shift. The question is whether it shifts toward more billionaire control, more ad-driven sensationalism, and more algorithmic optimization of truth and complexity. Or whether it shifts toward a more diverse ecosystem where mission-driven, nonprofit, publicly-supported media plays a real role.

Hank's betting on the second option. And he's putting his company where his mouth is.

FAQ

What is Complexly and why is it important?

Complexly is an educational media company founded by brothers Hank and John Green in 2012. It operates channels including Crash Course (with over 15 million subscribers), SciShow, and Mental Floss, producing educational content on science, history, literature, and other academic subjects. The company is important because it demonstrates that thoughtful, accurate educational content can reach massive audiences on platforms like YouTube, and it now represents an experiment in nonprofit educational media.

Why did Hank and John Green convert Complexly to a nonprofit?

The Green brothers converted Complexly to a nonprofit to align the company's incentive structure with its educational mission rather than with profit maximization. As a nonprofit, Complexly can make content decisions based on educational value rather than being pressured to optimize for YouTube's engagement-focused algorithm. This structure also opens access to funding sources (grants, donations, foundation funding) unavailable to for-profit companies, creating greater financial sustainability and mission alignment.

How does YouTube's algorithm conflict with educational content?

YouTube's algorithm prioritizes watch time, click-through rates, and engagement metrics that keep people on the platform watching more videos. Educational content often requires slower pacing, nuance, and thorough explanation, which don't perform as well algorithmically. This creates pressure on educational creators to sensationalize or optimize for engagement at the expense of educational quality. As a nonprofit, Complexly can resist these pressures because it's not entirely dependent on ad revenue optimization.

How will Complexly fund itself as a nonprofit?

As a nonprofit, Complexly will pursue diverse funding sources including YouTube ad revenue, memberships and donations from supporters, grants from educational foundations, government funding for public goods, and institutional partnerships with universities and schools. This diversified approach is more resilient than depending entirely on ad revenue and allows the organization to pursue mission-aligned work even when it doesn't perform well algorithmically.

What are the disadvantages of nonprofit status for media companies?

Nonprofit status comes with trade-offs including more formal governance requirements, greater transparency obligations (required public financial filings), constraints on compensation and personal wealth distribution, reduced flexibility in decision-making, and constant fundraising requirements. Nonprofits also must articulate and demonstrate their public service mission more rigorously than for-profit companies. These constraints are acceptable for mission-driven organizations but would be unacceptable for founders focused on personal wealth accumulation.

Could other creators replicate what Complexly did?

Complexly's conversion to nonprofit status is theoretically available to any creator with sufficient financial security and an audience large enough to support institutional partnerships and grant funding. However, most creators can't afford to make this choice because they depend on income from their business. The conversion works for Hank and John Green because John's novels generate substantial income and both have achieved financial security. For creators without that safety net, different models (memberships, sponsorships, direct audience support) may be more practical. However, Complexly's move demonstrates that nonprofit media can work at scale, potentially inspiring other creators and organizations to explore similar structures.

Why does Hank Green think platform dependency is problematic?

Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram control distribution, algorithms, monetization rules, and terms of service unilaterally. Creators have no control over these fundamental elements. Platforms can change their algorithms, demonetize content types, adjust revenue sharing, or shut down entire channels. This creates precarity: creators can invest years building an audience only to have their reach or revenue destroyed by platform changes. Hank's solution is to build alternatives (email lists, websites, direct audience relationships) and diversify across platforms rather than depending entirely on any single platform's distribution.

What's the broader significance of Complexly going nonprofit?

Complexly's conversion to nonprofit status signals that different business models are possible for educational and mission-driven media. It demonstrates that you don't have to choose between reaching a large audience and maintaining mission alignment. It also highlights the fundamental mismatch between platform algorithms (optimized for engagement) and societal needs (accurate information, education). The move invites other creators, educators, and media companies to reconsider their business structures and consider whether nonprofit models, public funding, or other alternatives might better serve their missions. It's an experiment in building sustainable, mission-aligned media in an ecosystem increasingly dominated by billionaires and engagement-optimized algorithms.

Key Takeaways

• Complexly's conversion to nonprofit status aligns business incentives with educational mission rather than profit maximization, addressing the fundamental misalignment between YouTube's algorithm and content quality.
• YouTube's engagement-based metrics (watch time, click-through rate) directly conflict with educational content that requires slow, nuanced explanation, creating constant pressure on creators to compromise.
• Nonprofit structures access diverse funding sources (grants, donations, institutional partnerships) unavailable to for-profit companies, creating financial resilience and mission independence.
• Platform dependency is a structural risk: creators who depend entirely on one platform's algorithm and policies have zero leverage and can lose everything through unilateral platform changes.
• Most creators can't afford the choices Hank and John made because they depend on business income for survival; sustainability requires either financial security, massive audiences, or different business models (memberships, patronage, institutional funding).
• The current media system financially rewards engagement and entertainment while starving education and accuracy; fixing this requires rethinking business structures and funding mechanisms, not just relying on creator integrity.

Related Articles

• Creator Economy Ad Revenue Crisis & India's AI Boom [2025]
• Meta's Mobile-First Metaverse: Horizon Worlds Strategy Shift 2025
• Snapchat+ 25M Subscribers Drive $1B Revenue: Inside the Strategy [2025]
• Snapchat Creator Subscriptions: Complete Guide [2025]
• MyMiniFactory Acquires Thingiverse: Protecting 8M Creators From AI [2025]
• Seedance 2.0 and Hollywood's AI Reckoning [2025]