How insensitive of you to post about your pork dumplings. I can’t eat pork! And how could you make a video about your wedding? I’m single AF. Seen comments like this floating around social media (let's be honest, who hasn’t?). At some point, we all got the idea that the world revolves around us. And that products and content need to cater to our personal preferences or else they deserve to be called out publicly. It’s a phenomenon called Bean Soup Theory. And the solution is really very simple [It’s this]

- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡

Meanwhile other brands are going viral every week. Their secret? They're not working harder. They're using a system (and you need one, too).

At this workshop, Stanley Henry (1.4M followers, 1B+ views/year) teaches you that exact system live in just 90 minutes.

You'll learn:

✅The 1 thing you need to never run out of content ideas
✅How the biggest brands go viral on IG (plus what NOT to do)
✅How to create a repeatable content system (that doesn't take hours every day OR a creative team)

Thursday, 5 March | 11am NZDT | 9am AEDT | $79 NZD

Find out exactly how the biggest accounts are blowing up on IG (and how your brand can become one of them) 👇

p.s. Got YAP dollars to cash in? Head here to spend them on this workshop!

That’s how it feels when you open up your laptop on a Monday and start reading about the FBI, Grok, and deepfake porn. Ah sh*t, here we go again.

The FBI just got Grok to hand over the prompts used in a recent non-consensual image case, which is a huge deal for a lot of reasons.

Basically, a man was using X's AI chatbot to generate explicit deepfakes of real people without their consent. And the FBI subpoenaed the company to get access to the exact prompts and settings used to create the images. Grok complied, which means there's now legal precedent for AI companies being forced to turn over user data when their tools are used for harm (yay!)

It's a step toward actual accountability. But it also raises questions about how much these companies are logging, what they're storing, and how easily law enforcement can access it (not yay.) On one hand, if AI tools are being used to create non-consensual sexual images, there should absolutely be consequences and companies should cooperate. On the other hand, we're building an infrastructure where every prompt, every query, every interaction with an AI is potentially logged and retrievable. And that has implications faaaaar beyond this one case.

In much lighter, less dystopian news, Gen Z apparently likes to clean. Good for them. There's a whole wave of cleaning content on TikTok, people filming themselves scrubbing bathrooms, organising closets, and turning chores into satisfying visual content. And these brands have now leaned in.

They're sponsoring creators, launching campaigns that frame cleaning as self-care, and marketing their products as aesthetic objects rather than just functional tools. It's working because Gen Z grew up in a world where everything is content, so why not cleaning? But it's also worth noting that this trend is happening alongside a generation dealing with high anxiety, economic precarity, and a lack of control over most aspects of their lives. Cleaning is one of the few things you can do that has immediate, visible results. You put in effort and the space gets better. Which is probably why my bedroom has the clinical cleanliness of Dexter's house after a crime scene right now.

If you’re a creative in marketing, AI is coming for you first, according to eMarketer. Also grass is green, a bear sh*ts in the woods, and the Pope is Catholic.

A recent survey found that the majority of marketing professionals think AI will replace roles like copywriters, designers, and art directors before it touches strategy or client-facing work.

Which makes sense when you think about how these tools are being positioned; AI can generate an ad, write a caption, mock up a design in seconds. And while the output isn't always great, it's good enough for a lot of use cases.

The assumption is that creative work is more easily automated than the relationship-building or high-level decision-making that happens at the top. But what that really means is that the jobs most vulnerable are the ones where people are already undervalued and underpaid. 

-Sophie Randell, Writer

Yes, I know how that sounds. But while majority of my generation is completely engrossed in reality television, I trawl the comment section for drama like a crack fiend. I’m so serious.

We all have our vices, don’t you judge me.

Anyway, I witnessed what I would like to call a perfect example of the “bean soup theory." Let me explain.

The baker (yes, the one whose comment section I was trawling) had posted about orders she refuses to fulfil. One of them: naked cakes - you know, those trendy half-frosted things where most of the icing is scraped off. She said the style won't die, she's completely uninspired by it, so she passes those orders to someone on her team who actually enjoys making them.

Seems reasonable, right? She's not refusing the customer. She's just delegating to someone more enthusiastic. Problem solved.

Or maybe, more like, people’s stupidity, on the internet, on a deeper level.

A woman jumped in: "I'm diabetic, so naked cakes actually cater to me and people with my disease. You're telling me my whole wedding can't enjoy your cakes because you don't like a certain style?"

Let's break down what's wrong with Little Miss Entitlement’s comment:

First: Type 2 diabetics can absolutely have frosting. They can manage it with insulin and proper preparation. This isn't a medical accommodation issue; it's a preference. And I know this because other commenters with the disease said so.

Second: Naked cakes still have sugar. Like, in the cake itself, or the frosting between the layers. The scraped-off exterior frosting isn't solving a diabetes problem… it's just an aesthetic choice.

Third, and most importantly: The baker literally said she passes these orders to someone else who enjoys making them. The customer still gets their cake. The problem is imaginary.

But none of that matters, because this isn't actually about cakes or diabetes. It's about main character syndrome. It's about whataboutmeism. It's about the bean soup theory.

The bean soup theory is a social media phenomenon where users demand that content be tailored to their personal tastes (or, in this case, problems).

It originated from a 2023 TikTok comment, where someone asked for a bean-free version of, you guessed it, a bean soup recipe. The theory highlights a major lack of self-awareness online and has become internet shorthand for users' tendencies to centre themselves in discussions not even meant for them.

But here’s the tea (or the cake, or soup, whatever you prefer really): not everything is for you. Not everything needs to cater to you. And if something isn't your preference, you have the revolutionary option of... not engaging with it. Wow. Crazy stuff, huh?

Don't like the bean soup? Don't eat it. Don't like naked cakes? Hire a different baker. Simple.

Where creators and brands are expected to cater to literally everyone or face accusations of discrimination.

We've lost the ability to say, "this isn't for me and that's okay." Everything has to be about us. Every choice someone else makes has to somehow accommodate our circumstances just because it’s shown up on our feed. And every preference that differs from ours is seen as a personal attack.

The diabetic cake comment is a perfect example.

The baker has a preference, one that she’s already solved by delegating. The customer can still get what they want. HOWEVER, instead of accepting that some people don't enjoy making certain styles, the commenter weaponises a medical condition to demand that this specific baker change her entire approach.

It's exhausting. And it's everywhere.

That some products, services, content, or communities exist for other people. And that's fine. You find the things that are for you, they find the things that are for them, and everyone coexists.

The internet has kind of killed that.

Now, if something doesn't cater to you specifically, it's "exclusionary" or problematic, or discriminatory. The creator is bad and wrong and needs to change.

But here's the thing: a wedding cake baker who doesn't enjoy making naked cakes isn't discriminating against diabetics. A brand that doesn't make products in your exact specifications isn't excluding you. A creator whose content doesn't resonate with you isn't doing anything wrong.

They're just not for you. And that's okay.

Don't like naked cakes? Hire a baker who loves making them. Don't like a brand's aesthetic? Find one that matches yours. Don't like someone's content? Scroll past it.

No one's entitled to have every single person and business cater to their exact preferences. We all are, instead, responsible for finding the people and businesses that do.

The bean soup theory should be common sense. If you don't like the bean soup, don't eat the bean soup. But somehow, we've reached a point where people would rather demand the host serve bean soup without the beans than just... eat something else.

-Sophie Randell, Writer

It's a green screen template with a cute little lizard called Tom smiling and strutting like it's his best day ever. The thing that's great about this trend is how versatile it is. Creators are using this template in a few different ways.

Some are using it for those "back on my bullshit" moments, like me on my way to shenanigan when I have shenan'd once before. Some are using it for when you're wandering around, not care in the world, like me on my way to bother my friends in another department when my boss sees me or me walking around the shop looking for work. It also works for times when you genuinely couldn't be happier, like me on my way to clock out after an 8 hour shift. So use it ironically, use it earnestly. Anything goes.

Start with the green screen template of Tom the lizard. Pop it on top of a photo that represents a situation where you feel happy as Tom the lizard. Then follow the OST format of "me on my way..."

A few ideas to get you started:

- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡

😲WTF: Mud Volcano Eruption!!
✨Daily inspo: Olaf is the best
😊Soooo satisfying: ASMR beans
🍝What you should make for dinner tonight: Viral Sheet Pan Quesadillas

Hey Carly!

Based on what we’ve seen (and we’ve done this a lot), it doesn’t seem to hurt. For example, we recently had a client re-upload the same video five times over nine days, tweaking the edit each time. The fifth version hit 500,000 views and gained 25K followers.  That said, this is still somewhat anecdotal. I don’t have hard data proving it’s 100% safe across all accounts. But from our experience, if you think you can improve your performance, just do it. Delete or archive the old versions, test your new edit, and keep iterating until something lands. 

What you should be looking at while you’re testing is your retention graphs. See where people drop off. If there’s a steep drop at the beginning, that's a clear sign your hook isn’t working. If people drop off halfway through, something in the middle is losing them. So fix one thing at a time and retest.  Don’t let fear of “the algorithm” stop you from trying to improve your content.

- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡

We get it. Creating content that does numbers is harder than it looks. But doing those big numbers is the fastest way to grow your brand. So if you’re tired of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks, you’re in luck. Because making our clients go viral is kinda what we do every single day.