IDEALAB · AI VISIBILITY OS v1.1 BRAND AUDIT · BR-005 GRADE C · LEGACY MODE D2 CONTENT DEPTH 38 · GRADE D · LOWEST IN DATABASE AUDIENCE-AS-DISTRIBUTION PARADOX $250M REVENUE · $5B VALUATION · WIKIPEDIA ✓

AI Visibility Score Report

feastables.com · Feastables — Chocolate & Snack Brand · Founded Jan 2022 · Jimmy Donaldson (MrBeast) Founder · Jim Murray CEO · Beast Industries · June 25, 2026

Independent AI Visibility Score audit of Feastables (feastables.com) using the IdeaLab AI Visibility OS v1.1 framework. Composite: 65/100 · Grade C — Legacy Mode · BR-005. Feastables is a chocolate and snack brand founded January 2022 by Jimmy Donaldson (MrBeast) and Jim Murray. Revenue: $250M (2024). Beast Industries parent valued at $5B (Alpha Wave $300M Series C, 2024). 30,000+ retail locations. Wikipedia confirmed. Framework by J.L. Marcoux, IdeaLab.ai.

🎬
Key Finding: The Audience-as-Distribution Paradox — 506M Subscribers, Grade C
Feastables scores 65/100 — Grade C, Legacy Mode — despite being one of the fastest-growing CPG brands in history, generating $250M revenue in year three, backed by a $5B parent company valuation, and powered by YouTube's most subscribed channel. The paradox: MrBeast's 506 million subscribers are both the brand's greatest commercial asset and its most fragile AI visibility infrastructure. Every single Feastables content signal lives on the @MrBeast personal YouTube channel — which AI engines attribute to the person entity Jimmy Donaldson, not the brand entity feastables.com. D2 Content Depth scores 38/100 — the lowest of any brand audited in the IdeaLab database. If MrBeast stopped posting tomorrow, Feastables would have no content engine whatsoever.
🔍 The Audience-as-Distribution Paradox — Explained: Feastables inverted the traditional brand-building model. Instead of marketing → audience → shelf, it ran: audience (480M subscribers) → content event (product launch video) → shelf placement (Walmart Day 1). This generated $10M in sales in the first 72 hours with zero paid advertising spend. It is the most efficient consumer brand launch in CPG history. But here's what the framework reveals: every content signal AI engines use to identify, describe, and cite "Feastables" lives on @MrBeast's personal entity — not on feastables.com. AI knowledge graphs are entity-based. "Feastables" content → attributed to "MrBeast" → feastables.com gets zero domain authority from any of it. This is why a brand with more media coverage than LMNT, Midday Squares, and HexClad combined scores Grade C — identical to where Midday Squares started before its fixes.
⚠️
Founder-Brand Merge Risk — Unresolved Active Controversies Co-Index with Brand
Unlike every other brand in the database, Feastables has no reputation firewall between the founder and the product. Current active co-indexed negatives: (1) April 2026 employee gender discrimination lawsuit against Beast Industries — unresolved, actively cited. (2) Chichén Itzá permit controversy, May 2025 — Mexican president Sheinbaum review, media cited Feastables product placement specifically. (3) Lunchly mold controversy, Oct 2024 — FDA complaints, "selling crap to kids" narrative. (4) Feb 2024 clean-label reformulation abandonment — early fans feel deceived. Each of these events trains AI engines to associate "Feastables" with the controversy cluster. No other brand in this database carries unresolved litigation at audit date.
COMPOSITE SCORE · GRADE SCALE · 7-DIMENSION OVERVIEW
65
/100 · Brand Audit BR-005
CLegacy Mode
GRADE SCALE
A85–100Answer Authority
B70–84Citation Ready
C50–69Legacy Mode
D30–49High Risk Zone
F0–29Pre-AI Era
7-DIMENSION RADAR

Collapsed inner polygon — D2 (38) drags entire profile.
D4 (79) is the one bright spot.

DIMENSION SCORES
D1
7410%
D2
38 ⚠20%
D3
7215%
D4
7920%
D5
7115%
D6
6410%
D7
6510%
PROJECTED — BLOG + SCHEMA + ORG JSON-LD
74–78 / 100
Owned blog + Article JSON-LD + Org schema
Grade B threshold within 9–12 months
WEIGHTED SCORECARD
DimensionWeightScoreWeightedGrade
D1Brand Clarity MRBEAST-DEPENDENT · REBRAND FEB 202410%747.40B
D2Content Depth ⚠ GRADE D · LOWEST IN DATABASE · 100% OFF-DOMAIN YOUTUBE20%387.60D
D3Entity Recognition WIKIPEDIA ✓ · BLOOMBERG $5B15%7210.80B
D4Citation Network BLOOMBERG · FORTUNE · BUSINESS INSIDER · FAST CO.20%7915.80B
D5Topical Authority MRBEAST CO-INDEX · CONTROVERSY CLUSTER15%7110.65B
D6Recency & Freshness EVENT-ONLY · NO BLOG · LAWSUIT WIKI UPDATED 3 DAYS AGO10%646.40C
D7Trust Signals $5B VALUATION + MULTIPLE ACTIVE CONTROVERSIES10%656.50C
TOTAL100%—65.15C
DIMENSION ANALYSIS — Click to expand
ECOMMERCE BRAND COHORT — 5 Brands Audited · Full Comparison
Brand Score Grade D2 Content D4 Citation Wikipedia Revenue Content Model
BR-003Dr. Squatch 80 B 78 · B 81 ✓ $400M 300+ blog posts on own domain
BR-004HexClad 73 B 47 · D 85 ★ ✓ $550M+ 2,000+ influencers off-domain
BR-001LMNT 70 B 71 · B 74 ✗ $72M DTC Science subdomain, Huberman citations
BR-005Feastables ◀ 65 C 38 · D ⚠ 79 ✓ $250M 506M YouTube subscribers — all off-domain
BR-002Midday Squares 60 C 52 · C 63 ✗ $30M Instagram/TikTok/LinkedIn off-domain

The cohort is now complete with 5 brands audited. The pattern is definitive: D2 Content Depth on own domain is the primary determinant of composite score, not revenue, celebrity equity, or audience size. Dr. Squatch ($400M revenue, blog-based) outscores Feastables ($250M revenue, YouTube-only) by 15 points. The framework has now documented three distinct off-domain content failures: the Social-First Paradox (Midday Squares), the Influencer-Without-Domain model (HexClad), and now the Audience-as-Distribution Paradox (Feastables) — each a different mechanism producing the same structural AI visibility gap.

FULL DATABASE BENCHMARK — 17 Entities (12 influencers + 5 brands)
NP-001○Neil Patel
91
NP-NEW○Dharmesh Shah
90
NP-003○Rand Fishkin
87
NP-010○Ali Abdaal
84
NP-008○Seth Godin
84
NP-005○Jay Baer
81
NP-006○Marcus Sheridan
81
BR-003⬡Dr. Squatch
80
NP-002○Gary Vaynerchuk
79
NP-004○Ann Handley
77
NP-007○Justin Welsh
75
NP-009○Brian Dean
74
BR-004⬡HexClad
73
BR-001⬡LMNT
70
BR-005⬡Feastables ◀ #15
65
BR-002⬡Midday Squares
60
NP-011○Amanda Natividad
60

⬡ = Brand · ○ = Person. Feastables (65, #15) enters the database below HexClad (73) and LMNT (70), despite having more revenue than both combined. The score is precise: with 506M subscribers, Feastables has more audience than any brand on this list — but audience is not domain authority. The 17-entity database now confirms the framework's core thesis across every brand: owned domain content (D2, 20% weight) is the primary determinant of AI visibility score, independent of revenue, audience size, celebrity equity, or PR budget. Dr. Squatch (blog-heavy) outscores every brand except itself. Projected post-blog: 74–78/100, Grade B threshold.

AUDIT RECORD
entity_nameFeastables Inc.
audit_idBR-005 — Fifth Brand Audit in IdeaLab Database
primary_domainfeastables.com
entity_typeConsumer Brand — DTC Chocolate & Snack
incorporatedJuly 8, 2021 · Founded publicly January 2022
founderJimmy Donaldson (MrBeast) · Jim Murray (co-founder, CEO)
parentBeast Industries (valuation ~$5B, Alpha Wave $300M Series C, 2024)
revenue$250M (2024) · $520M projected (2025) · $33M (2022) → $96M (2023) → $250M (2024)
distribution30,000+ US retail locations (Walmart, Target, 7-Eleven, Walgreens, Safeway) + 10+ international markets
audienceMrBeast YouTube: 506M subscribers (June 12, 2026: first YouTuber to 500M) · TikTok: third most followed globally
wikipediaCONFIRMED — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feastables (updated 2 weeks before audit)
key_eventsJan 2022 launch (Willy Wonka sweepstakes) · Feb 2024 rebrand + reformulation · Charlotte Hornets sponsor (1 season) · Tony's Open Chain Sep 2024 · Nick DiGiovanni Jul 2025
controversiesDeez Nutz trademark (injunction Dec 2023) · Lunchly mold/FDA (Oct 2024) · Chichén Itzá (May 2025) · Employee lawsuit (Apr 2026, unresolved)
audit_date2026-06-25
frameworkIdeaLab AI Visibility OS v1.1
composite_score65 / 100
gradeC — Legacy Mode
db_position#15 in IdeaLab database · Fifth brand audited (BR-005)
D1_brand74 · B — MrBeast-dependent identity, Feb 2024 rebrand entity split, no Org JSON-LD
D2_content38 · D — LOWEST IN DATABASE · No blog · 100% content on @MrBeast YouTube · 20% weight
D3_entity72 · B — Wikipedia confirmed · Bloomberg $5B · entity co-indexed with MrBeast person entity
D4_citation79 · B — Bloomberg · Fortune · Business Insider · Fast Company · Charlotte Hornets · most citations credit "MrBeast" not "Feastables"
D5_topical71 · B — "MrBeast chocolate" resolves to Feastables · controversy co-index · zero independent topical authority
D6_freshness64 · C — Wikipedia Jun 2026 · Nick DiGiovanni Jul 2025 · lawsuits wiki updated 3 days ago · no domain blog
D7_trust65 · C — $5B valuation + Fairtrade + OU Kosher offset by Lunchly mold + Deez Nutz injunction + April 2026 employee lawsuit (unresolved)
key_findingAudience-as-Distribution Paradox: 506M subscribers ≠ domain authority · all content attributed to MrBeast person entity not feastables.com
unique_riskFounder-Brand Merge: only brand in database with unresolved active litigation at audit date; MrBeast controversies directly co-index with Feastables in AI training data
critical_gapD2 Content Depth (38 · Grade D) — no blog, no recipe content, no owned editorial on feastables.com
top_actionLaunch feastables.com brand blog: chocolate sourcing story, ingredient transparency page, FAQPage schema targeting controversy queries
projected_score74–78 / 100 · Grade B threshold · after blog + Org JSON-LD + Product JSON-LD + Article JSON-LD
audited_byIdeaLab.ai · J.L. Marcoux · AI Visibility OS v1.1 · June 25, 2026
SCORE YOUR ECOMMERCE BRAND
Does your brand have the Audience-as-Distribution Paradox?

Free 7-dimension AI Visibility Score. No account required. Built for ecommerce brands and DTC founders.

Score My AI Visibility → Browse All Audits →
AI Visibility Score Breakdown

How This Score And Grade Are Calculated

Every IdeaLab audit uses the AI Visibility OS v1.1 — a seven-dimension framework that measures how discoverable, citable, and trustworthy an entity is to answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude, and Gemini. Each dimension is scored 0–100, multiplied by its weight, and summed into a composite 0–100 score. The composite maps to a letter grade that describes AI-answer behavior for the entity's core queries.

D1 · BRAND CLARITY
WEIGHT ×1.0 · 10%

Consistent, unambiguous naming and positioning across owned surfaces. AI engines cite entities that resolve to a single canonical identity.

D2 · CONTENT DEPTH
WEIGHT ×2.0 · 20%

Long-form, first-hand, evidence-rich content on owned domains. Depth is the largest single driver of LLM citation frequency.

D3 · ENTITY RECOGNITION
WEIGHT ×1.5 · 15%

Presence in knowledge graphs — Wikipedia article, Wikidata QID, Google Knowledge Panel, sameAs coverage. Anchors the entity for AI retrieval.

D4 · STRUCTURED KNOWLEDGE
WEIGHT ×2.0 · 20%

Schema.org JSON-LD coverage: Organization, Person, Article, Product, aggregateRating, FAQPage, BreadcrumbList. Machine-readable = AI-citable.

D5 · MULTI-PLATFORM PRESENCE
WEIGHT ×1.5 · 15%

Verified accounts and consistent identity across YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram, TikTok, GitHub, Substack, podcasts. Cross-surface coherence lifts AI confidence.

D6 · SOCIAL PROOF & CITATIONS
WEIGHT ×2.0 · 20%

Independent third-party citations: press, podcasts, academic references, high-authority backlinks, reviews. The corroboration layer AI engines weigh above self-claims.

D7 · AI DISCOVERABILITY
WEIGHT ×1.0 · 10%

AI-crawler posture: robots.txt policy for GPTBot / ClaudeBot / PerplexityBot / Google-Extended, llms.txt policy file, canonical URLs, sitemap freshness, dateModified hygiene.

COMPOSITE FORMULA
Score = (D1×0.10) + (D2×0.20) + (D3×0.15) + (D4×0.20) + (D5×0.15) + (D6×0.20) + (D7×0.10)

The two heaviest weights — D2 Content Depth and D4/D6 Structured Knowledge and Citations — reflect the empirical drivers of AI answer inclusion. D3 Entity Recognition acts as a ceiling: without Wikipedia and Wikidata anchoring, most audits cap at Grade B regardless of the other six dimensions.

GRADE SCALE
A · 85–100
Answer Authority — AI engines cite the entity by default
B · 70–84
Citation Ready / Strong — cited when prompted specifically
C · 60–69
Moderate / Legacy Mode — inconsistent AI visibility
D · 50–59
At Risk — rarely surfaced without exact-name prompts
F · <50
Invisible — no reliable citation surface for AI answers

The per-dimension scores and weighted contributions for this specific audit are shown in the scoring table above. The Top Gap and Top Action highlighted on this page correspond to the lowest-scoring high-weight dimensions — the fixes with the largest projected uplift to the composite score.

Score Methodology FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions About The AI Visibility Score

What is the AI Visibility Score?
The AI Visibility Score is a 0–100 composite metric produced by IdeaLab's AI Visibility OS v1.1 framework. It measures how discoverable, citable, and trustworthy an entity — a brand, creator, product, or expert — is to generative answer engines such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude, and Gemini. Higher scores correlate with more frequent and more confident AI citations for the entity's core queries.
How is the score calculated?
Each of the seven dimensions (D1–D7) is scored 0–100, multiplied by its weight, and summed. The formula is: Score = (D1 × 0.10) + (D2 × 0.20) + (D3 × 0.15) + (D4 × 0.20) + (D5 × 0.15) + (D6 × 0.20) + (D7 × 0.10). Content Depth (D2), Structured Knowledge (D4), and Social Proof & Citations (D6) carry the largest weights because they are the empirical drivers of AI citation behavior.
What do the letter grades A through F mean?
Grade A (85–100) is Answer Authority — AI engines cite the entity by default. Grade B (70–84) is Citation Ready — cited when prompted specifically. Grade C (60–69) is Moderate / Legacy Mode with inconsistent AI visibility. Grade D (50–59) is At Risk — rarely surfaced without exact-name prompts. Grade F (below 50) is Invisible — no reliable citation surface for AI answers.
Why does Entity Recognition (D3) act as a ceiling?
Without a Wikipedia article, a Wikidata QID, and consistent sameAs coverage across owned surfaces, AI engines cannot reliably resolve the entity to a single canonical identity. In practice this caps most audits at Grade B regardless of how strong the other six dimensions are, because the retrieval layer that grounds AI answers depends on knowledge-graph anchoring.
What is the difference between the Top Gap and the Top Action?
The Top Gap is the single lowest-scoring high-weight dimension for the audited entity — the diagnosis. The Top Action is the concrete, prioritized fix that addresses that gap and delivers the largest projected uplift to the composite score. Together they turn a static score into an execution roadmap.
How often is an AI Visibility Score refreshed?
IdeaLab audits are refreshed when the entity ships meaningful changes — a Wikipedia article goes live, new JSON-LD schema is deployed, an llms.txt is published, or major press citations land — and on a rolling quarterly cadence to capture drift in AI-crawler policy, knowledge-graph coverage, and citation surface.

Closest matches by category, keyword overlap, and AI Visibility Score — all scored on the same 7-dimension framework.

1.8M+ YOUTUBE
Beardbrand 69/100 · C
Founded 2012 by Eric Bandholz, Lindsey Reinders, and Jeremy McGee in Spokane, WA; relocated to Austin, TX in 2014. Bootstrapped — no outside…
FIRST IN DATABASE
LMNT 70/100 · B
First brand audit in the IdeaLab database. Robb Wolf co-founder (NYT bestseller, former research biochemist), Peter Attia investor, Huberman Lab…
D4 CITATION 85 · A
HexClad 73/100 · B
Strongest citation network of any brand in the IdeaLab database (D4 · 85, Grade A). Gordon Ramsay equity partner, Studio Ramsay Global $100M…

Browse all 52 audits →