Sep 11, 2025 · 35m · masters-of-scale
Omaze’s Matthew Pohlson on the near-death moment that built a better business | Masters of Scale
0:00 / 0:00
▶ Watch on YouTube →
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
In this episode of Masters of Scale, Omaze co-founder and CEO Matthew Pohlson joins host Jeff Berman to share how a near-death medical emergency reshaped his leadership philosophy, propelling Omaze from a celebrity-dependent startup into a thriving, multi-hundred-million-dollar platform that redefines charitable giving.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. The host holds 17.9% of the talking time here. How this is scored →
The host as informed peer 2.5 Guest teaching 3.5 Guest disagreement 0.1 The host pushing back 0.4
speaking balance: gold is the host, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 31:29 Reframing corporate social purpose expectations
Matthew gently pushes back on the assumption that all companies need social impact baked into their model, arguing that job creation and fair employment are inherently good in themselves.
Hardest push from the host ▶ 20:21 Pressing on analytical justification and pushbackJeff redirects Matthew from philosophical takeaways back to hard operational choices, demanding to know the analytical rationale and stakeholder opposition to dropping celebrities.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 6:04 Explaining the unit economics of the house giveaway modelMatthew breaks down the precise third-split financial model of house draws including operational costs, taxes, VAT, and charity proceeds to clarify how Omaze functions profitably.
The host holds their own ▶ 30:36 Synthesizing stakeholder capitalism vs shareholder focusJeff articulates an informed framing about the broader shift from narrow shareholder primacy toward stakeholder value creation in modern venture building.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | The host as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | The host pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew Pohlson's Early Career: Acting to Social Storytelling | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Jeff opens warmly by referencing their twenty-year friendship and prompts Matthew to explain how he transitioned from acting to founding Omaze. Matthew shares his comedic reflections on acting and the origins of Omaze at a Magic Johnson charity auction. | |
| Omaze Business Model Evolution and Moving Away from Celebrities | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Jeff probes into the mechanics of the business model, asking specifically how funds flow and why Omaze abandoned celebrity experiences. Matthew educates Jeff on the breakdown of house draws and the scaling limitations caused by unpredictable celebrity schedules. | |
| Matthew Pohlson's Near-Death Medical Emergency and Recovery | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | Matthew delivers an extended personal narrative detailing his medical emergency, flatlining, and miraculous survival via ECMO. Jeff listens with deep empathy and asks open questions to help Matthew unpack the experience. | |
| Post-Recovery Mindset: Overcoming Fear to Make Bold Business Calls | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Jeff asks how Matthew's near-death experience altered his psychological outlook and executive decision-making. Matthew explains shifting away from fear-based choices to making bolder strategic pivots despite institutional resistance. | |
| The McLaren Bet and the Power of Storytelling in Leadership | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Jeff asks Matthew to examine the analytical reasoning and internal resistance behind moving away from celebrity draws. Matthew explains the McLaren gamble and delivers an in-depth perspective on the neuroscience and strategic necessity of storytelling. | |
| Pivoting to the UK Market and the Subscription House Model | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Jeff asks why Omaze exited the US to focus entirely on the UK market, prompting Matthew to explain the density advantages and subscription metrics of their house raffle model. | |
| Vetting Impact: London Air Ambulance and the Full-Circle ECMO Story | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Jeff inquires about Omaze's RFP vetting process for non-profit partners. Matthew recounts a full-circle moment where funding the London Air Ambulance resulted in the acquisition of the exact ECMO machine that previously saved his life. | |
| Building Purposeful Businesses and Optimism for Humanity | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Jeff asks what advice Matthew gives founders whose core models do not involve social good and asks about maintaining optimism. Matthew offers a nuanced contrarian view that most companies do not need to do explicit charity as long as they create jobs and treat employees well. |
Statements from this episode (13)
Pohlson: Omaze's first campaign raised $784, now raised every 12 seconds
“Our first experience was to be a guest judge on cupcake wars and it raised 784 dollars. We now raise that in 12 seconds.”
Pohlson: Breaking Bad auction raised $40K traditionally vs $1.7M on Omaze
“They offered that at auction and one person bid 40,000 and then they did it with us and it raised 1.7 million.”
Pohlson details Omaze revenue split: 1/3 charity/VAT, 1/3 prizes, 1/3 ops/profit
“A seven million dollar house can raise, call it thirty three million in sales. A third of that goes to charity and VAT. A third of that goes to the price and costs. In addition to the house, we cover all the taxes for the winter. We give away cash prizes. We h…”
Pohlson: Omaze shifted from celebrity campaigns to prizes despite board resistance
“It inspired me when I came back from this to change the business being from Being focused on celebrities to focused on prizes. That was a huge change for us. We got a lot of resistance from our board and the team, but I was not scared of what people thought of…”
Pohlson: Omaze's Daniel Craig Aston Martin campaign raised $2.1M versus $300K target
“We had done a campaign with Daniel Craig six months before I went into the hospital where you got to go to the Aston Martin track. You got to ride around in a one of a kind Aston Martin, and then you got to keep the Aston Martin. And it was supposed to raise 3…”
Pohlson: Omaze spent $250K on a prize McLaren with just $900K banked
“I think we should go buy a 250,000 dollar McLaren offer it with just omaze distribution, no talent... We only had 900,000 in the bank, so 250,000 was a big, was a real bet at that point.”
Pohlson: Omaze's talent-free McLaren giveaway campaign raised $1.9M
“And she said it raised 1.9 million.”
Pohlson: Houses are the ideal prize because they fulfill Maslow's hierarchy
“A car changes someone's lifestyle house changes someone's life. And it's the person perfect product to storytell around. You know, like a house like represents all of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, its safety, its security, its status, its relationships, its sel…”
Pohlson: Omaze's 20-person UK team surpassed 180-person US team sales
“You know, we had 20 people in the UK. We passed the sales of the US at a hundred, had a 180 people in like 15 months.”
Pohlson: Omaze's UK subscription retention rivals Spotify and Netflix
“We put it in the category of a consumer subscription entertainment, you know, like a Spotify or a Netflix and the retention rates. Are at that level.”
Pohlson: Omaze laid off 180 US employees to focus on the UK
“I mean, it meant like letting go of, you know, a 180 people that were amazing people that a lot of which had been there since the beginning of Omaze and were uber creative and uber resilient and super talented, but it was just the reality of where we were.”
Pohlson: Omaze is past a $400M revenue run rate
“We're, I won't, I don't give exact numbers, but we're past a four hundred million run rate.”
Pohlson: Most businesses shouldn't try to 'do good' beyond supporting employees
“You know, the vast majority of companies shouldn't necessarily try to do good. I think what they can do good is do good by their team. Make sure what they're doing does no harm. But creating a big business in its own right that, that serves customers or serves…”