Started By
Message

re: Crowder had a huge melt over "Big Con" media.

Posted on 1/18/23 at 12:08 am to
Posted by LemmyLives
Texas
Member since Mar 2019
6404 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 12:08 am to
quote:

The Daily Israeli unquestionably.


You couple of anti-Semitic idiots do realize that Israeli does not equal Jewish, right? You're just trying to avoid using the word "Jew," to look slightly less like an ill-informed Jew hater.
Posted by Langland
Trumplandia
Member since Apr 2014
15382 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 12:11 am to
I think Steven is dead on balls on accurate about all of this. These bs contracts that these conservative content makers are asked to sign essentially turns them into a weak arse Sean Hannitys. The contracts punishes them for saying anything that they don't like. And remember, these are consrvative media folks.
Posted by Richleau
Member since Dec 2018
2367 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 12:48 am to
He absolutely did man. Go back and look at his tweets. They are still there. Now, who backs the daily wire? I could care less about his religion, but you can’t revise what he did.
Posted by IceFrogBC
Member since Jan 2021
102 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 1:03 am to
It actually shows how much you don't know about Israel-First Benny boy.
Posted by Richleau
Member since Dec 2018
2367 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 1:22 am to
Do you really think Shapiro didn’t sign that contract? If he did, it explains the vitriol against anti Covid speech and his vaccine push. I could give a damn if he feels bad about it. He has a platform that people listen to, misguided as they may be. If one person got the vaccine and was hurt by their decision to do so based on his conversation and push, that’s reprehensible. He knows he did wrong which is why he goes around saying I’m sorry, but if he did so so he could make money and continue his platform…

Money over people. The morals this guy has…
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 1:24 am
Posted by Raz
Member since Oct 2006
7559 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 2:14 am to
The redacted name looks like 2-4 letters long to me. Maybe DW but he said in the video they were inundated with these and there are many many entities trying to get into this space that you’ve never heard of.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
76472 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 8:08 am to
quote:

Obviously Dailywire


From Twitter:

quote:

AwokeCon
@AwokeCon

Some guessing Daily Wire, but he had a two telling lines in his video that rules them out. Such as hinting it is orgs looking to get into the market, and another big hint that it was orgs that may not know much about Crowder and his company history. DW knows LWC well. Clips below


LINK
Posted by cssamerican
Member since Mar 2011
7113 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 7:56 pm to
Daily Wire’s Response
Jeremy goes through the offer sheet and breaks everything down, and explains it could have been negotiated.

It sounds like Crowder wanted a fully guaranteed contract no matter what. DW wasn’t willing to do that and Crowder was pissed.
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 8:46 pm
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46506 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 8:50 pm to
They essentially offered Crowder $75 million dollars for six years of work and all they asked for in return was that he behave just a little less like Alex Jones so he doesn’t get demonetized on even more platforms. Crowder’s tantrum was just a long winded means of disguising his displeasure with the fact that the contract wasn’t fully guaranteed.

As Jeremy said in the response, Crowder doesn’t seem to understand how the business world works. He doesn’t want an employment relationship, he wants a benefactor. He wants someone to blindly fund him and his descent into the fringes of the right wing. He somehow thinks that he deserves to be paid that much money just because of who he is, regardless of what he produces.
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 9:01 pm
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
53205 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:04 pm to
Yeah, I see it a little differently now. If they are throwing around that kind of coin, the guy can't just take months off. That's not too much to ask. And instead of haggling over production, they were basically just throwing a huge lump out there and saying, continue to do the show as you want. All of that said, if Crowder is going to be super sensitive over censorship/control, it's probably just a bad fit to begin with. Why can't Crowder just continue to do his thing on Rumble? Does he not know how to monetize himself? I see shows with way less subscribers and I think they make a fortune off Rumble rants and Youtube chat stickers.
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 9:06 pm
Posted by TexasTiger86
Member since Apr 2017
203 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:29 pm to
It is certainly possible that Crowder overreacted, but while it may seem that the starting offer was $12.5 million a year, that is not actually true. The offer included a 25% fee reduction if he was demonetized from Youtube. He hasn't been monetized on Youtube for years and DW knows that. So, the starting offer would actually be $9.375 million per year with that fee reduction. Still a pretty tidy sum, but not $12.5 million. Also, this seems like a very "bad faith" starting point by DW. Why include this in the offer when you know Crowder couldn't possibly abide by it?

Not only that, but the offer also made it clear that Crowder would be required to pay for the production of the daily show and not DW. So, the $9.375 million would have to pay for the production budget of his daily show. I have no idea what the budget of his show is, but I would assume that number isn't trivial.

Also, I feel like either the CEO of DW is a horrible businessman or he is lying. He keeps saying that Crowder doesn't know how profitable he is, but DW is willing to pay him $12.5 million or more a year in addition to the $100 million dollars or more to make the show happen with all the overhead. According to him, that would be enough money to put the rest of their content in jeopardy if the show doesn't make money. Again, that seems incredibly stupid to me if he is willing to spend $100 million on a show that no one knows is actually profitable and potentially screw over everyone else. That doesn't make sense to me
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80208 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:32 pm to
quote:

The offer included a 25% fee reduction if he was demonetized from Youtube. He hasn't been monetized on Youtube for years and DW knows that. So, the starting offer would actually be $9.375 million per year with that fee reduction. Still a pretty tidy sum, but not $12.5 million. Also, this seems like a very "bad faith" starting point by DW. Why include this in the offer when you know Crowder couldn't possibly abide by it?


Because DW retained the right to revenue off the content. If YouTube was no longer an avenue for them to collect revenue from, that would affect their bottom line and ability to make more than they paid him.

That’s not bad faith. That’s dollars and cents.
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 9:33 pm
Posted by Lsuhoohoo
Member since Sep 2007
94449 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:38 pm to
Just finished watching the whole thing and while I didn't really take a side yesterday with Crowders video, I feel like the DW draft terms were entirely reasonable for an opener.

Crowders position appears to be "I want full control to do whatever I want with no restrictions or guidance and I want all my money to be guaranteed." I understand at $50+ million, DW wants protections built into the contract that off set a loss of value.

To me it sounds like there's an arrogance and an ignorance on Crowders end where he feels like "hey I've built this huge audience, a huge brand and I don't want or need to be boxed in by controlling terms."
Posted by cssamerican
Member since Mar 2011
7113 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:41 pm to
He addressed the YouTube monetization simply by saying it could have been negotiated. This was simply a starting point to iron out terms.

Your second point is Crowder has 6 million followers on YouTube. You might not know exactly what that will translate into subscribers, but that is way higher than any other talent you have signed, so I’m sure you can make an educated guess to come up with a safe estimate.

The strangest thing was is it sounded like the offer was many months back. Crowder voiced his displeasure with the money, he wanted like 3 times that. DW said we can’t do that and both sides went their separate ways. Then out of nowhere Crowder aired his frustration.

Perhaps Crowder came to the realization that no one would give him what he wanted and this was his way of venting?
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46506 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:43 pm to
Crowder is also very disengenuous with respect to calling himself “self made”. He’s literally never done a single thing until RIGHT NOW that wasn’t initially funded entirely by another party. He literally admits he has no idea if his content is actually profitable or not because it’s never mattered.
Posted by wutangfinancial
Treasure Valley
Member since Sep 2015
11090 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:43 pm to
The horror that a company that sells ads for profit wants him to sell ads
Posted by TexasTiger86
Member since Apr 2017
203 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:44 pm to
I consider it to be bad faith because they included the fee reduction in the contract knowing it was going to activate from the beginning of the contract. This means that they were offering a contract that they knew or hoped they would never have to fully pay out. Maybe I am wrong about this, but it seems like a crappy starting point.
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28859 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:45 pm to
quote:

To me it sounds like there's an arrogance and an ignorance on Crowders end where he feels like "hey I've built this huge audience, a huge brand and I don't want or need to be boxed in by controlling terms."


This. I like Crowder sometimes, DW sometimes, Tim Pool sometimes, etc. I don’t listen to any of them daily and have no loyalty.

DW has done a good job of building a brand that fights but stays appropriate and avoids bans and strikes.

Crowder for the good he does, steps over the line regularly and on purpose.

DW is saying your ability to keep streaming is contingent on this large $$$ amount and you getting strikes and not streaming devalues your potential.

I get both sides.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46506 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:46 pm to
Crowder has tied himself to the fringe of the right too heavily to get any more money than that from anyone else. Joe Rogan got $100 million from Spotify and he is an exponentially more attractive talent with a far more mainstream product. Crowder expect more than that is…well, insane.
Posted by Mister Flawless
Tuscaloosa
Member since Jul 2011
381 posts
Posted on 1/18/23 at 9:46 pm to
I like Crowder, but I think y’all nailed it with him not knowing the other side of the business relationship. Granted, I think there’s also some wrong from DWs side, but I think that this was a negotiation tactic gone wrong.

Hopefully things get worked out, but damn Crowder may be in for a rude awakening when he realizes being the talent is different than running the entire network.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram