re: Crowder was on TimCast tonight and didn’t do himself any favors

quote:

---

You don't watch Crowder's content. His Youtube and Rumble content are the same when he's not banned from YouTube at least. The uncensored content was what was mug club only on the Blaze.

---

If his content on Rumble were the same as it is on Youtube, he wouldn't say "go to to my Rumble to see my full thoughts on this". And even if it were the same on both, you just admitted that he does uncensored material on The Blaze. So in what way have you refuted my point about his hypocrisy?

quote:

---

You don't see how this might possibly be out of his control? Being skeptical of Covid for years or the lab leak theory would get you demonetized. Maybe you aren't thinking this through fully.

---

You don't see how this might possibly be out of DW's control, as well? You think they aren't constantly being demonetized for arbitrary "rules"? It sucks that this is what companies like Google do to people, but as long as conservative media is going to try to exist on both independent AND big tech platforms, they have to live with the world they are living in. When they get to a point where they don't need to use anything but their own resources, that will be fantastic, but we are a long way from getting there. So, with that in mind, why would DW promise to pay Crowder a flat rate, no matter what happens? They cannot afford that. They, like all independent conservative media, are a growing business. They don't have money to just throw away.

quote:

---

So this is the major sticking point. They could penalize him up to 110% I think he said last night. I get it, if DW doesn't make money, Crowder doesn't. What about subscriptions? What about ad reads? (sure they'd be less with him only streaming on rumble but they'd still be something) What about merch?

DW would get 100% of all of these things according to the term sheet. So guess who is still making money? DW. So even if Crowder is still driving subs and selling merch and reading ads, he's getting penalized because YouTube doesn't like a trans joke he made.

I like the DW but I can still see the issue here. From DW perspective it's just great business. From a content creator's perspective (Crowder), it's pretty predatory.

---

Predatory? I need to find a predator like this to make my life "difficult". All of those things, first of all, were negotiable. It was just a term sheet. Term sheets never start out in favor of the one being offered. You have to work toward common ground. All Crowder apparently did in response was to ask for 120 million, instead of 50 million, over four years. A price they were not able to meet, and that should have been the end of it. Instead, Crowder decides to blow it up into this big horrible atrocity.

But even if those terms had not been negotiable, don't you think that is why they offered him 50 million? That's a lot of money to pay someone for a podcast, especially when you aren't a giant corporation like Fox News. He gets all that money, and they get the ad money and all of those things. That's business. Was DW not supposed to make money? What world do you believe these people live in? And if Crowder got dropped by all kinds of sponsors and lost a bunch of money, that means DW loses that money, too. So why, again, would they pay Crowder a fixed amount, if he is not making the money to justify it? If he doesn't like it, he can do his own thing, which is exactly what he's trying to do, and exactly why this feels planned on his part to try to drive subscriptions (as well as possibly some of the "talent") from DW, to his new site.

quote:

---

This means absolutely nothing. There have been just as many agreeing with him on his issue with the deal.

For example, Viva Frei doesn't agree with Steven and Robert Barnes does. They are on a show together. There's no agreement here. I really hope this dies though because they are both net positives in the space.

---

I have no idea who either of those people are. All of the main players in conservative media, that I know of who have said anything at all about this, have taken DW's side. But having a bunch of people agree on something is not the point. I said "emphatically refuted", because you have all of these people who are familiar with how these kinds of business deals work, who have stated that it's nothing unusual, and that any common sense person would understand DW's position, and would also negotiate for a better deal before just blowing up about it. His points have been shot down by people who simply understand business, where Crowder obviously does not.