- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Feud between The Daily Wire and Steven Crowder goes public...
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:12 pm to invidiousEndures
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:12 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
No, he's arguing that he should be compensated in accordance with the huge revenue stream he is guaranteed to bring them immediately and which does not rely on YouTube monetization.
Some of you are really acting like when YouTube stops paying him Crowder stops generating money. Big Time YouTubers have long since found a ways around that.
Crowder hasn’t been monetized on YT for years now. And again, $75 million over six years would be one of the largest contracts EVER in this media sphere. You can count on one hand then number of people who have contracts exceeding that annual value in the podcast/social media broadcasting sphere. And that’s BEFORE the incentives (which Crowder ignored). He stood to potentially make close to $100 million from the DW by the time he turns 40. There is no rational argument to be made where that isn’t just compensation.
Crowder himself has said he doesn’t even know if his show is independently profitable long term apart from third party subsidy. He doesn’t know because he’s never done it. He also doesn’t even know how many subscribers he has.
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 8:14 pm
2
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:13 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
No, he's arguing that he should be compensated in accordance with the huge revenue stream he is guaranteed to bring them immediately and which does not rely on YouTube monetization
Crowder doesn’t even know how many mug club subscriptions he has
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
Crowder is going to be on Patrick Bet David podcast in a few days and on Tim Pool on Monday.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
Simple
1) his staff are DW employees
2) he can get his salary nicked for social platform suspensions, but there would have to be a "floor" (i.e., minimum salary of $7.5 million [max $5 million ding])
1) his staff are DW employees
2) he can get his salary nicked for social platform suspensions, but there would have to be a "floor" (i.e., minimum salary of $7.5 million [max $5 million ding])
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The amount he was supposedly asking for, stipulation free mind you, was akin to what Joe Rogan got from Spotify. That’s INSANE.
350,000 x $10 x 12 x 4 = 168 million. None of it depended on YouTube monetization.
Did you know that in DW's response video they don't spend one second on the potential to convert Mug Clubbers to DW+ subs? It's as though it doesn't even exist!
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:17 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
No, he's arguing that he should be compensated in accordance with the huge revenue stream he is guaranteed to bring them immediately and which does not rely on YouTube monetization.
Some of you are really acting like when YouTube stops paying him Crowder stops generating money. Big Time YouTubers have long since found a ways around that
You are acting like they're just going to stop paying him. He's going to take a 25% cut if he gets demonetized or he has an ad drop of more than 50% of revenue for over 90 days.
He would still be making 3/4 of the contract. He would still be given tens of millions of dollars for the things you mention. They're just sharing in the risk. This is not a reason to be upset and start attacking your own.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:17 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
350,000 x $10 x 12 x 4 = 168 million.
Yeah, that’s now how it works little buddy.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:17 pm to msutiger
quote:
Crowder doesn’t even know how many mug club subscriptions he has
He said it's at least 350K. The Quartering has said he's seen the email lists and it's more than that.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:19 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Yeah, that’s now how it works little buddy.
That's how it works when you're trying to determine whether someone is bringing large value with them. As opposed to completely ignoring it which DW did in their response.
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:25 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
That's how it works when you're trying to determine whether someone is bringing large value with them
But it’s not how you actually calculate their contractual value
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:27 pm to efrad
quote:
You are acting like they're just going to stop paying him. He's going to take a 25% cut if he gets demonetized or he has an ad drop of more than 50% of revenue for over 90 days.
He would still be making 3/4 of the contract. He would still be given tens of millions of dollars for the things you mention. They're just sharing in the risk. This is not a reason to be upset and start attacking your own.
You think it's reasonable to get and sign a contract fully knowing you are not going to get at least a quarter of the salary you signed on for? Crowder is not going to be monetized on youtube and hasn't been in years.
And let's also make sure that we are aware that this money isn't just going to crowders pockets. It's going to pay his production team and staff ect...
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
But it’s not how you actually calculate their contractual value ?
To calculate its contractual value you have to recognize its existence. DW did not even recognize it in their response .
You cannot obscure the forest by noting that a few trees don't exist.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:35 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
350,000 x $10 x 12 x 4 = 168 million. None of it depended on YouTube monetization
The 350,000 MC subs is a guess as Crowder himself has said he wasn't given access to those numbers. Beyond that, it's not as simple as bringing over 350,000 new subs to DW. LWC and DW cater to the same audience. There's almost certainly a large crossover that already exists between DW+ and Mug Club subs
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:37 pm to Roger Klarvin
Btw My favorite part of the Crowder video was the end where he says "call me, let's have a real discussion about these things"
"I acted in bad faith and secretly recorded our last phone call to leak it to the internet and smear your company, so give me a call!"
"I acted in bad faith and secretly recorded our last phone call to leak it to the internet and smear your company, so give me a call!"
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:38 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Jesus do you think this was meant to be some kind of all-encompassing, robust, written-in-stone, guaranteed amount of generated revenue? It's a back of the envelope calculation which are always done for the purpose of giving you a gist of the kind of figures you're talking about.
And the kind of figures in this regard mentioned in DW's explanation of the contract? Apparently zero because they didn't mention it at all.
And the kind of figures in this regard mentioned in DW's explanation of the contract? Apparently zero because they didn't mention it at all.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 8:53 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
Jesus do you think this was meant to be some kind of all-encompassing, robust, written-in-stone, guaranteed amount of generated revenue? It's a back of the envelope calculation which are always done for the purpose of giving you a gist of the kind of figures you're talking about.
And the kind of figures in this regard mentioned in DW's explanation of the contract? Apparently zero because they didn't mention it at all.
Ok so why not just subtract 25% from the number DW gives him and go off that number, and if he doesn't like it, just walk from the deal?
This isn't just about not liking a deal, he's basically declared war on them with this move. It's a bitch move recording Jeremy and leading his clip with out of context sound blerbs on a Talkboy. It's that exact kind of edgelordry that DW is protecting themselves from by putting that stipulation in their contract.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 9:14 pm to invidiousEndures
quote:
Did you know that in DW's response video they don't spend one second on the potential to convert Mug Clubbers to DW+ subs?
Yes they did. I'm sure you aren't using a secondhand account of what was discussed though.
And not just regurgitating something you read on patriot.win.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 9:18 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
Btw My favorite part of the Crowder video was the end where he says "call me, let's have a real discussion about these things"
Yeah, Crowder's principled stance fell flat for me here.
He claims he would "genuinely love" to sit down with DW and explain how to make the business model work without big tech stipulations. Okay, why didn't you just do that when you actually sat down with them?
He even admits he has only ever recorded 3 phone calls before, and all involved big tech. That implies he knew what DW's terms & conditions would entail. So he exploited the opportunity to make himself a conservative hero.
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 1/19/23 at 9:20 pm to nvasil1
Crowder is mad that DW won’t basically assume his liability for him
Posted on 1/19/23 at 9:34 pm to Hester Carries
Additionally Crowder is being inconsistent?
“I’m willing to walk away from money to continue saying what I believe!”
“Awesome. We support that and would like to essentially put that in the contract”
“Big tech cronies!!!!”
“I’m willing to walk away from money to continue saying what I believe!”
“Awesome. We support that and would like to essentially put that in the contract”
“Big tech cronies!!!!”
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News