Steven Crowder responds to Daily Wire: It was never about the money
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (113)
sorted by:
A lot of the DW people who are commenting on this keep saying something along the lines of “this was the opening offer, you are supposed to negotiate….and he was your friend why did you record him?”
Well friends do not offer friends incredibly low and stupid contracts as a starting point…. And why not record a phone call you intend to talk business on?
Yeah- why would you offer your "friend" the biolerplate deal?
Why would you even offer one of the biggest stars in conservative media the boilerplate deal?
Why would you offere someone you didn't even like a deal this bad?
My biggest concern is how absolutely awful the boilerplate is and how it's counterintuitive and destructive to conservatives to punish them for big tech
I know, $12.5 million/yr is the literal equivalent of slavery multiplied by 5 Holocausts. Tucker Carlson makes $6 million/yr but still, it's literal slavery to offer someone $12 million/yr.
The greatest irony is that Crowder actually had a skit a few years ago with Quarter Black and Dave Landau satirizing Colin Kaepernick regarding his retarded claim that he was a slave and the NFL were slaveholders.
Trust but verify, especially after all the publicized incidents of conservative grifters and lapses in judgement. And as you said, anyone that gets personally offended over recording legal business negotiations would make a very stupid and undependable business partner. Granted Daily Wire is being coldly methodological, as opposed to drama vortexes like Milo.
The damning part was that there was resistance on DW's side to the Crowders suggestion that the contract was out-of-touch and excessive with the brand and likeness in perpituity, and that up-and-coming talent should mentored. Reminds me of Steve Job's demeanor towards John Carmack. There wasn't a strong, explicit acknowledgement that the initial proposed contract was intended as a template instead of suggestion of leverage. Shapiro explained going into business with Boreing because some dinosaurs (probably Koch Brothers or Murdoch) were clueless regarding online mediums and younger audiences. DW isn't as stodgy and disconnected as legacy companies, but it's a shame they have the same top-down attitude that I presume was part of Shapiro's criticism.
In business it's okay to have a rider, like Van Halen's brown M&M clause, to make sure the other party is experienced and attentive to the venture. A shady example I've heard about personally is a independent owned establishment getting a contract from a management company that has the MC's revenue or profit share claimed before taxes, which wouldn't require MC to actually make net profit for the owners. Said management company (Destination Hotels, 5+ years ago) was being underhanded and subtle (hospitality is by and large a grimey, uninspired industry), while these indie networks are just strong-arming the desperate and impulsive.
I would lump Candace Owens reaction as a drama vortex. She seamed unhinged and went very personal very quickly which is funny considering Steven started this off without naming anyone. And even after the attacks he has said nice things about Klaven, Peterson, and Shapiro. Doesn’t matter that people speculated it was them it could just as well had been fox, tpusa, oan, newsmax, etc.
And their resistance appears to be what crowder has a problem with. Sure with unknown talent there are risks. But crowder really isn’t an unknown. They were willing to put up 50 mil over 4 years for him and he had a subscriber base a third of the size of their whole network. And they are worried about being demonetized on YouTube despite the ad reads and subs being like 95% of the income. And that would go for the younger talent Crowder was voicing concern over getting that same crap deal.
And Rekeita has pointed out on his live stream that sure you give an offer lower than what you expect to agree to when negotiating but you don’t go so low you insult the person you are offering it to. That kills any chance of them doing business together and kind of makes you wonder if it was even a serious offer in the first place.
We all knew about Candace since before KIA2 was active, but a normie coming across one of her clips shared on Facebook doesn't stand a chance. For clarity, I referring to Shapiro and Boreing (and any private investors I'm unaware of) when I said Daily Wire, not any of their other hosts or writers.
Daily Wire the business became suspect when Ben had blinders regarding the military industrial complex, promoted the vaccine (so I've heard, haven't listened for more than 4 minutes since May 2020), and provided risk-averse coverage of the presidential election and Jan 6; this recent event is just dramatic evidence. Similarly, every everyday Joe should have been outraged about potential govt. surveillance abuse before Assange and Snowden were breaking news, before the Patriot Act was a possibility.
I've never like Candace. I wasn't sure she was a grifter like everyone else says but instead personally dislike her. She huffs her own farts.
I've barely listened to Ben since 2019 but yes he was pushing the vaccine up until tech stopped banning questioning it which is a good example of the DW bending knee.
Walsh is the only one I've watched and I know he's constantly skirting the edge on social media and YouTube as to what he can say. I'm pretty sure he's only holding back because of the contract. He was also one who didn't mention the drama except to make a joke about a rivalry with Candace Owens
Tthe contract was out-of-touch and excessive with the brand and likeness in perpituity."
How is it that people keep parroting this trope? There was NOTHING that said DW retains the brand and likeness in perpetuity. Boreing very clearly said that they owned all his content DURING the contract period, but after the contract ended, everything that Crowder owned BEFORE the contract and everything Crowder produced himself during the contract, would go back to Crowder. The ONLY thing kept in perpetuity was anything that DW produced during the contract period. That's it.
Additionally.... That's perpetual rights to Louder With Crowder, but IANAL. Elsewhere in the thread, you're regurgitating superficial fanboy arguments like 'hur-dur, Kapernick' so do the needful and expunge 'parroting' from your vocabulary.
Crowder also brought it up in the phone call, regarding up-and-coming talent; Boreing's hesitant, standoffish response was telling.
"Crowder also brought it up in the phone call..."
You mean the phone call that he knew he was recording and that he knew he'd play for the public? Are you telling me you're so gullible that you'd believe anything he said on that call that he knew he'd play for the public? What up-and-coming talent? That's the biggest virtue-signal I've probably ever heard and that includes virtue-signaling Liberals. Crowder doesn't give a rat's ass about up-and-coming talent.
And your YouTube link shows Crowder explaining that DW retains Crowder's content DURING the contract period. Christ Almighty, how can you people keep repeating the same nonsensical falsehood that they retain all his content in perpetuity AFTER the contract period? Look at 'b", under "Additional Rights", when Crowder shows it on the screen (the exact time stamp that you linked). It says "DURING THE TERM."
And the Kaepernick argument wasn't superficial. It was about as damning as you could possibly get. Simply dismissing it as superficial is a classic Liberal tactic. But seeing as so many Crowder fanboys are actually closet Socialists, that now favor workers over the people that build companies, it's apropos.
A lot of the Crowder people keep making bad-faith arguments. Whatever argument you could make about what a friend should "offer" to a friend, you can just turn around and make the same argument as to what a friend should "take" from a friend. That point cancels the "friend" argument out in terms of BUSINESS. But what friends don't do is try to sabotage their friend's business because they don't like the business terms.
If I own a lawn-mowing business and a friend wants to hire me to cut the lawn/trim the bushes at his business and he offers to pay me less than the job is worth, I tell him that's not enough, here's what it would have to be and if he says that's too much, we both move on. We're still friends. What I don't do is go out and try to fuck his entire company over because we couldn't come to terms on a business deal.
Crowder is the snake in this whole debacle.
Except he didn’t go out and try to fuck over an entire company over. He never said Daily Wire. He actively avoided naming them. Daily wire thought it was a good idea and claim the shitty term sheet. A term sheet they admit they didn’t think he would agree to and would spend months negotiating. Why offer something full of terms you know the other side would not agree to? And guess what, if crowder was dumb and signed that term sheet it would have become the contract. So why offer terms you know someone you claim is a friend would be screwed over if they signed?
What if in your hypothetical lawn care business your friend also requests while you are cutting his grass he gets to fuck your wife? You would obviously be insulted. And his response is “well I didn’t think you’d go for it but it’s the standard offer I give all my lawn care providers”. Clearly that’s not really a friend and they were trying to take advantage of you. You then tell people at the bar that they would never guess what crap deal this anonymous person offered for you to cut their grass. Then the dumbass “friend” says it was me from the other side of the room.
There's this moron on KotakuInAction2 who gave the most moronic analogy about putting "I can fuck your wife" in a contract. This person made that moronic analogy because he couldn't make his point work without saying something that stupid. He also said something even dumber, claiming that signing a NON-BINDING term sheet, would somehow be legally binding, even though it's literally NON-BINDING.
I didn't mention this imbecile's name though so there's no way anyone could possibly figure out who I'm talking about.
Do you literally just come back every 2 weeks to make bad takes? That’s significantly more detailed than what crowder did and more detailed than my example. And yes, if he said that term sheet looked fine it would have been the contract. Have fun watching controlled opposition that funds obvious grifters like Candace Owens