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:
Not only do other conservative media companies pull this crap, but it's standard in the entertainment industry in general. Machinima had such blatantly awful contracts that I don't feel sympathy for talent that negligently took shitty offers, but it's depressing how much Machinima hamstrung the golden age of Youtube content.
This sad state of affairs happened because hardware infrastructure costs were astronomical in the mid aughts, forcing the founders to take venture capital and/or get acquired. Once the non-founder MBA types are in charge, there was no hope for a back-boned owner to call the advertising hacks on their bluff, and get a better deal for Youtube and the content creators.
Edit: Examples from RTvee about other political media.
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?
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.
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.