[0 fucks given about downvotes, I know this sub hates Ben Shapiro and the DW. I routinely speak truth to those who don't want to hear it on Reddit, lol.]
Ben Shapiro and the DW are 100% in the right in this one, and Crowder is a slimy douchebag who is 100% in the wrong.
-
Crowder solicited a job offer from the DW
-
10/5/22: The DW gave him an offer of $50 million for 4 years, meant to be a starting point for negotiations (the document even says this, that it's a starting point and a framework, not a "take it or leave it" deal)
-
11/2/22: Crowder gets INSULTED by the offer, demands $30M per year, and demands the DW re-write the term sheet entirely instead of making edits to the one already provided.
-
11/14/22: DW rejects Crowder's demands.
-
12/12/22: Steven registers http://StopBigCon.com, planning a future hit piece on the DW to cast himself as a rebel against the establishment, and a victim.
-
1/7/23: Steven texts Jeremy in friendly fashion to ask if they can talk.
-
1/9/23: Steven calls Jeremy and secretly tapes him.
Then Crowder releases his little hit piece, lambasting the "contract" without mentioning that it was not a final offer but just a starting point. He cherry picked out certain contract provisions designed to share or mitigate risk, some of which were provisions I would personally disagree with as a little excessive, and which might have been inserted or exaggerated purely to be "traded away". I don't do business that way, but it's a standard business practice. Nothing wrong whatsoever with the DW doing it.
Crowder is a baby. He doesn't seem to understand how the concept of negotiation works. His ego couldn't handle getting offered what he thought he deserved as a 1st offer, to the point where he got emotional and unprofessional about it.
Crowder's attacks on the DW amount to r-antiwork bullshit. "slave contract" for $50 million. Riiiiight.
And yes, Crowder did the supremely scumbag move of knifing his fellow conservatives and friends in the back and trying to damage their reputation, all so he could generate hype, drama, and views for his new project launch. Secretly recording a phone call made under false pretenses is a mega scumbag move.
Stunning and brave.
Anybody who cares about this drama is an idiot
If you don't care you're a bigger idiot. DW has been muzzling right wingers for big tech. That's something that's actually important.
This is news to me. Any examples? That is, examples other than Crowder.
It is literally in their contracts. The contracts that are according to them "standard."
I'd upvote a well-written, plausible case even if I disagreed with it - and I don't disagree completely here.
Some of the folks who call others NPCs really can't handle getting any disagreement.
My view:
Shadiversity did an in-depth analysis of the contract, and he argued that it was crap. I agree with most of the points, but not at all.
? who gives a fuck what some Australian mormon dude who makes videos about medieval armor and swords has to say about a big punditry contract? He doesn't know shit about the subject.
He's wrong about that because it's already the status quo. DW didn't create this situation. Why is DW the bad guy for just acknowledging the reality? If Youtube banned Crowder right now, he'd lose ALL his money since his Youtube channel drives his whole business. Under the DW offer, he could have been banned from YT and only lose 20%. That's a fantastic deal for Crowder and bad for the DW if it were to ever happen.
"DW is bad because they won't effectively operate as platform insurance and totally absorb the risk of deplatforming" is the anti-DW take in here. Literally no one would do that, because it's stupid.
He's a Youtuber, so he knows how much work goes into the creation of a show, and he has employees. He says he actually gives them his best offer on the first go and then does not negotiate. I'm sure it's very rare in actual practice.
You need not claim that DW is "the bad guy". But this does incentivize boycotts and deplatforming. There may not be a solution to it, but if you have read your Sowell, you know that there is no such thing as a solution and only a trade-off.
JB acknowledged that this was their opening offer and that they low-balled him. Which is not necessarily bad, but it's strange for your to be crowing about what a great deal it is. I can see the risks for the DW as well, but I can also see why Crowder may not view it as so great.
I think the percentage deductions in the contract prop were excessive, even if you want to claim that the risk should be spread.
You’re trying to debate a Californian, it’s not worth the effort, he will just scream into the void, same reason he won’t answer my question…
I've debated him often enough, and that has not been my experience.
Yeah that's just not how things work when you're dealing with high end talent. Nobody truly knows what that talent is worth because there are no "comps" to look at, so every single contract is a tailored negotiation.
Also giving someone your "best offer" up front is bad. The reason is that the person then tries to "negotiate" and you flatly refuse, so then they get hurt feelings and ego issues because you shut them down. I've had cases where I gave "too good" is an offer early, and then had my opponent fight like hell to move me off my number when I couldn't and wouldn't be moved. I've continued to litigate cases for 6-12 months purely because the other side had to feel like they had a moral victory in squeezing an extra few thousand dollars, and when I refused, they kept fighting out of spite. Eventually they realized how dumb it was to keep paying their lawyers many times what they were haggling over with me, but you'd be surprised how many people will burn money in a bonfire out of pride or spite.
No it doesn't, because those 2 things are always going to be economically damaging. All the DW is doing here is sharing the loss. You think Leftists care is Crowder says "HAHAHA GUYS, THE DW IS EATING THE LOSSES, NOT ME!" the Left hates the DW even more, and will still have every "incentive" to put the screws to the DW to harm it so that it either cuts loose Crowder or learns a painful lesson anyway.
So no, it doesn't incentivize anything. The incentive would be there regardless. Advertiser boycotts, when enough advertisers do it, work. Deplatforming works. The DW isn't making that happen. It's just the reality. Pretending it's not true is a delusion.
I agree. I think the DW contract was intended to be overly favorable to the DW as a negotiating position so they'd be able to make concessions. It wasn't intended to be a "take it or leave it" deal. The part I thought was the most out of whack were the penalties for not delivering shows. They were punitive and totally out of proportion to the contract. I would have demanded that they be greatly reduced.
Yeah, I said that I didn't agree with all of it. But I think it does come from a good place. He doesn't want people to be disadvantaged because they don't negotiate (well).
Yup. Even if you come with your best offer, your opponent is going to treat it as a bargaining chip, and you're going to end up losing.
Economically damaging is one thing. Achieving the results you want is quite another. The useless right doesn't boycott, even though it is damaging? Why? Because it never sees any results. Seeing results is important to these dopamine addicts.
Did you know there are never any campaigns to get someone fired in Europe? Why? Because companies cannot legally fire employees for such dumb reasons. People know this. So they don't try! That's good. At will employment very bad.
The harm won't be visible to them though. And the larger the entity you target, the more difficult it is to harm, because the damages will be distributed.
I think this is correct. I also think that Boreing was telling the truth when he said that even $50 million was a great risk for DW, a decision not taken lightly even for someone they regarded as great talent, and it's comforting to know that at least they know how to do business.
boycotts almost always completely fail. ADVERTISER boycotts are a very NEW thing brought about thanks to the woke long march through the institutions, where the internal woke insurgents can boost the boycott pressure massively and trigger their company to boycott Twitter, for example, even though it makes absolutely no business sense to do so.
in the 1980s, 90s, 00s, and even 10s boycotts, as a rule, were a joke. They aren't now. Now they can be potentially dangerous, but only when the Left does it, thanks to the power of their corporate infiltrators.
I agree. These kinds of deals are always very risky because there are too many unknowns until there is a developed track record, which Crowder doesn't have yet.
So people need to fight back, instead of just surrendering.
As you told me to do to the Reddit admins. The difference is that I had 0 power to do any sort of fighting back. My long-term plan was to censor stuff when they turned the heat up, and then loosen when they lost interest and/or attention. Unfortunately, they just kept ratcheting up so we never got to loosening.
KIA 2 is still up though, right? Why didn't you just make another account?
That’s not the argument at all you blithering retard. I’ll ask you the same thing I’ve been asking everyone since no one will answer me directly. Did DW include subscription models on the monetization term sheet or was it only big tech? Did they include merchandising percentages on the monetization term sheet or was it only big tech? I would never do business with a person that intentionally leaves off the majority of your income making from an initial offer sheet, it is a disgusting practice and you would never be touched by any company I work with for doing such a thing.
Crowder is in the wrong for being upset at such an agreement because truthfully the agreement is fine. Crowder is right about much of the Big Con media being nothing but grifters that seek the money rather than what is truly best for Americans. Crowder also doesn't really understand the severity of the problem nor does he mention what race Shapiro is and why that's relevant.
The only thing big conservatives care to conserve is their bank account.
If you think a term sheet that 1. Would immediately negate a portion of offered income and the offering party knew and 2. Excluded every known source of income aside from big tech monetization is a good contract and it is something you would offer someone then you have no place doing business with anyone even semi ethical because they will run you out of town being so predatory.
That's just the business implications then you get to the fact that they are censoring people on the right and forcing them to keep toe the line set by big tech which is overwhelmingly left
I'd ask you to sign your soul to me if I felt I was in a bargaining position to do so. I work in banking. The contracts I get people borrowing money to sign might as well offer up their soul and in fact if I check the fine print I wouldn't be surprised if it's in there.
I'm German. Inside man for the fourth Reich.
Including Crowder.
Who isn't motivated by money? The Left is just as motivated by money as the Right. The peon little cannon fodder aren't, sure, but all the elites at the top, including all the pundits, are.
It's literally just capitalism. By design. I think Ben Shapiro is not a grifter, and is 100% true to his ideals when he speaks. He also runs a shitload of ads because he likes money. So do you. So do I. No one is out there trying to be a martyr for the cause.
Is the left motivated by money entirely though? Seems to be a of leftists grooming children and visiting Epstein island... Not all motivators in life are money related. What you described capitalism to be is essentially what capitalism means if your moral values are based on a capitalist outlook on life. Such people whose motivations are based on money alone are in fact trash but not everyone is motivated by this. I took a paycut and changed jobs to a smaller business because I was tired of being bombarded with how important blacks and women in the workforce is and D&I meets. I was motivated by the culture more than the money. Some elites can be motivated by culture more than money also. If you told a woman that her husband will earn 3x what he's earning now if she was banned from working and the woman was considered his property for him to do whatever he likes with but he had to spend at least 50% of his money on things she wanted, do you think she'd take the offer? She'd have more money and material possessions but what she needs to sacrifice to get that might not be worth it.
Got to go with this now. When Crowder did his initial announcement I was concerned, but at this point with the additional information it's just become a mud-slinging competition.
Crowder could have just said no and dropped it. I'm fairly convinced he wanted the drama at this point.
I would like a rational explanation for people who say this why it shouldn't be public information that The Daily Wire is censoring the right for big tech through contracts with extreme monetary penalties. Under such a contract Crowder literally could not have reported on the CDC's own data when he did because he got struck for it.
That is the standard that the Daily Wire's entire staff work under.
Literally false. He could have reported on it, but he would have taken a revenue hit for the remainder of the year when the strike happened. As for why the penalty is there, it's simple economics?
According to Forbes, in September 2022 Daily Wire has about 600k subscribers on their site. Their youtube channel has 3 million subs. Shapiro's youtube channel has 5 million subs. Crowder's youtube channel has 6 million subs. I've no idea how many followers any of them have on Facebook, or anywhere else, but it's probably in the millions there as well. If the channel takes strikes, or worse yet gets taken down, the reach of and views on the videos dramatically decreases.
So what is a rational explanation for why the DW should keep paying Crowder the same amount of money if his videos views crater due to getting taken off platforms?
You can (I think legitimately) argue that the amount it is reduced is too much, but that's a separate conversation, one which Crowder apparently wasn't interested in having. He essentially seems to be saying that DW should fully subsidize new creators even if those creators are bringing in no money and essentially getting 0 views - it would be great if people could do that, but financial realities are a thing regardless of how much we might wish them not to be.
(Plus, it is just odd how Crowder says in the same breath "It's not about the money!" followed by "Why are you docking the money?")
Also, there's the simple fact that Crowder sat on this for two months, and had the domain registered for over a month before he called Jeremy for what seems like the express purpose of recording the phone call (which he says he's only done 2 other times in his life), and then releasing his first video. And he has the gall to title his latest video on it "I didn't want to do this...", which is just BS. It really seems like he planned this out in an attempt to cause maximum drama.
portraying himself as a rebel against the establishment
claiming to be a victim
laying claim to being the only "authentic" right wing voice who will "stand up to big tech" since "those "Big Cons" over at the DW are just some controlled opposition sellouts bootlicking Youtube and the libs"
It's literally just Crowder being a grifter, and you can see from this sub's response that it is highly successful because his followers are both stupid, and also conspiratorial and anti-establishment. He's playing them like a fiddle.
That's more true now than ever. Under the DW contract he could have been banned from YT and only lose 20%.
Oh no, not anti-establishment.
It's almost like I said 3 things, and you took 1 out of context to make it appear that I was calling it bad in isolation.
Anti-establishment types get grifted all the time. They are very vulnerable to grifting. People just show up and say "gib me your money, THEY don't want you to do it!!!" It's in like every nutjob primary speech ever.
I'll bet those with healthy skepticism are fleeced less than are NPCs.
they're just fleeced by different people
I've seen too many successful grifters on the Right to believe that anti-establishment types on the Right are any better at seeing through bullshit.
Immune? No? Better? Probably. For every Alex Jones, there's far-left 'charities' that people give their money to.
Crowder could have negotiated a deal that excluded other platforms that censor content?
If so, he didn't even try before staging his stunt . . . so you may be right.
Post Reported for: Rule 12: Falsehoods
Post Approved: This is an opinion piece.
I think they wanted more or less the same things, and the only issue was money. Had they offered $30 million per year like Crowder wanted, instead of throwing a fit, he would have simply suggested some small changes and agreed. The fundamental problem was that $12.5m and $30m are too far apart. One of those two is simply wrong. I suspect that Crowder is not worth $30m. I think the DW has a better idea what Crowder is worth than he does because they have a lot of hosts and understand the ranges they're worth.
Yeah, bingo. Crowder's game plan here is to stir up drama on purpose to promote his new thing he just launched.
DW didn't want this fight and was very nice at first, but eventually were forced to defend themselves when Crowder escalated with the secretly recorded phone call. My take is that nobody will want to engage in contract negotiations with Crowder ever again after seeing what he just did to the DW.