[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.
? 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.