Even though it's not really about the money, people need to understand just how evil that contract DW makes their talent sign really is.
In Hollywood, 99% of actors are getting paid some type of scale. Meaning, you get paid no matter what. You aren't making residuals off the movie, but even if the movie never gets released, you still took home a paycheck. Only the absolute premier talent gets residuals.
There isn't an actor in Hollywood whose pay is docked if the movie flops. All risk is assumed by the publisher.
Daily Wire is pushing all risk on their talent, and they are paying their talent scale, while they pocket all the extra profit. Meaning if Crowder's show is a runaway success and brings in way more money than they thought, he doesn't see a dime of it. Yet if his show is a flop, he loses everything.
Even if the entire Daily Wire, every single host, all of it, were to be fully deleted from the internet, they still have DW+ income and advertisers (who will be paying less, admittedly, but they still have like a 600K+ subs), yet all their operating expenses drop 95% because they can quit paying their talent. And their talent is trapped in a 4 year contract and can't leave without incurring even more fiscal damage.
It's a fantastically wicked contract. The kind of shit some sweaty record exec would pull. This is the sort of contract only a total sleazeball would write. This is the streamer version of a greasy used car salesman selling you a 15 year old car with a bent frame and a rolled-back odometer and sneaking in 18% APR financing.
Except, it wasn't a contract, it was a terms sheet. They may have low-balled Crowder but this isn't uncommon in contract negotiations with large dollar signs attached.
The testimony of everyone who works at Daily Wire seems to be that Boering makes a hard bargain but that they ultimately get what they're want contractually and are very happy with how they're treated. People who are unaccustomed to contract negotiations and big business are reading into it all sorts of bad intentions that may make sense to the layperson but are standard business procedure.
People are free not to like how big business operates -- I don't either -- but acting like this was a conspiracy to silence and control Crowder or other small creators is ridiculous. Andrew Torba doesn't know what he's talking about.
What would have happened if he signed the 'terms sheet'?
The testimony of everyone who works at Daily Wire seems to be that Boering makes a hard bargain but that they ultimately get what they're want contractually and are very happy with how they're treated
Is that why Crowder counter-offered them, and they then slammed the door in his face and said "nope we're done, don't even bother talking to us again"?
They didn't even attempt a second offer. Their ONLY offer that they accepted was the dogshit rookie garbage they put in front of him.
What would have happened if he signed the 'terms sheet'?
As far as I know, based on what I've heard, absolutely nothing. It's not legally binding.
Is that why Crowder counter-offered them, and they then slammed the door in his face and said "nope we're done, don't even bother talking to us again"?
They didn't even attempt a second offer. Their ONLY offer that they accepted was the dogshit rookie garbage they put in front of him.
From Boering's perspective, Crowder rejected the offer, acted insulted, and demanded they send him a completely new terms sheet with a significantly larger dollar figure (despite him saying it has nothing to do with money, if you really believe that) without red-lining the previous terms or even just talking to Boering about it reasonably. Instead he told Boering, the CEO of a much larger and more successful company, that DW's business model was garbage. It's at this point that DW threw up his hands and they parted ways.
By the way, you can listen to Boering's perspective at timestamp 44:10 of Boering's response video.
You can choose to trust Crowder or you can choose to trust Boering, but either way we don't really know what really went down between the two of them. What we do know are the actions both have taken publicly and what those associated with Crowder and Daily Wire are saying, and all the evidence in this case points to Crowder being in the wrong here, if for no other reason than airing his dirty laundry and breaking the trust of people he supposedly was friends with. This is true EVEN IF Boering's actions were insulting and underhanded. Crowder handled it poorly either way.
I keep telling people, Crowder is not the bastion of integrity people think he is.
Even though it's not really about the money, people need to understand just how evil that contract DW makes their talent sign really is.
In Hollywood, 99% of actors are getting paid some type of scale. Meaning, you get paid no matter what. You aren't making residuals off the movie, but even if the movie never gets released, you still took home a paycheck. Only the absolute premier talent gets residuals.
There isn't an actor in Hollywood whose pay is docked if the movie flops. All risk is assumed by the publisher.
Daily Wire is pushing all risk on their talent, and they are paying their talent scale, while they pocket all the extra profit. Meaning if Crowder's show is a runaway success and brings in way more money than they thought, he doesn't see a dime of it. Yet if his show is a flop, he loses everything.
Even if the entire Daily Wire, every single host, all of it, were to be fully deleted from the internet, they still have DW+ income and advertisers (who will be paying less, admittedly, but they still have like a 600K+ subs), yet all their operating expenses drop 95% because they can quit paying their talent. And their talent is trapped in a 4 year contract and can't leave without incurring even more fiscal damage.
It's a fantastically wicked contract. The kind of shit some sweaty record exec would pull. This is the sort of contract only a total sleazeball would write. This is the streamer version of a greasy used car salesman selling you a 15 year old car with a bent frame and a rolled-back odometer and sneaking in 18% APR financing.
Except, it wasn't a contract, it was a terms sheet. They may have low-balled Crowder but this isn't uncommon in contract negotiations with large dollar signs attached.
The testimony of everyone who works at Daily Wire seems to be that Boering makes a hard bargain but that they ultimately get what they're want contractually and are very happy with how they're treated. People who are unaccustomed to contract negotiations and big business are reading into it all sorts of bad intentions that may make sense to the layperson but are standard business procedure.
People are free not to like how big business operates -- I don't either -- but acting like this was a conspiracy to silence and control Crowder or other small creators is ridiculous. Andrew Torba doesn't know what he's talking about.
What would have happened if he signed the 'terms sheet'?
Is that why Crowder counter-offered them, and they then slammed the door in his face and said "nope we're done, don't even bother talking to us again"?
They didn't even attempt a second offer. Their ONLY offer that they accepted was the dogshit rookie garbage they put in front of him.
As far as I know, based on what I've heard, absolutely nothing. It's not legally binding.
From Boering's perspective, Crowder rejected the offer, acted insulted, and demanded they send him a completely new terms sheet with a significantly larger dollar figure (despite him saying it has nothing to do with money, if you really believe that) without red-lining the previous terms or even just talking to Boering about it reasonably. Instead he told Boering, the CEO of a much larger and more successful company, that DW's business model was garbage. It's at this point that DW threw up his hands and they parted ways.
By the way, you can listen to Boering's perspective at timestamp 44:10 of Boering's response video.
You can choose to trust Crowder or you can choose to trust Boering, but either way we don't really know what really went down between the two of them. What we do know are the actions both have taken publicly and what those associated with Crowder and Daily Wire are saying, and all the evidence in this case points to Crowder being in the wrong here, if for no other reason than airing his dirty laundry and breaking the trust of people he supposedly was friends with. This is true EVEN IF Boering's actions were insulting and underhanded. Crowder handled it poorly either way.
I keep telling people, Crowder is not the bastion of integrity people think he is.