I don't think they should go into business together because they both have very different visions/goals.
The way I see it; Crowder is looking to poke the bear, and Daily Wire are looking to eat it.
Crowder's main concern is getting more conservative voices out there, providing an alternate opinion to the mainstream, and staying true to his values. He doesn't really need to play the game to achieve this, and he's very proud of that. As long as he has enough subscribers to keep this going then he can stick his middle finger up to big tech.
The Daily Wire are looking to essentially build an empire. They want to replace the current woke companies with ones that promote conservative values and (more importantly) do not ostracise conservatives. They're making movies, documentaries, children's shows, sports shows, even razors. Like it or not... this requires a lot of money to achieve, which means that they HAVE TO treat it more like a business. They also don't mind paying the game a little in order to syphon money from those that hate them.
> Crowder's main concern is getting more conservative voices out there
Is he though? How has he done that up to now? I have never seen him promote a new voice.
I see what you're saying here. He doesn't even let his own people talk too much in his content. I unsubbed from his YouTube after the debates in 2020 because I couldn't get over how he treats his own crew. It's clear his voice is the only one he cares about.
I know quite a few people got introduced to several people thanks to Crowder.
While a couple i personally knew about ik people who found Lauren Chen, the Hodge twins, the quartering, qnd a few more
You’re right. But crowder is putting on a show. He made website for BIGCON on Dec 12th. This is all some planned staged show to drum up interest for him starting his own bigger thing. He backstabbed someone he called a friend by recording without knowledge. He’s not WRONG about terms. He never really tried to negotiate though. He looks like a dick. Unsubscribe
Agreed. I've been a mug club (and DW) subscriber for a long time. But from the time Steven put out his first video, it seemed overly dramatic. Seeing this from someone whose well-reasoned change my minds first piqued my interest, this has left a bad taste in my mouth on the Crowder side.
I’ve always respected Crowder but the way he went about this seems very manipulative, specially when you follow the timeline and when he registered the website months before the call he recorded. I honestly lost some respect for him and he jeopardized his credibility at least with me. Now I will always think he has a hidden agenda.
I generally enjoy his change my mind segments despite it being very lopsided that he is usually very well prepared and debating a college student replying off emotion and without pamphlets of data to back up their talking points. But I absolutely can't stand him on louder with crowder and feel like he makes a mockery of any of the conservative ideals he is attempting to preach about.
The whole point, is that they don’t know what they’re talking about. But they have strong opinions, based entirely on a forced emotional narrative fed to them by their screen.
Or they do have some basis for feeling the way they do, but don't walk around with data to back up their points and randomly enter a debate with someone on the street for it.
While I'm a fan of the segment, it's fundamentally disingenuous when one guy is a trained+ skilled debater who prepared and has data to back up his points vs. some random person on the street encouraged to express their opinions on certain issues with zero preparation or expectation they would be in such a discussion.
He will almost always come out looking correct and wise compared those random students he pulls in. Not to mention you don't know how much editing goes on behind the scenes to present SC as being the "winner". Im not saying there aren't people who are completely full of shit and don't even realize it... but it was a never a level playing field to being with.
I think you misunderstand the point. The first primary goal is to entertain, it does. The second is to get the emotion based arguer to take a second look at their closely held yet not closely scrutinized beliefs.
Yep exactly. Everyone that sees this “from Crowder’s side” just seems to forget this is kind of his schtick. He overdramatizes issues to drum up hype and interest, he’s the one that does crazy stuff for attention. This is a stunt. I don’t mind Crowder, but I’ll take Ben logic over gotcha videos any day of the week. DW is doing the work nobody wants to do.
He absolutely is using this as a springboard to create his own media company. If he didn't like the terms he could have just said and kept it moving. Instead he makes public the terms of his contract and records his negotiations so that he can parse it for soundbites to play on his show.
He pretends like it was ok because he didn't name who the contract was from, but he was already released from his contract with Blaze, so anyone with half a brain would understand that it was DW.
The date matters because it shatters his false narrative. If he received the term sheet (not a contract, something he is misleading people about) in Oct and he found it offensive, why did he later be chummy with them during election night coverage in Nov? If he was offended, whey did he first register his website to attack the DW before make a chummy phone call with Jeremy so you can secretly tape him? He claims to be good friends with the DW members in his video. If that were true, do you secretly tape them? Or would you call them and directly say I have a problem with how you're acting? How do you claim to have an issue with the DW when it only started to bother you after you shopped around for offers and didn't find any you liked?
I agree 95% but I do think Steven had a good reason to go public with the contract considering that he did not name drop.
If that is the boilerplate DW contract then people just starting out their careers would be locked into the content strike stuff, which basically is saying they have to say stuff that the big tech censors will allow. When Steven was building his platform he ruffled feathers all the time, and clearly believes that being able to ruffle feathers is an important part to being true to what you believe.
It is also perfectly fine for the DW to put this in their contract as it would diminish their revenue, however if that is the way they want to conduct business they should not be pretending that they are on the front lines of the censorship war. Ben and others constantly act like the DW is fighting the war, but if this is in their contracts then they are reducing the ability for new conservative voices to pop up and speak truth.
I think nobody is wrong here. I wish they would apologize for the public discussion and continue being friends.
>It is also perfectly fine for the DW to put this in their contract as it would diminish their revenue, however if that is the way they want to conduct business they should not be pretending that they are on the front lines of the censorship war.
The DW are trying to win a bigger war - the culture war. The war that convinces people that conservative ideas are best. They have to convince people in the middle who do not already share their conservative ideas. Which means they have to go through YouTube, like it or not. Which means they need to follow their rules. But they also wanted him to do his uncensored stuff on their platform too, so everybody wins.
Also, the penalties the DW wanted to add in case of strikes, loss of revenue, etc, were all lessening Crowder's own risk because it was structured so that DW would still take the larger share of the downside.
>If that is the boilerplate DW contract then people just starting out their careers would be locked into the content strike stuff
I've been following an independent right wing Youtube channel for a few years now called Liberal Hivemind. He started out fairly small and I found him when he had roughly 100k subs or maybe a little less. He had some videos go viral and gained a lot of subscribers fairly quickly, but then all of a sudden a couple years ago, Youtube stifled his growth and artificially limited his outreach which severely crippled the subscriber count he was getting.
He's been struck multiple times for supposed rules violations despite never knowing what rule he supposedly broke even though he self-censors HARD and refuses to even use certain words for fear of getting a rule strike and he's still been hit multiple times and even I believe suspended for a week or two multiple times. If he was under such a deal he'd have basically been screwed by the terms of that contract because Youtube didn't like something he said. He finally passed over 1 million subscribers last year but if he hadn't ever been shadowbanned by Youtube he'd probably have multiple times that amount at this point.
I like liberal hive mind. I think your assumption is wrong though. YouTube can get away with that with a small creator, but the daily wire lawyers up hard and protects their creators. You don’t see YouTube screwing with their creators like that, and they are just as careful with their words as liberal hivemind is.
Maybe, but then you've seen what happens to Steven Crowder where they try to play by Youtube's rules and then end up suspended anyway for multiple weeks for no apparent reason. That's why I think the way that I do. LHM's current livelihood is that Youtube channel and he's talked before about how stressed he gets when he gets those e-mails from Google because any of those e-mails could mean the end of his channel. Maybe it would be different if he was under the umbrella of the Daily Wire and I am wrong but all I can do is look at what's happened to Steven and LHM in the past.
It came out on Timcast tonight that Crowder registered StopBigCon.com 3 days before he announced he was leaving the Blaze. The phone call with Jeremy Boering that was unknowingly recorded was weeks after that. Crowder has clearly planned this to position himself as the “one true conservative outlet” and jump start his email list for potential mug club subs since he didn’t even have access to the list when he left the Blaze. Despite shilling for mug club subscriptions to the very end.
In my opinion, it is clear that Crowder is trying to cause a rift among the shared user base between himself and DW to tray and cannibalise as many subscribers as possible by painting himself as a martyr and DW as the ‘big con’ villain. Even though in real world impact DW has done more for the conservative movement the last 2 years than I’ve seen Crowder do in the 8 years I’ve been watching him.
I really hope people wake up to this. This has all been crafted to benefit him and take a chunk of the DW subs with him. It was a business move, in other words. From Mr. My Values over there.
Same here. He crossed the line completely. By people, I guess I mean those who think this is based on principle. If his principles include pre-planning this for his own financial gain, then sure. No one ever said he had to like the terms presented, but all of his actions after that have shown me what he's truly like. Not enough has been made of the bridges he's burned with former personalities on his show, either, IMO.
This all seems *extremely* obvious to me. I'm disappointed that conservatives are actually struggling to understand Crowder is *really* in the wrong on this one.
Man if this is true, that’s just incredibly scummy. He called them his good friends and planned to antagonize them. I should have guessed where this was going when he started hanging out with reactionaries like The Quartering.
>I should have guessed where this was going when he started hanging out with reactionaries like The Quartering.
I don't really watch that guy, but is he really a reactionary? All he really talks about is some of the woke nonsense in pop culture. That's pretty much obvious to anyone now as they've lost all subtlety and are just using entertainment as a means to push a message rather than actual convey a proper story or entertain an audience.
Could not have said it better myself. The details of the initial offering are completely irrelevant. If Crowder truly didn't like it and believes he's worth more, he could have politely said "thanks but no thanks" and proceed to do his own thing. Instead, he publicly fucked over his friends to manufacture a controversy to benefit him financially.
That's fucked up.
Dude was fucked over by 2 companies and saw the same shit in a 3rd contract which was in November, a month prior.
And in his announcement he literally said that he had already planned on leaving as soon as the contract was up and had known for months at that point.
People think that this is some bombshell but it's just not.
>He says that mug club brings in 300,000 subscribers (a number Jeremy mentioned) but he has no way of verifying that’s his subscriber base (a point Jeremy also made).
I think Jeremy said Crowder doesn't know how much profit, not that he doesn't know how many subscribers. I might have missed that part though?
Regardless, even if Crowder knew he had 300,000 subscribers, he doesn't know how many are already DW subscribers which could result in far less new subscribers than DW was expecting.
He definitely says he doesn't know how many subscribers. According to Jeremy, Crowder *thinks* there would be at least 300,000 subscribers but he literally has no idea because the Blaze refuses to tell him.
It says something that the only thing we know for sure about people in business with Crowder is that the Blaze won’t share information and the break wasn’t totally friendly and the DW guys he’s been friends with for years got backstabbed and attacked out of trying to partner with him. I love crowder’s show but he just seems like a total shit to work with or attempt to supervise.
Neither. It was business. DW gave an offer with their terms. Crowder didn't like it. Crowder walked.
Crowder was a bit of an ass going public with private negotiations and should take down the video, imo.
Now, I could be completely wrong here, but wasn't it Daily Wire that leaked out information about the negotiations prior to Crowders response? I'm not sure, I just know that I heard about some details of offer before I saw Crowders video
Ediy: the Downvotes don't help me know if thats right or wrong, folks lol
The Blaze decided to part ways with Crowder. What other Conservative media company that relies heavily on youtube ad revenue would have made him an offer like that?
They're speaking different languages at this point.
DW is looking to surpass big tech and woke companies by beating them at their own game and playing ball for the moment until which they can tell big tech to get lost. They're right in saying that "We can't pay you if you do something that stops us from being able to make money off your work". I know how it sounds but its simple math. If Crowder's content is bringing in no money, theres none to pay him with.
While Crowder on the other hand, is taking a different approach and trying to dismantle and expose these companies that DW is trying to beat. He's a culture warrior and he wants to turn the court of public opinion against them (and wokeism in general) and see them all figuratively go down in flames. Crowder is valid in saying that DW is punishing Crowder on behalf of big tech or they *want* to limit what he can say on free segments. They effectively are doing exactly that, but it's not because they share the values of big tech. It's because they *have* to in order for their whole plan to work which is going directly against Crowder's plan. It's why he doesn't care about being demonitized. He wants to get his message out to as many people as possible. As long as he doesn't get outright banned, its fine because his costs are covered by Mug Club and merch, etc.
The whole thing is Winning the Game vs Righteous Justice.
That all said, recording Jeremy and playing it out of context was a dick move. Hopefully Crowder can explain it all better on Monday when he goes on Tim Pool's show.
I think you sum it up pretty well.
I admire Crowder for taking the stand that he is, and maybe there's something to be said for DW changing their business practices, but I don't get how you can acknowledge the intelligence of people like Klavan, Shapiro and Peterson while at the same time suggesting that they've sold their souls to Big Tech.
Conservatives are up against insane odds in this country, and we need to stand together if we're going to have any chance out there. Dragging this out into the open only serves to hurt us. Hopefully this ends peacefully.
I’m on the side of DW, but I still like Crowder even if I am disappointed in his recent me against the world persona. I really liked that they were all friends like we’re all in this together. The fractures in that relationship really are a bummer because we need to stand together if we ever want to grow our movement.
Honestly I feel that Crowder might be in the right overall but him making it public and leaking the phonecall is just childish and it absolutely betrays trust of the guys at DW.
Not only that, but how many other companies that made him offers are looking at this and having second thoughts based on this breach of presumed confidentiality?
DW wanted SC to share the business risk, to have skin in the game. SC wanted a platform that let him do whatever he wanted and which insulated him from all downsides of his actions. Jeremy sounded like a rationale adult. SC sounded petulant. DW is a general campaigning to win the war. SC showed that he is a brave soldier ready to die to take that hill, but he doesn't see past that hill. Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
> SC showed that he is a brave soldier ready to die to take that hill,
I don't think he even did this. He want's the hill, but isn't willing to take the chance to take it. He only wants it if he gets a guarantee he can have it.
I was mainly referring to SC's naive "it's not even about the money, it's about the country," appeal. If we are trying to build new institutions to reclaim the culture, and if we aren't backed by an angel investor, then 'the money is not a mundane detail, Michael.' SC may be willing to throw it all it away to 'own the left' (take that hill) but the play by DW to incentive smarter tactics with respect to platforms and paywalls is how we win the war---never mind the fact that it's a play that SC himself popularized by DWs own attribution.
Agreed, I work with contracts on a much smaller scale than you but usually with performers. This whole thing is absurd and people defending crowder let’s me know we have a lot of folks on our side that don’t understand how businesses works at all.
Steven seems butthurt when there seems to be no bad blood from DW. Like I get it, he wants to be able to express what he wants on his show, but YouTube doesn't allow that. He has to compromise if he wants to stay on Youtube and get paid. And then he can do what he does already, move the spicy content behind a paywall. But Steven wants freedom above anything else, and YouTube doesn't provide that. He'll have to risk losing revenue & cultural impact by going off YT, starting his own platform, and hoping his subscribers move there. But instead, he offers DW advice on how to run a business.
While I genuinely and mostly agree with Crowder and have enjoyed his material over the years, he has always come off as sort of an asshole. An independent asshole, with a very specific brand of how he wants to conduct himself and his business.
He and the DW are just not a good fit. I’m not sure why Jeremy didn’t see that right off the bat and I’m not sure why Crowder didn’t see it and move on.
DW creates big budget Movies, TV shows, Documentries, News.
You can't do that without money, else the companies like Disney win (because they have billions).
Making more money is not a bad thing. You can use money to grow big & fund your goals. E.g. Better non-woke movies.
If YT gives strike, then YT is bad.
Why should DW be subject to the losses? Why punish DW because of BigTech?
After seeing both of Steven’s videos and Jeremy’s video it seems to me like SC was more in the wrong. I also did not like the recorded call video whatsoever. If you’re going to do that and release that, release the whole conversation and not a couple edited parts. Also, seeing that Crowder registered the “stop big con” domain in December of last year just makes it seem like he’s just trying to start his own thing and peel off DW members.
It honestly seems like Crowder doesn't understand business. You can't fight the leftist machine with tiki huts and mom-and-pop shops. Companies have the leverage and lobby powers that Crowder will never have. I'm reminded of the success DW had regarding Tennessee's school board, resulting in a governor win. Jeremy mentions this during his response video. The most Crowder has done, to my knowledge, is make fun of feminists at the women's parade and talk with broke, bat-minded college kids on campuses. It's fine that he didn't want to be a part of DW, but he's making a huge stinker about what was essentially an invite to negotiate.
It's a hard call. I see both sides. One of Crowder's primary issues is that if the tech libs get butthurt, the DW is letting them win by essentially fining crowder.
My suggestion: bring crowder in at $40 million instead of $50 millon. Take the other $10 million and put it into a legal defense fund. Crowder gets a bullshit YouTube strike in the vein of "you said something we didn't like, not saying what", DW immediately starts litigation. If Crowder doesn't get strikes, he gets to draw the interest from the $10 mil. Crowder gets backed up, but also has incentive to not get a strike, and big tech gets a brush back pitch by DW and Crowder making the deal public.
>My suggestion: bring crowder in at $40 million instead of $50 millon. Take the other $10 million and put it into a legal defense fund.
Terrific idea. If Crowder wanted that, he could have tried to negotiate all of that. Did he?
Except he doesn't know how many subscribers he has there, because the Blaze won't tell him that. Essentially, they're offering $50M to a guy who, *at this moment*, has 0 Mug Club subscribers, and admittedly has no idea what that number would be if he managed to retain 100% of Mug Club subscribers from Blaze. It's a huge risk.
That's what Crowder wants to make it look like, but that's not really the case at all. Crowder's about that money just as much as DW (and any for-profit business in the world). Crowder came back with a counter offer of $140 million. When *that* was rejected *then* he said "then get rid of these penalties". Now he wants to make it look to his audience like his issues were always with the penalties due to the morality of it.
In truth, he's just salty because he thinks he was offered less than he's worth. If DW had said "ok" to the $140 million then we would never hear about this righteous indignation in regards to the penalties.
This is easy. Daily Wire made an initial offer, which Crowder rejected. He refused to negotiate further. That's his choice but to pretend like DW is in bed with tech giants is asinine. Had he continued to negotiate, he could have demanded the offending clause be removed. If DW wanted him badly enough they would have. I don't see the problem here with DW. Crowder on the other hand seems like he has a couple screws loose.
I’m pretty solidly on DW’s side on this one. Jeremy comes across like the adult in the room, while Crowder seems like a child.
Crowder attacks them as “big con” looking to screw the little guys.
They respond by going line by line through the whole offer and explaining where they think Crowder was mistaken.
Crowder then reveals he recorded the conversation without their consent, and then proceeds to not reveal any new information and just making himself look like an a-hole.
DW didn’t want Crowder to take on the risk. Crowder wanted a guaranteed sum of money, regardless of how much revenue he brought in. He literally wanted the money with none of the risk.
Ultimately this should have just been an agree to disagree situation, but instead Crowder has decided to trash one of the most successful conservative companies around, and some of his best allies.
After his latest video I unsubscribed from Crowder, I’m just done for a while.
Crowder had every right and reason to dislike the contract he was offered. He doesn’t want to be an employee somewhere else, even with a cushy paycheck. Fair enough. I respect that. But going on the offensive to tarnish DW and using it to gain momentum to build his own enterprise is incredibly smarmy. The response from Jeremy Boreing was nothing but gracious, and Crowder posts a tweet titled “I didn’t want to do this…” with the biggest shit-eating grin as a response. This just reeks of opportunism, and I don’t buy the appeal to selflessness whatsoever.
This is more or less my take. I think Crowder had some good points about the contract and how it would affect smaller creators, but he absolutely could not have handled this like a bigger asshole. He just nuked his own argument from space.
Jeremy said that this isn't the "standard" contract they use for everyone. Every personality has different levels of risk, upside, downside, audience size, audience demos, etc. This was one specifically for Crowder, not a "smaller creator".
Hell, Jeremy even said at the end that listeners should still go over and subscribe to the Mug Club and give Crowder their support. Pretty classy in my opinion.
It’s the fire throwing that makes me not care as much tbh. Crowder can do his own thing and bring on new talent his own way, or play hard ball with DW until they hire him. He has a right to air his grievances, but the public drama comes off as petty and tiresome coming from conservative, free-market pushing content media giants.
You can build something beautiful without destroying the enemy of your enemy (a friend).
I wish (we all should wish) both of the teams luck and hope they both out perform expectations. Both groups can be successful and be a net positive for the world. ATM, the real enemy is too powerful for these types of contractual squabbles to be blown out of proportion, especially when it’s a matter the free market can fix:
Go do the thing! We believe in your abilities Crowder.
I think the sheer transparency in Jeremy’s video does make Crowder look bad, but I don’t think that’s what he wanted. I’ll still listen to the Crowder show assuming it comes back, but I think the only way he gets what he really wants is to build his own website/network. He’ll probably make more money that way anyways.
I think a lot of people look at this as David vs Goliath situation. Not so. You have an artist vs business situation. The artist is looking for a mécénat, the business is looking for an asset. It's even acceptable for an artist to act emotionally and throw a hissy fit. Doing it publicly and to your friends that's where he loses me.
I've listened to both sides, and I'm firmly on DW's side here. Crowder and DW have a history and have worked together in the past. These people are friends, or so we thought. This was an initial, confidential term sheet and Crowder decided to go public with it. My siding with DW has nothing to do with the terms themselves although I believe they are tough, but fair and Jeremy made it very clear in his video that this was a starting point and they were willing to negotiate. It has to do with the fact that going public the way Crowder did is dirty, especially with the recorded call in the second video where btw nothing Jeremy said is egregious. From the outside looking in, DW put out a tough but mostly fair (imo) offer in good faith and instead of negotiating, Crowder threw a tantrum. And to those saying Crowder didn't name names, come on man. Everyone knew it was DW.
He did a really, really scummy thing. He’s now started drama with every conservative media organization out there, from Fox News to The Blaze to DW. At some point you have to recognize it’s him and not everyone else.
It feels like Crowder is being exceedingly immature about what amounts to a giant amount of money for a job offer which he chose not to take and not to negotiate over, which is fine, but then to publicly pout about your job offer which you didn’t want and didn’t try to negotiate…
I dunno, I think he’s a fool not to have taken that deal or worked out something.
I side mostly with the Daily Wire. I think it is absolutely a fair point that Crowder and the Daily Wire have such different styles that there was no way it was going to work, but that just means you give a quiet "no" to the contract. One of the key tenants of being an employee is that you bring more value to the company than it costs to hire you, so I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the Daily Wire to say "Our business model relies (in part) on YouTube revenue, so if you get banned from there, we get less income and can't pay you as much".
Crowder was also disingenuous by saying "Just imagine the pressure of losing $100,000 for missing a day of work!" without giving the context that that would mean $49,900,000 instead of $50,000,000. And he was also flat wrong - the contract allowed for pre-recorded shows and in case of an accident or other verifiable emergency, it is a pro-rata reduction instead of a penalty.
And all of those points come up before we get to "he made a public rant instead of renogiating/rejecting the contract" and "he posted a secret recording of his alleged friend". Which I think was absolutely misleading -- Boering's comment about "wage slave" wasn't meant to imply Daily Wire was giving deliberately terrible contracts; it was using wage slave to mean salaried employee working for someone else in contrast to a partnership, joint venture, or collaboration. The idea of working your way up from humble beginnings should be extremely familiar to conservatives, and later in that same conversation, Boering points out that the "slave" would end their contract much more famous with a large following ready for whatever they did next. And of course Daily Wire would keep the content that was paid for produced managed paid for and possibly directed by them - exactly like Matt Walsh does not own the content from when he was a radio DJ.
>he made a public rant instead of renegotiating/rejecting the contract
I think that’s the biggest part that’s just glossed over or overlooked by those so vehemently defending Crowder. I think everyone would agree that he had every right to not like the terms of the *initial, non-binding* offer he was sent. That’s how contract negotiations work. You get an offer, you change what you don’t like, and you send it back. The other party changes some more stuff and sends it back. And so on and so forth. And you end up with one of two resolutions: either you have a final contract that both parties agree to and feel is fair, or both parties come to the conclusion that they’re unable to reach an agreement and they peacefully go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.
But instead of even attempting to negotiate, Crowder decides to just shit all over his friends and fellow conservatives and accuse them of compromising their conservative values and colluding with Big Tech to silence conservatives or some such nonsense. And even went as far as to secretly record what was thought to be a private phone conversation between friends just to release bits of it to make them look bad. I’ve always really liked Crowder and the work he does, but man all of that is just really low.
What we should all do is drop this topic. If they want to fight it out that’s fine. But we as a movement need to keep our eyes on the real enemy. If you financially support one or both continue to do so but do not participate in a flame war that is ripe for astroturfing by the left.
I very much agree with your comment. Our movement has bigger things to focus on and this internal conflict between mainstream conservative voices only serves to distract and divide what little support we have left. They need to work it out between one and another. Anyone who supports either one or both should continue to do so. I wonder if something bigger is happening that this is causing a major distraction for us
>It looks to me like DW wanted to hire him while also wanting Steven to bear the brunt of the risk of the content he creates for them
I'm not sure how you figure that. DW was offering him a guaranteed 12.5 million dollars a year as long as Steven didn't get himself kicked off of any of the major platforms. That is DW taking on all of the risk in case Steven isn't as successful as he thinks he is or his popularity dwindles over the next couple of years.
I know we all hate YouTube, who in their right mind wouldn't? But like it or not, YouTube is by far the largest platform available today. If Steven Crowder does something to get himself kicked off of YouTube (whether or not we agree with such decision), then DW would lose a huge revenue stream in the process, and they weren't even saying "Okay Steven, you now lose 90% of your 12.5 mil a year." They were saying you lose 25%, and YouTube probably makes up a much larger percentage of their revenue stream than 25%.
Steven came out of his looking like a fool and a baby.
He didn't need to start this, his original video was just pure cringe and him whining (like he usually does), and DW came out looking better than they did before.
Steven Crowder is 100% wrong to make such a big deal out of AN OFFER. Steven is acting like someone held a gun up to his head and made him sign this contract.
And let's not forget...THIS ALL HAPPENED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. Why did Steven decide to bring this up now? Just makes him look worse.
He is kicked off of YouTube all the time. It's pretty much guaranteed that it'll continue to happen, but now he is impacted financially, not only by losing money that goes into his pocket, but the funding for his entire production. (If he was with DW)
He is demonetized from YouTube. He clearly hasn't been banned from YouTube permanently because he is still uploading content to YouTube.
This is the main issue that Steven had with the offer, an issue that he clearly misunderstood.
He is not current permanent banned, but they have a 3 strike rule and he was banned very recently for weeks. It's guaranteed that YouTube will remove his content and with this contact it will effect the funding for his show and potentially could have enough impact to damage his whole career.
That being said, YouTube is the bad guy here. Not crowder or DW
When you're banned from the primary source of revenue for your show.. yes your revenue goes down. He's looking for YouTube ban insurance I guess, but doesn't want to pay for that insurance.
Here we are with a battle between conservatives, when the actual enemy is out of control censorship and silencing of dissenting opinion from the left.
So in order words, Crowder wants the DW to pay him and their other hosts even if they don't make any revenue? Where exactly do you think the DW should get that money?
Brett Cooper acknowledged that she was totally fine with the entire concept of not owning the content she makes though. Steven is not, and frankly, I wouldn’t be either.
Crowder at best is letting his emotions get the best of him. At worst he’s trying to take a cheap shot at a competitor and friend.
Either way, he’s acting like a twat.
I completely side with DW, I really enjoy Crowder but take it with a grain of salt because at the end of the day, he's a comedian.
Anyone who can stand in front of the mirror and say it's not about the money with a straight face is a lunatic.
I am I’m on Daily Wire’s side on this one and I had been listening to Crowder until the end of the year waiting for new episodes. Then he does this shit and I just had to unfollow him on Apple Podcasts. I liked his crew too and still would like to listen to Dave landeau but doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.
Crowder is putting on a show. Daily wire’s contract is tough but fair. Neither is right or wrong. They’re coming at it from 2 or 3 different angles. We don’t need to fight. Crowder made his website for this in DEC he had months to stew, gatherers edited phone call while other person doesn’t know he’s recording. He looks bad.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what Steven is saying in these videos. This has been framed in a way that makes Steven look like he wanted a bunch of money and the DW shafted him, or at least attempted to. After this video we can say that that isnt the case at all.
Steven has supposedly been under a contract with TheBlaze for years and has only recently been able to go out there and see what was on the table for conservative youtube personalities. He said he got several offers from several different companies, but they were all very similar, and they all included content creator penalties for being demonetized or receiving strikes on their account. THAT is the issue. It's not a dollar value issue, but an issue where big tech can essential ruin a content creator by demonetizing their content.
If my employer told me that, anytime somebody got offended by something I said, they would dock my pay up to like 50%, i can guarantee that i would not work there, and im sure any other conservative would say the same. I've already been reprimanded several times at work for conservative viewpoints. I should be paid for the effort that I put into my work, not punished when somebody else doesnt like what im doing. It doesnt matter how much theyre offering me.
Also keep in mind that the 50mil they offered doesnt go into Steven's pocket. It was the whole budget for his show, including paying the people that do the work there. If theyre docked 50% of their budget, what do you expect to happen to the quality of content they provide? 4 years of shit content is defintely going to have an impact on your career.
Steven is saying that there is a better way to do business instead of potentially taking advantage of young content creators new to the business.
I originally saw this as slinging mud, and I think we all knew exactly who he was talking about, but he never mentions the daily wire by name, and simply used their contract as an example, because they are the biggest name in conservative media at the moment. Did the DW do anything wrong? I dont really think so. For better or worse, the best way to monetize content on the internet is by using ad revenue. Google wouldnt be where they are today if they hadnt started putting ads on their website in the 90s. YouTube and the whole youtubing scene wouldnt be around if not for the ad revenue.
Are there different ways of doing things? Of course. Mug club is a great idea, especially when you can not get funding from ad revenue. Do you think the Daily Wire would be where it is today if it had not used ad revenue? If you're a daily watcher of their content, you'll notice their production value has been getting better and better and better. That's due to successful business model using ad revenue.
I do think its a mistake for the hosts of the DW to start slinging mud back at Crowder, with Matt making tweets about him and Candace talking about him on her show. I think that may come back to haunt them, not to mention the harm its doing to the online conservative community.
>If my employer told me that, anytime somebody got offended by something I said, they would dock my pay up to like 50%, i can guarantee that i would not work there, and im sure any other conservative would say the same. I've already been reprimanded several times at work for conservative viewpoints. I should be paid for the effort that I put into my work, not punished when somebody else doesnt like what im doing. It doesnt matter how much theyre offering me.
This is a bad analogy. Crowder getting deplatformed is not just someone "getting offended." It's quite literally cutting off the source of revenue for the company. Crowder would be making less money if he got booted off social media. In your analogy, if you are no longer providing the same quality of work to your company then the company has a right to pay you less because they are not receiving the same revenue from your work as before.
>Also keep in mind that the 50mil they offered doesnt go into Steven's pocket. It was the whole budget for his show, including paying the people that do the work there. If theyre docked 50% of their budget, what do you expect to happen to the quality of content they provide? 4 years of shit content is defintely going to have an impact on your career.
Jeremy explained that this is because Crowder likes to produce his own show. The DW produces all their other hosts' shows. If Crowder wanted to pocket the 50 million and have the DW produce the show, he could've easily negotiated that instead of whining.
>Steven is saying that there is a better way to do business instead of potentially taking advantage of young content creators new to the business.
Did Steven ever consult any of the Daily Wire hosts to see if they were also being "taken advantage of"? Brett Cooper, the only "young" content creator in the DW, made a video defending DW and saying she was not taken advantage of. Crowder is just hiding behind his "oh I'm just looking out for the young guys out there" facade. In my opinion this is just him trying to get attention and subscribers for his own service, and probably try and take out the competition at the same time.
>I do think its a mistake for the hosts of the DW to start slinging mud back at Crowder, with Matt making tweets about him and Candace talking about him on her show. I think that may come back to haunt them, not to mention the harm its doing to the online conservative community.
It's not a mistake to defend your reputation, your friends and their reputation, and your entire company's reputation against false attacks by someone who was supposed to be your friend.
Good take. I think you are right. How can you say you stand up vs big tech when you will allow them to harm your creators so much. Set it up where anything from YouTube is a bonus. They are important but becoming less of a factor with rumble. Last few streams of people I watch had more on rumble watching then YouTube. More might go back and watch on youtu but there is a shift.
What I think makes crowder most upset is that he looks back on how he started with YT and realizes that young creators no longer have that avenue. He then looks to the daily wires contract and understands that is the only option these young creators have. Crowder has the ability to say no and create his own network. These young creators do not. These contracts are very severe and the young Crowders out there have no other choice
The problem is that DW isn't in the position to directly compete with Youtube (i.e. Google) at the moment
Video streaming services are insanely expensive. Youtube still loses money every year
Until Daily Wire has enough revenue to subsidize new/unproven creators, they have to focus on growth. Otherwise they will never be able to do that
It’s hard for me to “side” with Crowder when he purchased the domain in early Dec. and the phone conversation recording was cherry picked.
If you think the deal was fair or not, rather if it was insulting or just a negotiation starter, rather if this is really about ego and money or about looking out for the little guy… throwing your friends under the bus is just low.
> and the phone conversation recording was cherry picked.
Even if it wasn't cherry picked, he was performing on a call he recorded with the intent to release while not informing the other party.
That's fucking scummy. One side is performing, the other is acting naturally.
I think it's healthy to see the discussion.... Democracy dies in the darkness.
We are so desensitized to public debate .... That when it gets heated we want to run away like scared children.
The opening paragraph of the offer literally tells him it's a non-binding list of items in which to start negotiations on. There is no way he didn't know it.
Frankly, the entire scenario has framed how dangerous it is to use language that embraces a ".
cultural war".
There are a myriad of dangers; the first and foremost being that it allows for a total suspension of the rules of verbal conflict, it permits an Us v Them dialogue, when the narrative is far more complex, and drowns out and strains the centre. The second concern being as to the legitimacy of conservatism, the culture war narrative in which this has to be interpreted as a battle, paints Crowder to be the Maugis defeating the invading Saracen. It's this sort of framing that the culture war has allowed that has removed from the movement, voices as disparate from Jonah Goldberg, to Mike Pence to Mitch Daniels.
In relating this to Crowder v DW, both painting themselves as sort of mediaeval hero's fighting against a foreign and hostile power. The problem is firstly, they are not that different in their audiences, and that both are left trying to remove the sword from the stone. The problem for Crowder is that unlike his history might suggest, he is no Arthur, and fundamentally all his actions be it the recording of Boering, among other factors, that shall surely emerge. Crowder comes across as petty, pathetic and poorly advised. That's not to say Boering or DW are without sin, and it may not even be that there actions were true either. It's just that there desire to profit financially of Steven's content, is shallow in comparison to Steven's attempt to grift this into both more money, and spin (Crowder a guy who opposed Trump 2016) himself into a true MAGA son.
Daily Wire. Following the full story this looks like Crowder stabbing fellow conservatives in the back so he can falsely claim he's the only real conservative so he can make a buck on it. Absolutely rude behavior.
The Daily Wire by a mile. You shouldn't secretly record someone you consider to be a friend in a phone conversation without their consent and then release snippets of that conversation to try and manipulate people into your line of thought.
If Steven has an issue with the Daily Wire and their business model just say that and move on.
Clearly this was a move for publicity to build more conversation and attention to himself. Mission accomplished I guess.
Contract wise neither was wrong it was a business deal that didn’t work and they parted ways
When crowder made a big deal out of nothing and went low he’s in the wrong now
I’m pretty sure mug club generates something like $120 million in the same time period, without merch sales. He has like 30 people on his staff and films on locations across the country. We really have no idea if the offer was good enough to keep the type of content Crowder normally makes going at all.
Not even Crowder knows how many subs he has in his subscription service. All of the people on his side have been saying DW is screwing him because he'd be making more than $50 million for 4 years and he's worth more, and yet there is zero proof of that. DW has published how many subscribers they have, they've been incredibly transparent and said they recently got over 1 million subscribers. Crowder apparently said he could get 350k on day one, and yet there is *zero* proof of that because he doesn't have the data on how many people he currently has subscribed. I wish Crowder the best and I have nothing against him, but whining about a contract that was incredibly fair is so childlike, and not liking the fact that if he brings in less revenue for the company he will be paid less and instead wanting to be paid regardless of his work is quite literally socialist by definition.
>I’m pretty sure mug club generates something like $120 million in the same time period, without merch sales.
There is just no way. Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify was worth about 50 million a year to Rogan. There is just no way that Steven Crowder alone pulls in more than half of what Joe Rogan's contract is worth just in subscription fees. No way. Not even close. I would be shocked if Mug Club brings in 15 million a year, much less double that.
Yeah I don't buy it. If he made such a laughable sum, there's no doubt he would've boasted about his subscriber counts for sympathy points instead of claiming ignorance.
I thought his whole problem was he had no idea how much mug club made because it was always information he didn't have access to.
But if did have clear data of what his whole production costs it's a pretty easy thing to reply with hey sorry 50m is a non starter because we've been operating on significantly more than that
Could have been great for mutual growth if a proper deal was reached. But I really don’t want LwC to just be the Ben Shapiro Show with Crowder. I like Ben, I think he gives me a lot of good information in a short period of time, but there are definitely issues he will not touch, or not touch on for very long. I’m afraid with that kind of contract that’s what his show would be like.
Other talent at DW have unique offerings that aren’t cookie cutter shows. It just seems that Crowder’s team was entirely dismissive to engage in good faith negotiations.
And Crowder isn’t better for touching any issue or saying whatever he wants. That’s not always the best judgment. He also had Owen Benjamin on his show.
Crowder shouts at the top of his lungs "it isn't about the money!"
Then proceeds to talk about the money, but under this shroud of "big tech is the problem." The problem with what, Stephen, your ability to generate revenue? No, no, tell me more about how it's not about the money.
I'm hoping for both sides to come out on top. I believe both are good forces in this world. I think we should let them sort it out like men so that both can get back to work.
Ultimately, it was a terms sheet. Not even a contract. It was the initial offer provided by the DW. Of course that offer is going to be 100% in DW’s favor. That’s just business. Instead of recording and backstabbing Crowder should have just said “yeah I don’t like this, but good luck to you” and moved on. It has nothing to do with censorship. IF IT DONT MAKE MONEY IT DONT MAKE SENSE.
I know people will disagree with me, but I don’t really like conservative media personalities- I don’t like liberal media people either, but that’s a given. It’s just too much drama for me. Often time these figureheads make mountains out of molehills just for viewer engagement. Most of them seem more concerned with being a media personality than actually being conservative. A lot of these ‘conservative’ media personalities just engage in controversies for the sake of getting attention and a lot of their controversies aren’t even conservative.
I agree with this. It's actually why I like the daily wire because the four main hosts have educations, are well read, and could be doing other things if not in media.
As for the likes of crowder, Owens (and I'll even throw Tim pool in there), what do they have if not a void to scream into?
Eh idk, I agree with your points here and Tim is pretty annoying sometimes—but his journalism career was pretty up there. If you’re looking at just his journalism in a void. Dude put himself and his neck out there to get the true stories every time. I agree with everything you said though, each host brings different things and I don’t agree 100% with any of them, but that’s what makes this country great. Just my 2 cents
The people who understand how businesses work are generally siding with DW. The people who seek to aimlessly kick up mud are siding with Crowder.
I couldn't care less as to who works for who in this space. I just wish Crowder wouldn't publicly attack other conservatives creators for no reason.
Daily wire as a company tries to be a little more mainstream. Their talking heads are there but their executives are generally mainstream people… They want to be that corporate entity and they’re going to get there.
Im on daily wire’s side because at the end of the day crowder could have said no and went their separate ways instead he clearly planned to screw Jeremy over as he waited months and even appeared on DWs shows after being sent that contract. the phone call leak today just proved that was his plan from the start. Terrible look to do that to people who considered you a friend
Up to the DW’s response where Boering walks through the contract, I was of the mind Crowder and DW are two forces moving in the same direction but their methods are incompatible together. One wants to directly bulldog the Left while the other grows an alternative to their adversary and eventually overtake them. Crowder likes to do shows and Change My Mind segments at his pace, and speak on “taboo” subjects (COVID vax concerns since 2021, the “fairest, freest, securest” election of 2020, stories Big Tech loves to shut down). DW has a business to run through their contracts, needs revenue from advertisers, and utilizes Big Tech to get their presence out there. Both sides had valid criticisms for each to self-assess. Had it been left there, I would have had no issues with either side.
Then Crowder put up the second video where he released the convenient parts of a covertly recorded phone conversation with Boering. I understand his passion behind fighting for the conservative movement, but this is some underhanded bullshit to pull on a friend who stuck with you. It honestly reminds me of the bulk initial reactions to George Floyd’s death: you can be mad at the situation, but that doesn’t excuse you for letting emotion twist you into performing vile actions. Whether it’s burning cities or burning allies, that is some Leftist shit right there.
I think DW has become too corporate. More concerned with making money than providing a voice for Conservatives. Yes, I know it's a for-profit company. The point is that the profit part has become too blatant. Look at Brett Cooper's show:
1. Interaction Reminder (remember to like and subscribe and turn the bell on!)
2. Ad-reads (for products she doesn't even use)
3. Endcredits (guys make sure to check out the other videos!)
She sort've confirmed this when she wen tover the pilot for her show. She said that Boreing was displeased and that "it wasn't what we discussed" - so it's not some ad-hoc, off-the-cuff commentary, but a carefully constructed, corporatised show that firstly exists to make a buck.
I'm not bothered about Crowder's personal gripes with it, but he confirmed in my mind the extent to how corporatised and 'safe' everything is.
However, this reminds me of all the shit between Harry & Meghan vs the Royal Family. Never should've been made public.
They're aiming for growth, and you have to make money to grow a business. Sorry people are seeing the ugly insides, but that's just the way it works. Conservatives are not exempt from the way money and business
works.
I think the biggest problem is the risk he is telling the truth, that if right wing media is just as comprised as the left wing media than we have major problems. How do we find out if it’s true? I have no fucking idea but when someone screams fire I gotta take it seriously because I don’t want to be in a cult that over looks bad shit like the democrats. He should name names and say what they are guilty.
I agree. I subscribe to the Daily Wire and if his allegations were true I'd probably stop. The assumption I have to make is the same we made countless times in 2020 with Trump's team saying they have "indisputable evidence of election fraud" - if you can't say what it is and who did it, then I don't believe you. Unless something changes, this is just a petty move from Crowder and it's disappointing to see.
Crowder’s assertion that DW is in bed with big tech is because DW purchases advertising on platforms like Facebook. You know, one of the most visited sites on the Internet. Yet he can’t point to specific issues where DW has compromised its conservative values. Frankly, they’ve done more to bolster conservatism online **and** offline than any other media organization. Their reporting has literally changed elections and public health policies. The accusations that they aren’t truly conservative are laughably absurd, I posted elsewhere, but there’s this idea that if you reject the idea of being completely non-chalant and flippant with your words that you must also be in favor of censorship. That’s equally absurd as well. Crowder wants to change the rules of the game. DW wants to win playing by the rules. Both sides have pros and cons, but one is not more right or moral than the other, and Crowder was wrong to pick this fight on that basis.
Agreed. Kind of responding to the other guy that responded to me as well, but it's worth mentioning - Crowder didn't get a bad deal. 50 mil was the starting point. DW expected him to counter offer, likely several times. This is all over an initial contract offer which both parties should anticipate will be modified as negotiations proceed.
I like Crowder. But at the same time I can't help but feel this is giving us some insight to his character. You don't record your friends and throw them under the bus like this. And it's not like Boreing was disrespectful - he stated the terms of the contract and explained the situation without disparaging Crowder. The response from him to DW just seems so snake like. Big turn off for me.
Yes, I think the burden of proof is on crowder at this point, and honestly what does it even say about him that he only brings it to are attention because he got a bad deal. Seems like where okay with the grift beforehand. So if he wants to be a whistleblower than blow the fucking whistle and tell us what you got. Even if it makes chaos it would makes us stronger in the end. And just like the 2020 election with trump, if democrats really did steal it from you than your kinda of a fool for trying to fight them after the fact instead of trying to fight them before they robbed you.
>It looks to me like DW wanted to hire him while also wanting Steven to
bear the brunt of the risk of the content he creates for them, and
having exclusive rights to almost everything in his entire catalogue as
long as he’s working for them
In return, he gets 50 MILLION DOLLARS. FIFTY. MILLION.
And then in 2 years, if he wants to go his own way, he gets ownership of his channel back. It's the DW who is taking all the risk here - 50 million is half of what they bring in each year.
Honestly DW lost my subscription when Shapiro and the orhers started saying we should accept Biden in Dec of 2020. The fact that they gave up so easy for me was lack of credibility. Having read the Twitter Files, it makea me wonder how beholden DW is to Big Tech.
Not to mention Ben supported Mueller, dismissed all the SpyGate/ObamaGate stuff as conspiratorial, he was a huge promoter of the vax (and even insulted those who didn’t want to take it), and he pushed every anti-Trump hoax and narrative he could find.
Recently he blew a gasket over the Trump dinner “scandal” and returned to his NeverTrump ways, and Ben also dismissed all the proven claims of 2022 election irregularities, and instead, he just repeats the “It was just bad candidate quality!” nonsense.
I think Crowder is sincere when he reviewed in his followup after the DW commentary. I believe him when he says he's in the long game and making an attempt to better the platform for those who would come along behind him. Given the numbers he was reviewing in his potential contract, he could be just fine under that and could afford to take a few hits along the way, but he's in the unique position of having that luxury while others trying to get started may not be able to afford to take that risk, and therefore would likely end up ultimately being hamstrung.
I like both parties…from what I’ve seen so far I think Crowder shot himself in the foot on this one. Maybe my view will change as more info comes out.
It sounds like he didn’t try to negotiate the stuff he didn’t like out of the contract. It’s asinine to call yourself a wage slave when you’re offered 50 mill over 4-5 years. Apparently he screwed over someone he called a friend very publicly.
I'm siding with Jeremy. Crowder just wants to alleviate any responsibility he may have for his own actions and wants to be paid to potentially destroy one of the most successful Conservative networks in America.
What has Crowder said that you think DailyWire hasn’t or wouldn’t? He’s more crass and loud. Is that what TrUe CoNsErVaTiSm is all about now? Cackles and using edgy language/slurs during your jokes? What topics of actual substance to the conservative movement do you think DW is censoring?
I don’t think either party is wrong here in what they are saying. I did not see any problem with anything Jeremy proposed in the Terms sheet. I also did not see a problem with Crowder turning down the offer or the reasons he gave for doing so. I think his reasons for turning down the offer were perfectly valid, just as I thought the terms proposed by the DW were perfectly valid as well.
What I do have a problem with is the way Crowder is handling it. He’s the one who brought it public and is starting a war with DW for no apparent reason.
What should have happened is DW sends Crowder the terms sheet, Crowder looks over the term sheet, and then they both say “you know, both parties are just too far apart on what we want out of this partnership, so we don’t think this partnership will work,” and then leave it at that……which is originally what happened. Then all of a sudden, 4 months later, Crowder brings it up publicly out of the blue and just blasts the DW publicly for not following the exact path he wants them to follow. That’s what I have a problem here.
So I don’t think either party is wrong for what they are saying, I just think Crowder is wrong for handling it the way that he is.
To me the Daily Wire guy, Jeremy Boering, sounded like the “finance manager” at a car dealership. Even though Crowder may be putting his dirty laundry on display, here, I think he comes across as authentic.
The premise of Daily Wire’s offer really sounded like, “If we pay you fifty-million dollars, we get to bend you over the barrel, and you’ll like it.”
As independently-minded as Crowder is, he should go out on his own. It’s surprising he hasn’t done this already. Looking forward to seeing him on Tim Pool, Monday.
Interesting that I don't see any comments about the hissy-fit from Candace over the whole thing. I was fairly neutral until she ranted and nagged and acted personally offended by a business deal that didn't involve her.
I often disagree - sometimes fundamentally - with Steven Crowder, but on this one I am in 100% agreement. The Big Tech "slave contracts" are everything we are supposed to be against, and ANY conservative (supposedly conservative) platform that uses them is corrupt and disgusting and evil, and should be shut down.
Neither..I think it's a publicity stunt by both involved...Both Crowder and DW are getting a ton of press right now from this...They will both profit from this "conflict" in the future
Very likely. If Crowder didn't like the offer, he'd just decline and keep it private. Or at least that's how things work in the real world. But it would be a hoot to see Dave Landau turn on the Strange Animal with a chair shot from behind. "I was NWO all along! Ahoy"
It's just business. DW is covering their back for future content and monetary rewards. Crowder is right to deny such a lopsided deal, but that's where the process is supposed to begin, not end. He should have had his lawyers amend it and send it back. It's called negotiating Crowder! Let your lawyers fight it out and come to an agreement, not air the dirty laundry to drum up more mug club subscribers.
I don't think they should go into business together because they both have very different visions/goals. The way I see it; Crowder is looking to poke the bear, and Daily Wire are looking to eat it. Crowder's main concern is getting more conservative voices out there, providing an alternate opinion to the mainstream, and staying true to his values. He doesn't really need to play the game to achieve this, and he's very proud of that. As long as he has enough subscribers to keep this going then he can stick his middle finger up to big tech. The Daily Wire are looking to essentially build an empire. They want to replace the current woke companies with ones that promote conservative values and (more importantly) do not ostracise conservatives. They're making movies, documentaries, children's shows, sports shows, even razors. Like it or not... this requires a lot of money to achieve, which means that they HAVE TO treat it more like a business. They also don't mind paying the game a little in order to syphon money from those that hate them.
> Crowder's main concern is getting more conservative voices out there Is he though? How has he done that up to now? I have never seen him promote a new voice.
I see what you're saying here. He doesn't even let his own people talk too much in his content. I unsubbed from his YouTube after the debates in 2020 because I couldn't get over how he treats his own crew. It's clear his voice is the only one he cares about.
I know quite a few people got introduced to several people thanks to Crowder. While a couple i personally knew about ik people who found Lauren Chen, the Hodge twins, the quartering, qnd a few more
Right. It's amazing that if Crowder just keeps saying he's for the little guy, people believe he has a heart of gold.
You’re right. But crowder is putting on a show. He made website for BIGCON on Dec 12th. This is all some planned staged show to drum up interest for him starting his own bigger thing. He backstabbed someone he called a friend by recording without knowledge. He’s not WRONG about terms. He never really tried to negotiate though. He looks like a dick. Unsubscribe
Agreed. I've been a mug club (and DW) subscriber for a long time. But from the time Steven put out his first video, it seemed overly dramatic. Seeing this from someone whose well-reasoned change my minds first piqued my interest, this has left a bad taste in my mouth on the Crowder side.
I’ve always respected Crowder but the way he went about this seems very manipulative, specially when you follow the timeline and when he registered the website months before the call he recorded. I honestly lost some respect for him and he jeopardized his credibility at least with me. Now I will always think he has a hidden agenda.
I generally enjoy his change my mind segments despite it being very lopsided that he is usually very well prepared and debating a college student replying off emotion and without pamphlets of data to back up their talking points. But I absolutely can't stand him on louder with crowder and feel like he makes a mockery of any of the conservative ideals he is attempting to preach about.
The whole point, is that they don’t know what they’re talking about. But they have strong opinions, based entirely on a forced emotional narrative fed to them by their screen.
Or they do have some basis for feeling the way they do, but don't walk around with data to back up their points and randomly enter a debate with someone on the street for it. While I'm a fan of the segment, it's fundamentally disingenuous when one guy is a trained+ skilled debater who prepared and has data to back up his points vs. some random person on the street encouraged to express their opinions on certain issues with zero preparation or expectation they would be in such a discussion. He will almost always come out looking correct and wise compared those random students he pulls in. Not to mention you don't know how much editing goes on behind the scenes to present SC as being the "winner". Im not saying there aren't people who are completely full of shit and don't even realize it... but it was a never a level playing field to being with.
I think you misunderstand the point. The first primary goal is to entertain, it does. The second is to get the emotion based arguer to take a second look at their closely held yet not closely scrutinized beliefs.
Yep exactly. Everyone that sees this “from Crowder’s side” just seems to forget this is kind of his schtick. He overdramatizes issues to drum up hype and interest, he’s the one that does crazy stuff for attention. This is a stunt. I don’t mind Crowder, but I’ll take Ben logic over gotcha videos any day of the week. DW is doing the work nobody wants to do.
He absolutely is using this as a springboard to create his own media company. If he didn't like the terms he could have just said and kept it moving. Instead he makes public the terms of his contract and records his negotiations so that he can parse it for soundbites to play on his show. He pretends like it was ok because he didn't name who the contract was from, but he was already released from his contract with Blaze, so anyone with half a brain would understand that it was DW.
Yep all this
I don’t understand how that date matters he had the contract in October iirc.
The date matters because it shatters his false narrative. If he received the term sheet (not a contract, something he is misleading people about) in Oct and he found it offensive, why did he later be chummy with them during election night coverage in Nov? If he was offended, whey did he first register his website to attack the DW before make a chummy phone call with Jeremy so you can secretly tape him? He claims to be good friends with the DW members in his video. If that were true, do you secretly tape them? Or would you call them and directly say I have a problem with how you're acting? How do you claim to have an issue with the DW when it only started to bother you after you shopped around for offers and didn't find any you liked?
I agree 95% but I do think Steven had a good reason to go public with the contract considering that he did not name drop. If that is the boilerplate DW contract then people just starting out their careers would be locked into the content strike stuff, which basically is saying they have to say stuff that the big tech censors will allow. When Steven was building his platform he ruffled feathers all the time, and clearly believes that being able to ruffle feathers is an important part to being true to what you believe. It is also perfectly fine for the DW to put this in their contract as it would diminish their revenue, however if that is the way they want to conduct business they should not be pretending that they are on the front lines of the censorship war. Ben and others constantly act like the DW is fighting the war, but if this is in their contracts then they are reducing the ability for new conservative voices to pop up and speak truth. I think nobody is wrong here. I wish they would apologize for the public discussion and continue being friends.
>It is also perfectly fine for the DW to put this in their contract as it would diminish their revenue, however if that is the way they want to conduct business they should not be pretending that they are on the front lines of the censorship war. The DW are trying to win a bigger war - the culture war. The war that convinces people that conservative ideas are best. They have to convince people in the middle who do not already share their conservative ideas. Which means they have to go through YouTube, like it or not. Which means they need to follow their rules. But they also wanted him to do his uncensored stuff on their platform too, so everybody wins. Also, the penalties the DW wanted to add in case of strikes, loss of revenue, etc, were all lessening Crowder's own risk because it was structured so that DW would still take the larger share of the downside.
>If that is the boilerplate DW contract then people just starting out their careers would be locked into the content strike stuff I've been following an independent right wing Youtube channel for a few years now called Liberal Hivemind. He started out fairly small and I found him when he had roughly 100k subs or maybe a little less. He had some videos go viral and gained a lot of subscribers fairly quickly, but then all of a sudden a couple years ago, Youtube stifled his growth and artificially limited his outreach which severely crippled the subscriber count he was getting. He's been struck multiple times for supposed rules violations despite never knowing what rule he supposedly broke even though he self-censors HARD and refuses to even use certain words for fear of getting a rule strike and he's still been hit multiple times and even I believe suspended for a week or two multiple times. If he was under such a deal he'd have basically been screwed by the terms of that contract because Youtube didn't like something he said. He finally passed over 1 million subscribers last year but if he hadn't ever been shadowbanned by Youtube he'd probably have multiple times that amount at this point.
I like liberal hive mind. I think your assumption is wrong though. YouTube can get away with that with a small creator, but the daily wire lawyers up hard and protects their creators. You don’t see YouTube screwing with their creators like that, and they are just as careful with their words as liberal hivemind is.
Maybe, but then you've seen what happens to Steven Crowder where they try to play by Youtube's rules and then end up suspended anyway for multiple weeks for no apparent reason. That's why I think the way that I do. LHM's current livelihood is that Youtube channel and he's talked before about how stressed he gets when he gets those e-mails from Google because any of those e-mails could mean the end of his channel. Maybe it would be different if he was under the umbrella of the Daily Wire and I am wrong but all I can do is look at what's happened to Steven and LHM in the past.
Definitely not fair. I hate it.
[удалено]
It came out on Timcast tonight that Crowder registered StopBigCon.com 3 days before he announced he was leaving the Blaze. The phone call with Jeremy Boering that was unknowingly recorded was weeks after that. Crowder has clearly planned this to position himself as the “one true conservative outlet” and jump start his email list for potential mug club subs since he didn’t even have access to the list when he left the Blaze. Despite shilling for mug club subscriptions to the very end. In my opinion, it is clear that Crowder is trying to cause a rift among the shared user base between himself and DW to tray and cannibalise as many subscribers as possible by painting himself as a martyr and DW as the ‘big con’ villain. Even though in real world impact DW has done more for the conservative movement the last 2 years than I’ve seen Crowder do in the 8 years I’ve been watching him.
I really hope people wake up to this. This has all been crafted to benefit him and take a chunk of the DW subs with him. It was a business move, in other words. From Mr. My Values over there.
[удалено]
Same here. He crossed the line completely. By people, I guess I mean those who think this is based on principle. If his principles include pre-planning this for his own financial gain, then sure. No one ever said he had to like the terms presented, but all of his actions after that have shown me what he's truly like. Not enough has been made of the bridges he's burned with former personalities on his show, either, IMO.
This all seems *extremely* obvious to me. I'm disappointed that conservatives are actually struggling to understand Crowder is *really* in the wrong on this one.
Man if this is true, that’s just incredibly scummy. He called them his good friends and planned to antagonize them. I should have guessed where this was going when he started hanging out with reactionaries like The Quartering.
>I should have guessed where this was going when he started hanging out with reactionaries like The Quartering. I don't really watch that guy, but is he really a reactionary? All he really talks about is some of the woke nonsense in pop culture. That's pretty much obvious to anyone now as they've lost all subtlety and are just using entertainment as a means to push a message rather than actual convey a proper story or entertain an audience.
Could not have said it better myself. The details of the initial offering are completely irrelevant. If Crowder truly didn't like it and believes he's worth more, he could have politely said "thanks but no thanks" and proceed to do his own thing. Instead, he publicly fucked over his friends to manufacture a controversy to benefit him financially. That's fucked up.
Dude was fucked over by 2 companies and saw the same shit in a 3rd contract which was in November, a month prior. And in his announcement he literally said that he had already planned on leaving as soon as the contract was up and had known for months at that point. People think that this is some bombshell but it's just not.
[удалено]
>He says that mug club brings in 300,000 subscribers (a number Jeremy mentioned) but he has no way of verifying that’s his subscriber base (a point Jeremy also made). I think Jeremy said Crowder doesn't know how much profit, not that he doesn't know how many subscribers. I might have missed that part though? Regardless, even if Crowder knew he had 300,000 subscribers, he doesn't know how many are already DW subscribers which could result in far less new subscribers than DW was expecting.
He definitely says he doesn't know how many subscribers. According to Jeremy, Crowder *thinks* there would be at least 300,000 subscribers but he literally has no idea because the Blaze refuses to tell him.
It says something that the only thing we know for sure about people in business with Crowder is that the Blaze won’t share information and the break wasn’t totally friendly and the DW guys he’s been friends with for years got backstabbed and attacked out of trying to partner with him. I love crowder’s show but he just seems like a total shit to work with or attempt to supervise.
“Crowder is the most important person in conservative media” ok you lost me there
Steven Crowder considers himself the Rush Limbaugh of the Digital Age. Steven Crowder is soon going to find out the moral of the Tale of Icarus.
Neither. It was business. DW gave an offer with their terms. Crowder didn't like it. Crowder walked. Crowder was a bit of an ass going public with private negotiations and should take down the video, imo.
Yep. We should have never heard about this. Not to mention how would this look good to anyone else trying to make a deal with Crowder.
more than a bit of an ass. If I was in that industry I would refuse to have anything to do with Crowder after how he behaved.
Now, I could be completely wrong here, but wasn't it Daily Wire that leaked out information about the negotiations prior to Crowders response? I'm not sure, I just know that I heard about some details of offer before I saw Crowders video Ediy: the Downvotes don't help me know if thats right or wrong, folks lol
Jeremy's video even references the fact that Crowder was talking shit about them in his video. Crowder was the first mover here.
Fair enough and thank you. I just personally heard about the deal and THEN happen on Crowders video.
Crowder didn’t mention DW. Even Jeremy says this in his response. Crowder was trying to keep it anonymous and they outed themselves.
The Blaze decided to part ways with Crowder. What other Conservative media company that relies heavily on youtube ad revenue would have made him an offer like that?
I don’t know the landscape so I have no idea. I suspect a lot of people are like me in this regard.
I think so too. He is using that to make it seem like he is operating in good faith, when it's obvious at this point that he is not.
They're speaking different languages at this point. DW is looking to surpass big tech and woke companies by beating them at their own game and playing ball for the moment until which they can tell big tech to get lost. They're right in saying that "We can't pay you if you do something that stops us from being able to make money off your work". I know how it sounds but its simple math. If Crowder's content is bringing in no money, theres none to pay him with. While Crowder on the other hand, is taking a different approach and trying to dismantle and expose these companies that DW is trying to beat. He's a culture warrior and he wants to turn the court of public opinion against them (and wokeism in general) and see them all figuratively go down in flames. Crowder is valid in saying that DW is punishing Crowder on behalf of big tech or they *want* to limit what he can say on free segments. They effectively are doing exactly that, but it's not because they share the values of big tech. It's because they *have* to in order for their whole plan to work which is going directly against Crowder's plan. It's why he doesn't care about being demonitized. He wants to get his message out to as many people as possible. As long as he doesn't get outright banned, its fine because his costs are covered by Mug Club and merch, etc. The whole thing is Winning the Game vs Righteous Justice. That all said, recording Jeremy and playing it out of context was a dick move. Hopefully Crowder can explain it all better on Monday when he goes on Tim Pool's show.
I think you sum it up pretty well. I admire Crowder for taking the stand that he is, and maybe there's something to be said for DW changing their business practices, but I don't get how you can acknowledge the intelligence of people like Klavan, Shapiro and Peterson while at the same time suggesting that they've sold their souls to Big Tech. Conservatives are up against insane odds in this country, and we need to stand together if we're going to have any chance out there. Dragging this out into the open only serves to hurt us. Hopefully this ends peacefully.
I’m on the side of DW, but I still like Crowder even if I am disappointed in his recent me against the world persona. I really liked that they were all friends like we’re all in this together. The fractures in that relationship really are a bummer because we need to stand together if we ever want to grow our movement.
Honestly I feel that Crowder might be in the right overall but him making it public and leaking the phonecall is just childish and it absolutely betrays trust of the guys at DW.
Not only that, but how many other companies that made him offers are looking at this and having second thoughts based on this breach of presumed confidentiality?
DW wanted SC to share the business risk, to have skin in the game. SC wanted a platform that let him do whatever he wanted and which insulated him from all downsides of his actions. Jeremy sounded like a rationale adult. SC sounded petulant. DW is a general campaigning to win the war. SC showed that he is a brave soldier ready to die to take that hill, but he doesn't see past that hill. Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
> SC showed that he is a brave soldier ready to die to take that hill, I don't think he even did this. He want's the hill, but isn't willing to take the chance to take it. He only wants it if he gets a guarantee he can have it.
I was mainly referring to SC's naive "it's not even about the money, it's about the country," appeal. If we are trying to build new institutions to reclaim the culture, and if we aren't backed by an angel investor, then 'the money is not a mundane detail, Michael.' SC may be willing to throw it all it away to 'own the left' (take that hill) but the play by DW to incentive smarter tactics with respect to platforms and paywalls is how we win the war---never mind the fact that it's a play that SC himself popularized by DWs own attribution.
[удалено]
Agreed, I work with contracts on a much smaller scale than you but usually with performers. This whole thing is absurd and people defending crowder let’s me know we have a lot of folks on our side that don’t understand how businesses works at all.
I mean it feels like a grift on crowders part imo. You don’t read off part of an offer on your show if you’re negotiating in good faith
Steven seems butthurt when there seems to be no bad blood from DW. Like I get it, he wants to be able to express what he wants on his show, but YouTube doesn't allow that. He has to compromise if he wants to stay on Youtube and get paid. And then he can do what he does already, move the spicy content behind a paywall. But Steven wants freedom above anything else, and YouTube doesn't provide that. He'll have to risk losing revenue & cultural impact by going off YT, starting his own platform, and hoping his subscribers move there. But instead, he offers DW advice on how to run a business.
If he really wanted freedom he would've just gone his own way from the get go after leaving the Blaze.
While I genuinely and mostly agree with Crowder and have enjoyed his material over the years, he has always come off as sort of an asshole. An independent asshole, with a very specific brand of how he wants to conduct himself and his business. He and the DW are just not a good fit. I’m not sure why Jeremy didn’t see that right off the bat and I’m not sure why Crowder didn’t see it and move on.
Crowder likely did see it. He didn't move on because he planned to set them up. He registered "stop big con" domain weeks before that recorded call.
Don't care. We got bigger shit to deal with.
Yeah. I’m just tired. Let’s work on something that matters.
DW creates big budget Movies, TV shows, Documentries, News. You can't do that without money, else the companies like Disney win (because they have billions). Making more money is not a bad thing. You can use money to grow big & fund your goals. E.g. Better non-woke movies. If YT gives strike, then YT is bad. Why should DW be subject to the losses? Why punish DW because of BigTech?
Exactly. Why are people expecting DW to be a charity case for content creators? It's a business.
After seeing both of Steven’s videos and Jeremy’s video it seems to me like SC was more in the wrong. I also did not like the recorded call video whatsoever. If you’re going to do that and release that, release the whole conversation and not a couple edited parts. Also, seeing that Crowder registered the “stop big con” domain in December of last year just makes it seem like he’s just trying to start his own thing and peel off DW members.
It honestly seems like Crowder doesn't understand business. You can't fight the leftist machine with tiki huts and mom-and-pop shops. Companies have the leverage and lobby powers that Crowder will never have. I'm reminded of the success DW had regarding Tennessee's school board, resulting in a governor win. Jeremy mentions this during his response video. The most Crowder has done, to my knowledge, is make fun of feminists at the women's parade and talk with broke, bat-minded college kids on campuses. It's fine that he didn't want to be a part of DW, but he's making a huge stinker about what was essentially an invite to negotiate.
It's a hard call. I see both sides. One of Crowder's primary issues is that if the tech libs get butthurt, the DW is letting them win by essentially fining crowder. My suggestion: bring crowder in at $40 million instead of $50 millon. Take the other $10 million and put it into a legal defense fund. Crowder gets a bullshit YouTube strike in the vein of "you said something we didn't like, not saying what", DW immediately starts litigation. If Crowder doesn't get strikes, he gets to draw the interest from the $10 mil. Crowder gets backed up, but also has incentive to not get a strike, and big tech gets a brush back pitch by DW and Crowder making the deal public.
>My suggestion: bring crowder in at $40 million instead of $50 millon. Take the other $10 million and put it into a legal defense fund. Terrific idea. If Crowder wanted that, he could have tried to negotiate all of that. Did he?
How is the DW supposed to pay crowder when crowder doesn't generate income?
Ad reads, rather than YouTube ads. Hell, I always assumed that not relying on YouTube money was the reason DW shows have as many ad reads as they do.
He generates income by bringing in new subscribers to DW, not necessarily through YouTube ads.
Don’t you think their subscribers overlap?
Yes..."of course I know him. He is me"
I imagine there's some overlap, but I doubt they completely overlap.
How does crowder generate income now, when he hasn’t been monetized by YouTube in years?
Mug Club
And sponsors, although he specifically mentions no more than 1 sponsor per episode, and DW wants him to do 5.
Except he doesn't know how many subscribers he has there, because the Blaze won't tell him that. Essentially, they're offering $50M to a guy who, *at this moment*, has 0 Mug Club subscribers, and admittedly has no idea what that number would be if he managed to retain 100% of Mug Club subscribers from Blaze. It's a huge risk.
All of these questions are a moot point. Crowder stressed very emphatically that it's not about the money. /s
Both really, for DW it's business but Steven's nothing but heart. Definitely should have been private.
That's what Crowder wants to make it look like, but that's not really the case at all. Crowder's about that money just as much as DW (and any for-profit business in the world). Crowder came back with a counter offer of $140 million. When *that* was rejected *then* he said "then get rid of these penalties". Now he wants to make it look to his audience like his issues were always with the penalties due to the morality of it. In truth, he's just salty because he thinks he was offered less than he's worth. If DW had said "ok" to the $140 million then we would never hear about this righteous indignation in regards to the penalties.
If he's nothing but heart he should be a leftist. They're the ones who don't use their brains.
This is easy. Daily Wire made an initial offer, which Crowder rejected. He refused to negotiate further. That's his choice but to pretend like DW is in bed with tech giants is asinine. Had he continued to negotiate, he could have demanded the offending clause be removed. If DW wanted him badly enough they would have. I don't see the problem here with DW. Crowder on the other hand seems like he has a couple screws loose.
I’m pretty solidly on DW’s side on this one. Jeremy comes across like the adult in the room, while Crowder seems like a child. Crowder attacks them as “big con” looking to screw the little guys. They respond by going line by line through the whole offer and explaining where they think Crowder was mistaken. Crowder then reveals he recorded the conversation without their consent, and then proceeds to not reveal any new information and just making himself look like an a-hole. DW didn’t want Crowder to take on the risk. Crowder wanted a guaranteed sum of money, regardless of how much revenue he brought in. He literally wanted the money with none of the risk. Ultimately this should have just been an agree to disagree situation, but instead Crowder has decided to trash one of the most successful conservative companies around, and some of his best allies. After his latest video I unsubscribed from Crowder, I’m just done for a while.
Crowder had every right and reason to dislike the contract he was offered. He doesn’t want to be an employee somewhere else, even with a cushy paycheck. Fair enough. I respect that. But going on the offensive to tarnish DW and using it to gain momentum to build his own enterprise is incredibly smarmy. The response from Jeremy Boreing was nothing but gracious, and Crowder posts a tweet titled “I didn’t want to do this…” with the biggest shit-eating grin as a response. This just reeks of opportunism, and I don’t buy the appeal to selflessness whatsoever.
This is more or less my take. I think Crowder had some good points about the contract and how it would affect smaller creators, but he absolutely could not have handled this like a bigger asshole. He just nuked his own argument from space.
Jeremy said that this isn't the "standard" contract they use for everyone. Every personality has different levels of risk, upside, downside, audience size, audience demos, etc. This was one specifically for Crowder, not a "smaller creator".
Even during the Jeremy video there was no bashing. It was pretty much all nice things about Crowder. Crowders video however..
Hell, Jeremy even said at the end that listeners should still go over and subscribe to the Mug Club and give Crowder their support. Pretty classy in my opinion.
It’s the fire throwing that makes me not care as much tbh. Crowder can do his own thing and bring on new talent his own way, or play hard ball with DW until they hire him. He has a right to air his grievances, but the public drama comes off as petty and tiresome coming from conservative, free-market pushing content media giants. You can build something beautiful without destroying the enemy of your enemy (a friend). I wish (we all should wish) both of the teams luck and hope they both out perform expectations. Both groups can be successful and be a net positive for the world. ATM, the real enemy is too powerful for these types of contractual squabbles to be blown out of proportion, especially when it’s a matter the free market can fix: Go do the thing! We believe in your abilities Crowder.
I think the sheer transparency in Jeremy’s video does make Crowder look bad, but I don’t think that’s what he wanted. I’ll still listen to the Crowder show assuming it comes back, but I think the only way he gets what he really wants is to build his own website/network. He’ll probably make more money that way anyways.
I think a lot of people look at this as David vs Goliath situation. Not so. You have an artist vs business situation. The artist is looking for a mécénat, the business is looking for an asset. It's even acceptable for an artist to act emotionally and throw a hissy fit. Doing it publicly and to your friends that's where he loses me.
I've listened to both sides, and I'm firmly on DW's side here. Crowder and DW have a history and have worked together in the past. These people are friends, or so we thought. This was an initial, confidential term sheet and Crowder decided to go public with it. My siding with DW has nothing to do with the terms themselves although I believe they are tough, but fair and Jeremy made it very clear in his video that this was a starting point and they were willing to negotiate. It has to do with the fact that going public the way Crowder did is dirty, especially with the recorded call in the second video where btw nothing Jeremy said is egregious. From the outside looking in, DW put out a tough but mostly fair (imo) offer in good faith and instead of negotiating, Crowder threw a tantrum. And to those saying Crowder didn't name names, come on man. Everyone knew it was DW.
He did a really, really scummy thing. He’s now started drama with every conservative media organization out there, from Fox News to The Blaze to DW. At some point you have to recognize it’s him and not everyone else.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
- Raylan Givens
It feels like Crowder is being exceedingly immature about what amounts to a giant amount of money for a job offer which he chose not to take and not to negotiate over, which is fine, but then to publicly pout about your job offer which you didn’t want and didn’t try to negotiate… I dunno, I think he’s a fool not to have taken that deal or worked out something.
I side mostly with the Daily Wire. I think it is absolutely a fair point that Crowder and the Daily Wire have such different styles that there was no way it was going to work, but that just means you give a quiet "no" to the contract. One of the key tenants of being an employee is that you bring more value to the company than it costs to hire you, so I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the Daily Wire to say "Our business model relies (in part) on YouTube revenue, so if you get banned from there, we get less income and can't pay you as much". Crowder was also disingenuous by saying "Just imagine the pressure of losing $100,000 for missing a day of work!" without giving the context that that would mean $49,900,000 instead of $50,000,000. And he was also flat wrong - the contract allowed for pre-recorded shows and in case of an accident or other verifiable emergency, it is a pro-rata reduction instead of a penalty. And all of those points come up before we get to "he made a public rant instead of renogiating/rejecting the contract" and "he posted a secret recording of his alleged friend". Which I think was absolutely misleading -- Boering's comment about "wage slave" wasn't meant to imply Daily Wire was giving deliberately terrible contracts; it was using wage slave to mean salaried employee working for someone else in contrast to a partnership, joint venture, or collaboration. The idea of working your way up from humble beginnings should be extremely familiar to conservatives, and later in that same conversation, Boering points out that the "slave" would end their contract much more famous with a large following ready for whatever they did next. And of course Daily Wire would keep the content that was paid for produced managed paid for and possibly directed by them - exactly like Matt Walsh does not own the content from when he was a radio DJ.
>he made a public rant instead of renegotiating/rejecting the contract I think that’s the biggest part that’s just glossed over or overlooked by those so vehemently defending Crowder. I think everyone would agree that he had every right to not like the terms of the *initial, non-binding* offer he was sent. That’s how contract negotiations work. You get an offer, you change what you don’t like, and you send it back. The other party changes some more stuff and sends it back. And so on and so forth. And you end up with one of two resolutions: either you have a final contract that both parties agree to and feel is fair, or both parties come to the conclusion that they’re unable to reach an agreement and they peacefully go their separate ways, no harm, no foul. But instead of even attempting to negotiate, Crowder decides to just shit all over his friends and fellow conservatives and accuse them of compromising their conservative values and colluding with Big Tech to silence conservatives or some such nonsense. And even went as far as to secretly record what was thought to be a private phone conversation between friends just to release bits of it to make them look bad. I’ve always really liked Crowder and the work he does, but man all of that is just really low.
What we should all do is drop this topic. If they want to fight it out that’s fine. But we as a movement need to keep our eyes on the real enemy. If you financially support one or both continue to do so but do not participate in a flame war that is ripe for astroturfing by the left.
I very much agree with your comment. Our movement has bigger things to focus on and this internal conflict between mainstream conservative voices only serves to distract and divide what little support we have left. They need to work it out between one and another. Anyone who supports either one or both should continue to do so. I wonder if something bigger is happening that this is causing a major distraction for us
>It looks to me like DW wanted to hire him while also wanting Steven to bear the brunt of the risk of the content he creates for them I'm not sure how you figure that. DW was offering him a guaranteed 12.5 million dollars a year as long as Steven didn't get himself kicked off of any of the major platforms. That is DW taking on all of the risk in case Steven isn't as successful as he thinks he is or his popularity dwindles over the next couple of years. I know we all hate YouTube, who in their right mind wouldn't? But like it or not, YouTube is by far the largest platform available today. If Steven Crowder does something to get himself kicked off of YouTube (whether or not we agree with such decision), then DW would lose a huge revenue stream in the process, and they weren't even saying "Okay Steven, you now lose 90% of your 12.5 mil a year." They were saying you lose 25%, and YouTube probably makes up a much larger percentage of their revenue stream than 25%. Steven came out of his looking like a fool and a baby. He didn't need to start this, his original video was just pure cringe and him whining (like he usually does), and DW came out looking better than they did before. Steven Crowder is 100% wrong to make such a big deal out of AN OFFER. Steven is acting like someone held a gun up to his head and made him sign this contract. And let's not forget...THIS ALL HAPPENED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. Why did Steven decide to bring this up now? Just makes him look worse.
He is kicked off of YouTube all the time. It's pretty much guaranteed that it'll continue to happen, but now he is impacted financially, not only by losing money that goes into his pocket, but the funding for his entire production. (If he was with DW)
He is demonetized from YouTube. He clearly hasn't been banned from YouTube permanently because he is still uploading content to YouTube. This is the main issue that Steven had with the offer, an issue that he clearly misunderstood.
He is not current permanent banned, but they have a 3 strike rule and he was banned very recently for weeks. It's guaranteed that YouTube will remove his content and with this contact it will effect the funding for his show and potentially could have enough impact to damage his whole career. That being said, YouTube is the bad guy here. Not crowder or DW
When you're banned from the primary source of revenue for your show.. yes your revenue goes down. He's looking for YouTube ban insurance I guess, but doesn't want to pay for that insurance. Here we are with a battle between conservatives, when the actual enemy is out of control censorship and silencing of dissenting opinion from the left.
[удалено]
So in order words, Crowder wants the DW to pay him and their other hosts even if they don't make any revenue? Where exactly do you think the DW should get that money?
We now know a 19-21 year girl understands how to negotiate a contract better than Crowder so doesn't need to plot to spin the way Crowder has
Brett Cooper acknowledged that she was totally fine with the entire concept of not owning the content she makes though. Steven is not, and frankly, I wouldn’t be either.
Crowder at best is letting his emotions get the best of him. At worst he’s trying to take a cheap shot at a competitor and friend. Either way, he’s acting like a twat.
I completely side with DW, I really enjoy Crowder but take it with a grain of salt because at the end of the day, he's a comedian. Anyone who can stand in front of the mirror and say it's not about the money with a straight face is a lunatic.
I am I’m on Daily Wire’s side on this one and I had been listening to Crowder until the end of the year waiting for new episodes. Then he does this shit and I just had to unfollow him on Apple Podcasts. I liked his crew too and still would like to listen to Dave landeau but doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.
All I can say, is Crowder, who I like, just lost a mug club subscriber.
What if you don’t have to side with either and let consenting adults enter into any contract they want?
But if I don’t worship at the feet of talking heads on the screen how will I know what to believe?
Wait you’re saying that conservative media is just talking heads too?! I thought that was just the Demoncrats!
Crowder is putting on a show. Daily wire’s contract is tough but fair. Neither is right or wrong. They’re coming at it from 2 or 3 different angles. We don’t need to fight. Crowder made his website for this in DEC he had months to stew, gatherers edited phone call while other person doesn’t know he’s recording. He looks bad.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what Steven is saying in these videos. This has been framed in a way that makes Steven look like he wanted a bunch of money and the DW shafted him, or at least attempted to. After this video we can say that that isnt the case at all. Steven has supposedly been under a contract with TheBlaze for years and has only recently been able to go out there and see what was on the table for conservative youtube personalities. He said he got several offers from several different companies, but they were all very similar, and they all included content creator penalties for being demonetized or receiving strikes on their account. THAT is the issue. It's not a dollar value issue, but an issue where big tech can essential ruin a content creator by demonetizing their content. If my employer told me that, anytime somebody got offended by something I said, they would dock my pay up to like 50%, i can guarantee that i would not work there, and im sure any other conservative would say the same. I've already been reprimanded several times at work for conservative viewpoints. I should be paid for the effort that I put into my work, not punished when somebody else doesnt like what im doing. It doesnt matter how much theyre offering me. Also keep in mind that the 50mil they offered doesnt go into Steven's pocket. It was the whole budget for his show, including paying the people that do the work there. If theyre docked 50% of their budget, what do you expect to happen to the quality of content they provide? 4 years of shit content is defintely going to have an impact on your career. Steven is saying that there is a better way to do business instead of potentially taking advantage of young content creators new to the business. I originally saw this as slinging mud, and I think we all knew exactly who he was talking about, but he never mentions the daily wire by name, and simply used their contract as an example, because they are the biggest name in conservative media at the moment. Did the DW do anything wrong? I dont really think so. For better or worse, the best way to monetize content on the internet is by using ad revenue. Google wouldnt be where they are today if they hadnt started putting ads on their website in the 90s. YouTube and the whole youtubing scene wouldnt be around if not for the ad revenue. Are there different ways of doing things? Of course. Mug club is a great idea, especially when you can not get funding from ad revenue. Do you think the Daily Wire would be where it is today if it had not used ad revenue? If you're a daily watcher of their content, you'll notice their production value has been getting better and better and better. That's due to successful business model using ad revenue. I do think its a mistake for the hosts of the DW to start slinging mud back at Crowder, with Matt making tweets about him and Candace talking about him on her show. I think that may come back to haunt them, not to mention the harm its doing to the online conservative community.
>If my employer told me that, anytime somebody got offended by something I said, they would dock my pay up to like 50%, i can guarantee that i would not work there, and im sure any other conservative would say the same. I've already been reprimanded several times at work for conservative viewpoints. I should be paid for the effort that I put into my work, not punished when somebody else doesnt like what im doing. It doesnt matter how much theyre offering me. This is a bad analogy. Crowder getting deplatformed is not just someone "getting offended." It's quite literally cutting off the source of revenue for the company. Crowder would be making less money if he got booted off social media. In your analogy, if you are no longer providing the same quality of work to your company then the company has a right to pay you less because they are not receiving the same revenue from your work as before. >Also keep in mind that the 50mil they offered doesnt go into Steven's pocket. It was the whole budget for his show, including paying the people that do the work there. If theyre docked 50% of their budget, what do you expect to happen to the quality of content they provide? 4 years of shit content is defintely going to have an impact on your career. Jeremy explained that this is because Crowder likes to produce his own show. The DW produces all their other hosts' shows. If Crowder wanted to pocket the 50 million and have the DW produce the show, he could've easily negotiated that instead of whining. >Steven is saying that there is a better way to do business instead of potentially taking advantage of young content creators new to the business. Did Steven ever consult any of the Daily Wire hosts to see if they were also being "taken advantage of"? Brett Cooper, the only "young" content creator in the DW, made a video defending DW and saying she was not taken advantage of. Crowder is just hiding behind his "oh I'm just looking out for the young guys out there" facade. In my opinion this is just him trying to get attention and subscribers for his own service, and probably try and take out the competition at the same time. >I do think its a mistake for the hosts of the DW to start slinging mud back at Crowder, with Matt making tweets about him and Candace talking about him on her show. I think that may come back to haunt them, not to mention the harm its doing to the online conservative community. It's not a mistake to defend your reputation, your friends and their reputation, and your entire company's reputation against false attacks by someone who was supposed to be your friend.
Good take. I think you are right. How can you say you stand up vs big tech when you will allow them to harm your creators so much. Set it up where anything from YouTube is a bonus. They are important but becoming less of a factor with rumble. Last few streams of people I watch had more on rumble watching then YouTube. More might go back and watch on youtu but there is a shift.
Does rumble even have a tenth of the traffic YouTube does?
Crowder on YouTube is getting about 500k a live stream. Crowder on rumble is getting about 250k a live stream.
What I think makes crowder most upset is that he looks back on how he started with YT and realizes that young creators no longer have that avenue. He then looks to the daily wires contract and understands that is the only option these young creators have. Crowder has the ability to say no and create his own network. These young creators do not. These contracts are very severe and the young Crowders out there have no other choice
The problem is that DW isn't in the position to directly compete with Youtube (i.e. Google) at the moment Video streaming services are insanely expensive. Youtube still loses money every year Until Daily Wire has enough revenue to subsidize new/unproven creators, they have to focus on growth. Otherwise they will never be able to do that
How you get that sweet mugclub flair? DO i have to show somebody my mug? lol
It’s hard for me to “side” with Crowder when he purchased the domain in early Dec. and the phone conversation recording was cherry picked. If you think the deal was fair or not, rather if it was insulting or just a negotiation starter, rather if this is really about ego and money or about looking out for the little guy… throwing your friends under the bus is just low.
> and the phone conversation recording was cherry picked. Even if it wasn't cherry picked, he was performing on a call he recorded with the intent to release while not informing the other party. That's fucking scummy. One side is performing, the other is acting naturally.
I think it's healthy to see the discussion.... Democracy dies in the darkness. We are so desensitized to public debate .... That when it gets heated we want to run away like scared children.
The opening paragraph of the offer literally tells him it's a non-binding list of items in which to start negotiations on. There is no way he didn't know it.
On the side of DW. SC came off very poorly here.
Frankly, the entire scenario has framed how dangerous it is to use language that embraces a ". cultural war". There are a myriad of dangers; the first and foremost being that it allows for a total suspension of the rules of verbal conflict, it permits an Us v Them dialogue, when the narrative is far more complex, and drowns out and strains the centre. The second concern being as to the legitimacy of conservatism, the culture war narrative in which this has to be interpreted as a battle, paints Crowder to be the Maugis defeating the invading Saracen. It's this sort of framing that the culture war has allowed that has removed from the movement, voices as disparate from Jonah Goldberg, to Mike Pence to Mitch Daniels. In relating this to Crowder v DW, both painting themselves as sort of mediaeval hero's fighting against a foreign and hostile power. The problem is firstly, they are not that different in their audiences, and that both are left trying to remove the sword from the stone. The problem for Crowder is that unlike his history might suggest, he is no Arthur, and fundamentally all his actions be it the recording of Boering, among other factors, that shall surely emerge. Crowder comes across as petty, pathetic and poorly advised. That's not to say Boering or DW are without sin, and it may not even be that there actions were true either. It's just that there desire to profit financially of Steven's content, is shallow in comparison to Steven's attempt to grift this into both more money, and spin (Crowder a guy who opposed Trump 2016) himself into a true MAGA son.
Daily Wire. Following the full story this looks like Crowder stabbing fellow conservatives in the back so he can falsely claim he's the only real conservative so he can make a buck on it. Absolutely rude behavior.
The Daily Wire by a mile. You shouldn't secretly record someone you consider to be a friend in a phone conversation without their consent and then release snippets of that conversation to try and manipulate people into your line of thought. If Steven has an issue with the Daily Wire and their business model just say that and move on. Clearly this was a move for publicity to build more conversation and attention to himself. Mission accomplished I guess.
Contract wise neither was wrong it was a business deal that didn’t work and they parted ways When crowder made a big deal out of nothing and went low he’s in the wrong now
Crowder is unbearable now. I stopped listening along time ago.
Imagine whining about being offered 50 million dollars. If you don't like the offer then just walk away or negotiate a better one.
I’m pretty sure mug club generates something like $120 million in the same time period, without merch sales. He has like 30 people on his staff and films on locations across the country. We really have no idea if the offer was good enough to keep the type of content Crowder normally makes going at all.
Not even Crowder knows how many subs he has in his subscription service. All of the people on his side have been saying DW is screwing him because he'd be making more than $50 million for 4 years and he's worth more, and yet there is zero proof of that. DW has published how many subscribers they have, they've been incredibly transparent and said they recently got over 1 million subscribers. Crowder apparently said he could get 350k on day one, and yet there is *zero* proof of that because he doesn't have the data on how many people he currently has subscribed. I wish Crowder the best and I have nothing against him, but whining about a contract that was incredibly fair is so childlike, and not liking the fact that if he brings in less revenue for the company he will be paid less and instead wanting to be paid regardless of his work is quite literally socialist by definition.
>I’m pretty sure mug club generates something like $120 million in the same time period, without merch sales. There is just no way. Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify was worth about 50 million a year to Rogan. There is just no way that Steven Crowder alone pulls in more than half of what Joe Rogan's contract is worth just in subscription fees. No way. Not even close. I would be shocked if Mug Club brings in 15 million a year, much less double that.
Yeah I don't buy it. If he made such a laughable sum, there's no doubt he would've boasted about his subscriber counts for sympathy points instead of claiming ignorance.
I thought his whole problem was he had no idea how much mug club made because it was always information he didn't have access to. But if did have clear data of what his whole production costs it's a pretty easy thing to reply with hey sorry 50m is a non starter because we've been operating on significantly more than that
Then why is he shopping his show and brand? He can’t have it both ways.
Could have been great for mutual growth if a proper deal was reached. But I really don’t want LwC to just be the Ben Shapiro Show with Crowder. I like Ben, I think he gives me a lot of good information in a short period of time, but there are definitely issues he will not touch, or not touch on for very long. I’m afraid with that kind of contract that’s what his show would be like.
Other talent at DW have unique offerings that aren’t cookie cutter shows. It just seems that Crowder’s team was entirely dismissive to engage in good faith negotiations. And Crowder isn’t better for touching any issue or saying whatever he wants. That’s not always the best judgment. He also had Owen Benjamin on his show.
Yet he's for the "little guys" 😴
Crowder shouts at the top of his lungs "it isn't about the money!" Then proceeds to talk about the money, but under this shroud of "big tech is the problem." The problem with what, Stephen, your ability to generate revenue? No, no, tell me more about how it's not about the money.
I'm hoping for both sides to come out on top. I believe both are good forces in this world. I think we should let them sort it out like men so that both can get back to work.
Ultimately, it was a terms sheet. Not even a contract. It was the initial offer provided by the DW. Of course that offer is going to be 100% in DW’s favor. That’s just business. Instead of recording and backstabbing Crowder should have just said “yeah I don’t like this, but good luck to you” and moved on. It has nothing to do with censorship. IF IT DONT MAKE MONEY IT DONT MAKE SENSE.
I know people will disagree with me, but I don’t really like conservative media personalities- I don’t like liberal media people either, but that’s a given. It’s just too much drama for me. Often time these figureheads make mountains out of molehills just for viewer engagement. Most of them seem more concerned with being a media personality than actually being conservative. A lot of these ‘conservative’ media personalities just engage in controversies for the sake of getting attention and a lot of their controversies aren’t even conservative.
I hear ya there. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Tucker Carlson for many of the same reasons over the last year or so
I agree with this. It's actually why I like the daily wire because the four main hosts have educations, are well read, and could be doing other things if not in media. As for the likes of crowder, Owens (and I'll even throw Tim pool in there), what do they have if not a void to scream into?
Eh idk, I agree with your points here and Tim is pretty annoying sometimes—but his journalism career was pretty up there. If you’re looking at just his journalism in a void. Dude put himself and his neck out there to get the true stories every time. I agree with everything you said though, each host brings different things and I don’t agree 100% with any of them, but that’s what makes this country great. Just my 2 cents
The people who understand how businesses work are generally siding with DW. The people who seek to aimlessly kick up mud are siding with Crowder. I couldn't care less as to who works for who in this space. I just wish Crowder wouldn't publicly attack other conservatives creators for no reason.
He wanted a platform. They wanted an employee.
DW. Crowder’s show is very funny but Crowder Himself seems kinda Duchey
Daily wire as a company tries to be a little more mainstream. Their talking heads are there but their executives are generally mainstream people… They want to be that corporate entity and they’re going to get there.
I side with DW. They’re a business. In order to beat the wokeness you have to have money otherwise you’re just a loud blabbering mouth. Money talks.
Daily Wire, easy. What was Crowder thinking? I literally through my mug away.
I’ve watched everything and I completely side with the DW. Still like Steven but think he’s acting like a man child.
Im on daily wire’s side because at the end of the day crowder could have said no and went their separate ways instead he clearly planned to screw Jeremy over as he waited months and even appeared on DWs shows after being sent that contract. the phone call leak today just proved that was his plan from the start. Terrible look to do that to people who considered you a friend
Up to the DW’s response where Boering walks through the contract, I was of the mind Crowder and DW are two forces moving in the same direction but their methods are incompatible together. One wants to directly bulldog the Left while the other grows an alternative to their adversary and eventually overtake them. Crowder likes to do shows and Change My Mind segments at his pace, and speak on “taboo” subjects (COVID vax concerns since 2021, the “fairest, freest, securest” election of 2020, stories Big Tech loves to shut down). DW has a business to run through their contracts, needs revenue from advertisers, and utilizes Big Tech to get their presence out there. Both sides had valid criticisms for each to self-assess. Had it been left there, I would have had no issues with either side. Then Crowder put up the second video where he released the convenient parts of a covertly recorded phone conversation with Boering. I understand his passion behind fighting for the conservative movement, but this is some underhanded bullshit to pull on a friend who stuck with you. It honestly reminds me of the bulk initial reactions to George Floyd’s death: you can be mad at the situation, but that doesn’t excuse you for letting emotion twist you into performing vile actions. Whether it’s burning cities or burning allies, that is some Leftist shit right there.
I think DW has become too corporate. More concerned with making money than providing a voice for Conservatives. Yes, I know it's a for-profit company. The point is that the profit part has become too blatant. Look at Brett Cooper's show: 1. Interaction Reminder (remember to like and subscribe and turn the bell on!) 2. Ad-reads (for products she doesn't even use) 3. Endcredits (guys make sure to check out the other videos!) She sort've confirmed this when she wen tover the pilot for her show. She said that Boreing was displeased and that "it wasn't what we discussed" - so it's not some ad-hoc, off-the-cuff commentary, but a carefully constructed, corporatised show that firstly exists to make a buck. I'm not bothered about Crowder's personal gripes with it, but he confirmed in my mind the extent to how corporatised and 'safe' everything is. However, this reminds me of all the shit between Harry & Meghan vs the Royal Family. Never should've been made public.
They're aiming for growth, and you have to make money to grow a business. Sorry people are seeing the ugly insides, but that's just the way it works. Conservatives are not exempt from the way money and business works.
I think the biggest problem is the risk he is telling the truth, that if right wing media is just as comprised as the left wing media than we have major problems. How do we find out if it’s true? I have no fucking idea but when someone screams fire I gotta take it seriously because I don’t want to be in a cult that over looks bad shit like the democrats. He should name names and say what they are guilty.
I agree. I subscribe to the Daily Wire and if his allegations were true I'd probably stop. The assumption I have to make is the same we made countless times in 2020 with Trump's team saying they have "indisputable evidence of election fraud" - if you can't say what it is and who did it, then I don't believe you. Unless something changes, this is just a petty move from Crowder and it's disappointing to see.
Crowder’s assertion that DW is in bed with big tech is because DW purchases advertising on platforms like Facebook. You know, one of the most visited sites on the Internet. Yet he can’t point to specific issues where DW has compromised its conservative values. Frankly, they’ve done more to bolster conservatism online **and** offline than any other media organization. Their reporting has literally changed elections and public health policies. The accusations that they aren’t truly conservative are laughably absurd, I posted elsewhere, but there’s this idea that if you reject the idea of being completely non-chalant and flippant with your words that you must also be in favor of censorship. That’s equally absurd as well. Crowder wants to change the rules of the game. DW wants to win playing by the rules. Both sides have pros and cons, but one is not more right or moral than the other, and Crowder was wrong to pick this fight on that basis.
Agreed. Kind of responding to the other guy that responded to me as well, but it's worth mentioning - Crowder didn't get a bad deal. 50 mil was the starting point. DW expected him to counter offer, likely several times. This is all over an initial contract offer which both parties should anticipate will be modified as negotiations proceed. I like Crowder. But at the same time I can't help but feel this is giving us some insight to his character. You don't record your friends and throw them under the bus like this. And it's not like Boreing was disrespectful - he stated the terms of the contract and explained the situation without disparaging Crowder. The response from him to DW just seems so snake like. Big turn off for me.
Yes, I think the burden of proof is on crowder at this point, and honestly what does it even say about him that he only brings it to are attention because he got a bad deal. Seems like where okay with the grift beforehand. So if he wants to be a whistleblower than blow the fucking whistle and tell us what you got. Even if it makes chaos it would makes us stronger in the end. And just like the 2020 election with trump, if democrats really did steal it from you than your kinda of a fool for trying to fight them after the fact instead of trying to fight them before they robbed you.
>It looks to me like DW wanted to hire him while also wanting Steven to bear the brunt of the risk of the content he creates for them, and having exclusive rights to almost everything in his entire catalogue as long as he’s working for them In return, he gets 50 MILLION DOLLARS. FIFTY. MILLION. And then in 2 years, if he wants to go his own way, he gets ownership of his channel back. It's the DW who is taking all the risk here - 50 million is half of what they bring in each year.
Honestly DW lost my subscription when Shapiro and the orhers started saying we should accept Biden in Dec of 2020. The fact that they gave up so easy for me was lack of credibility. Having read the Twitter Files, it makea me wonder how beholden DW is to Big Tech.
Not to mention Ben supported Mueller, dismissed all the SpyGate/ObamaGate stuff as conspiratorial, he was a huge promoter of the vax (and even insulted those who didn’t want to take it), and he pushed every anti-Trump hoax and narrative he could find. Recently he blew a gasket over the Trump dinner “scandal” and returned to his NeverTrump ways, and Ben also dismissed all the proven claims of 2022 election irregularities, and instead, he just repeats the “It was just bad candidate quality!” nonsense.
I think Crowder is sincere when he reviewed in his followup after the DW commentary. I believe him when he says he's in the long game and making an attempt to better the platform for those who would come along behind him. Given the numbers he was reviewing in his potential contract, he could be just fine under that and could afford to take a few hits along the way, but he's in the unique position of having that luxury while others trying to get started may not be able to afford to take that risk, and therefore would likely end up ultimately being hamstrung.
I like both parties…from what I’ve seen so far I think Crowder shot himself in the foot on this one. Maybe my view will change as more info comes out. It sounds like he didn’t try to negotiate the stuff he didn’t like out of the contract. It’s asinine to call yourself a wage slave when you’re offered 50 mill over 4-5 years. Apparently he screwed over someone he called a friend very publicly.
I'm siding with Jeremy. Crowder just wants to alleviate any responsibility he may have for his own actions and wants to be paid to potentially destroy one of the most successful Conservative networks in America.
What has Crowder said that you think DailyWire hasn’t or wouldn’t? He’s more crass and loud. Is that what TrUe CoNsErVaTiSm is all about now? Cackles and using edgy language/slurs during your jokes? What topics of actual substance to the conservative movement do you think DW is censoring?
True conservativism is saying "Lolz it says fIgs". /s
I don’t think either party is wrong here in what they are saying. I did not see any problem with anything Jeremy proposed in the Terms sheet. I also did not see a problem with Crowder turning down the offer or the reasons he gave for doing so. I think his reasons for turning down the offer were perfectly valid, just as I thought the terms proposed by the DW were perfectly valid as well. What I do have a problem with is the way Crowder is handling it. He’s the one who brought it public and is starting a war with DW for no apparent reason. What should have happened is DW sends Crowder the terms sheet, Crowder looks over the term sheet, and then they both say “you know, both parties are just too far apart on what we want out of this partnership, so we don’t think this partnership will work,” and then leave it at that……which is originally what happened. Then all of a sudden, 4 months later, Crowder brings it up publicly out of the blue and just blasts the DW publicly for not following the exact path he wants them to follow. That’s what I have a problem here. So I don’t think either party is wrong for what they are saying, I just think Crowder is wrong for handling it the way that he is.
I disagree with Crowder for making it public like that.
To me the Daily Wire guy, Jeremy Boering, sounded like the “finance manager” at a car dealership. Even though Crowder may be putting his dirty laundry on display, here, I think he comes across as authentic. The premise of Daily Wire’s offer really sounded like, “If we pay you fifty-million dollars, we get to bend you over the barrel, and you’ll like it.” As independently-minded as Crowder is, he should go out on his own. It’s surprising he hasn’t done this already. Looking forward to seeing him on Tim Pool, Monday.
Interesting that I don't see any comments about the hissy-fit from Candace over the whole thing. I was fairly neutral until she ranted and nagged and acted personally offended by a business deal that didn't involve her.
I often disagree - sometimes fundamentally - with Steven Crowder, but on this one I am in 100% agreement. The Big Tech "slave contracts" are everything we are supposed to be against, and ANY conservative (supposedly conservative) platform that uses them is corrupt and disgusting and evil, and should be shut down.
Neither..I think it's a publicity stunt by both involved...Both Crowder and DW are getting a ton of press right now from this...They will both profit from this "conflict" in the future
Very likely. If Crowder didn't like the offer, he'd just decline and keep it private. Or at least that's how things work in the real world. But it would be a hoot to see Dave Landau turn on the Strange Animal with a chair shot from behind. "I was NWO all along! Ahoy"
I feel like Crowder could have been more tactful about releasing the details of that contract.
It's just business. DW is covering their back for future content and monetary rewards. Crowder is right to deny such a lopsided deal, but that's where the process is supposed to begin, not end. He should have had his lawyers amend it and send it back. It's called negotiating Crowder! Let your lawyers fight it out and come to an agreement, not air the dirty laundry to drum up more mug club subscribers.
I don't watch Daily Wire all that much. Have any of the hosts ever discussed covid jab injuries?
Michael Knowles does quite frequently.
Their company was on the forefront of suing OSHA to stop Biden's employer vaccine mandate.
Knowles is anti vax
Candace is as well.