Anonymous ID: 71c8bb Jan. 19, 2023, 12:41 p.m. No.18176010   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6045 >>6076 >>6131

CEO Jeffrey Boering made this 52 minute video in response to Crowder's on air criticism of Daily Wire's offer sheet

 

Anon listened to this whole video, and have to admit, Boering made a lot of sense, he did not at all convey a 'I'm a big tech bitch'.

 

BOERING OFFERED CROWDER MINIMUM $50 MILLION, OF COURSE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEIR MONEY BACK!

Anonymous ID: 71c8bb Jan. 19, 2023, 12:53 p.m. No.18176100   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>18176076

Boering didn't say that is what Crowder said word for word. He said that is the philosophical impression he got by how Crowder publicly rejected any paycut should his show fail to drive the expected revenues.

Anonymous ID: 71c8bb Jan. 19, 2023, 12:57 p.m. No.18176121   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6168

>>18176084

That's the reality of the source of revenues coming from his Youtube audience.

Boering is saying that because he is paying Crowder $50 million at least (Crowder will likely ask for more), should Youtube or advertisers PULL REVENUES AWAY, then the 'ding' should he shared between DW and Crowder, not just DW.

 

Boering isnlt trying to 'hinder' any creativity, he's trying to ensure that his company makes the money back.

Anonymous ID: 71c8bb Jan. 19, 2023, 1:04 p.m. No.18176181   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>18176134

He did in fact 'say anything of the sort'.

 

He explicitly called out the 20% pay cut, but that is based on whether both DW and Crowder are denied revenues for whatever reason, if Crowder says something that causes an 'advertiser boycott', which results in 50% decline in revenues to DW, then DW will cut 25% of his pay, of ==$50 to $100 million=.

 

Crowder was absolutely conveying a philosophy that DW should pay him even if DW's revenues decline.

 

That isn't a partnership, that is indeed a 'benefactor' relationship.