My thoughts on the "Big Con" feud

Reflections from a politically homeless Trump voter on the supposed infighting amongst conservatives.

As many know now, there’s been an ongoing feud between Steven Crowder and The Daily Wire over a contract¹ about signing Crowder onto the company, of which Crowder has criticized leading to a back-and-forth between the two parties as well as commentary from all over.

Here are the main videos that have come out:

1. Steven Crowder’s first video (It’s time to stop…)

2. The Daily Wire’s response (Our offer to Steven Crowder)

3. Steven Crowder’s rebuttal (I didn’t want to do this…)

---

Tons of online commentators are have already responded to these videos, so there’s plenty of different takes to go around.

Here’s just a few of many that I have come across. I haven’t watched all of them so I can’t argue which ones are stronger or less biased.

• Mikhaila Peterson describing Jordan Peterson’s contract negotiation with The Daily Wire

  • Mikhaila mentions that Jordan Peterson removed his tweet in support of Crowder before The Daily Wire made any comment about it, which appears that they didn’t want him to remove it and draw some conspiracies.

  • There is, of course, Jordan Peterson’s take on these contracts as well.

• Lauren Chen describes her personal account when presented with contracts from both The Daily Wire and Steven Crowder and her general take.

  • This provides a good perspective from someone who dealt with both. She comments that The Daily Wire offered her around half of what she was making at the time while CRTV was offering double what she was currently making. She says that Crowder offered half of what TDW did, but apparently in the comments she states she misspoke and it was actually double, but the comment isn’t pinned and I can’t argue the veracity of that comment. Overall, it’s a personal account where she also shows her vulnerable side when realizing she may have personally slighted Crowder when not taking Crowder’s contract.

• Rekieta Law covering the story as it progressed and giving his take for each video (all skipped ahead):

  • Steven Crowder’s Initial video

  • Jeremy Boreing’s response video

  • Steven Crowder’s response video

• Viva Frei and Robert Barnes take from their Sunday stream

  • On Friday Barnes and Frei were on a livestream on America’s Untold Stories which appears to be a bit more off the cuff (or more off the rails). I tried capturing when it seems they began discussing it but it starts with Barnes criticizing Boreing.

• Dave Smith, libertarian and part of the Mises Caucus, provided his take in a video released yesterday.

  • I haven’t been able to watch but the first few minutes of this video so can’t provide much context.

I encourage people to see other’s perspectives on what’s been going down. I’ll honestly state that my perspective will be far below the perspective that any of the people above have provided, and this post serves more as a collection of other viewpoints as well as a few of my thoughts about what’s been going on, albeit in a more amateurish way.

Perspectives on the supposed feud

As of now many people have taken sides over the current issue, with many saying that they are unsubscribing from TDW while others are saying that Crowder’s recording of his conversation with Boreing was slimey.

Personally, when looking at the issue I don’t find any party in particular to be aboveboard, and that how one views the argument depends on one’s perspective.

The contract itself raises several alarms, and the optics surrounding it what has led to much of the discussion on these matters. It’s hard to explain exactly everything that this dispute entails, but I will try to provide perspectives from both sides.

Money, money, money…

Let’s take, for instance, the claim that Crowder would have a 4 year initial term at a fee of $50 million. Now, that’s nothing to scoff at. Many of us would wish to make a tenth of that within our lifetime, and because of that it’s quite easy to see how that level of financing could be seen as unforgiveable to pass up. It’s been suggested that Crowder’s counter offer was around the $120 million mark, which itself seems outrageously high relative to the already high $50 million cost.

But let’s take into account that the $50 million would be spread over 4 years, averaging $12.5 million/year. Factor in taxes which may take half of that and you’re already near around $6.75 million. Remember that Crowder is expected to use that money for all of his business ventures, which includes financing his studios, paying his employees (numbers ranging around 25-30 from what I’ve seen), the costs of the equipment, and the production of his videos and it becomes rather easy to see how that money can be easily used up.

In contrast, anything created while Crowder is a part of TDW will remain with TDW even after Crowder leaves. That includes any of his videos, any products, or any channels he creates while under TDW.

Consider that the number of ad reads are expected to be around 4 per episode, and that ad reads are apparently not cheap (some have argued up to around $20,000 per ad read), and given that TDW are receiving the money from the ad reads there can be a reasonable perspective that TDW would be making back their money—and then some—with this deal.

In that regard, some have argued that the $50 million is likely to be a lowballed value when broken down. Does this inherently make the $120 million counter-offer better? That number, again, is relative and would require examining the actual cost of everything and see if a supposed $15 million/year after taxes is enough for what Crowder is offering.

As someone who would never be anywhere near such numbers, I thought it interesting to hear people’s takes on these values, with many considering it to be an inadequate number while others considering it to be huge chunk of change. On TDW’s video the part where the $50 million offer was mentioned appears to be the most replayed part of the video, with not much of the rest of the video appearing to be viewed, possibly hinting that several viewers may not have considered the overall context of the $50 million in their viewing of the situation.

Who was this contract made for?

Money is one thing. How one goes about offering such a deal is another.

Crowder’s argument has been that his revealing of the contract is not because of the money, but because of the implications of this contract for smaller content creators coming into this landscape.

It appears that this contract is a general rubric to which many people are shown, with several people corroborating it such as Candace Owens did on Tim Pool’s podcast, as well as Lauren Chen in her livestream.

As such, several people have commented that such a contract is par for the course in the media industry, and that one should always negotiate the contract.

However, when considering that this appears to be a template for other up and coming content creators, the dichotomy here can’t be overlooked.

In the same ways that this may not be about money, it’s also important to consider that this isn’t also about Crowder entirely. Crowder’s argument is critical of this contract being given to smaller creators who otherwise may not be aware of the stipulations, and may sign it because they can’t afford an attorney to parse the legalese and allow for a better negotiation. Although a small creator may make their way through TDW and gain notoriety, if much of the content was made on TDW then it’s very likely someone who leaves would have to start over again.

However, it does make sense that anything created with TDW would inherently stay with TDW, and many creators may use that notoriety to rebuild much faster than would be possible for those who are still not known.

But with that being said, it’s understandable to see how this contract, if given to many newcomers, may seem somewhat predatory. Robert Barnes commented that this contract is akin to a hostile party contract, in which it may already appear that the business is taking a stance against the individual. Lauren Chen commented that Jeremy Boreing didn’t take kindly (my words) to her not taking TDW’s offer, saying that Boreing had more experience and telling Lauren Chen that she should always try to negotiate.

If that were the case, why not come up front with a rather lucrative contract in the first place, rather than putting up-and-coming talent in a tumultuous position, unless one were to assume that the contract would be taken without any consideration?

Hence, the style of this contract appears, from my perspective, to be antagonistic to any party presented with it. It makes sense why Crowder may consider this contract to be insulting to others who may not have the foresight to understand what they are getting into.

From TDW’s perspective, this could just be how business is done and may not be out of the ordinary. People have made this comment as well, suggesting that such contracts are designed to require negotiating. It’s clear that both Candace Owens and Jordan Peterson, among the other Daily Wire members, negotiated their contracts.

But not everyone will be a Jordan Peterson or a Candace Owens—confrontational people who are able to stand for themselves and not be taken advantage of by such contracts.

Now, I will say that some of Crowder’s comments about “passing the torch” may appear rather arrogant, but it’s also true that Crowder’s health may require him to back out of the limelight in the foreseeable future. If that’s the case, he may be cognizant that others will come into this landscape, and are at least wanting to make these people aware that not all places may have their best interests in mind.

With friends like these…

I suppose I will cover one additional talking point, and that is figuring out exactly what the relationship between the two parties are in this dispute.

Both TDW crew and Crowder have commented that they found the others to be friends and are hurt by what’s been going on.

This take doesn’t quite sit well with me, and it falls into figuring out what aspects of this dispute are disputes between friends and which ones are disputes between business partners.

In this case, it seems as if the arguments over business may be defended with by remarks over friendship, which I find to be obnoxious.

Let’s take Crowder’s recording of his conversation with Boreing, which I do find to be rather slimey. Boreing and others have suggested that this conversation was amongst friends asking about each other’s families and devolving into a discussion about the contract, and therefore have raised many criticisms about this call.

From their perspective it makes sense why TDW would criticize this point. However, this requires a consideration as to whether Crowder considered TDW to be his friends at that point, or whether he may have viewed them as an antagonistic party.

Consider that Crowder may have considered the initial contract to not be one to give to a friend, and it’s possible that Crowder just viewed this more from the perspective of a business.

Of course, to answer these questions it would require that we be aware of what anyone was thinking at any given time. In looking at everything going on, it’s quite apparent that the dynamics between friends and business between these two parties were not on the same level. That is, I can easily see both sides coming to a situation with one viewing it from the perspective of a friend while another viewed it from the perspective of a business partner.

It’s quite possible that Crowder, upon viewing the contract, may not have considered it to be a contract from “friends of 10 years”, and to be frank the rebuttal to giving a friend such a contract shouldn’t be something along the lines of this being how it’s done, or that one should negotiate a much better deal between friends.

A battle of the guards

Considering a few different perspectives I have seen I won’t immediately argue that either perspective may be inherently wrong in their positions. I find fault with many ways that the current situation is playing out, including the recording of the phone call, the fact that TDW’s contract appears to be unique and rather aggressive in its approach, and with the domain for Stop Big Con being registered weeks ago prior to this debacle. Hopefully as Steven Crowder goes onto Tim Pool’s podcast tonight he will be able to clear up some more of his position, including what he refers to as “Big Con” and what that would entail.

However, I should make it known why I find much of what’s going on rather fascinating.

Coming from the left I was so struck by the hegemonic though that pervaded that side. Even in college it became rather apparent when one would not be able to have a differing viewpoint. It’s not to the same point we are at today, but it was still pretty clear that one needed to toe the line or be called out for questioning what was going on.

The new political landscape is more needed of people to break free from the decorum and need to save face that was the original norm. It makes sense why such a crass person such as Trump made headways. Irrespective of what one thought of his mannerisms, there’s no doubt that his mannerisms are what shone a light onto much of the DC political sphere, showing that many people from both sides aren’t really all too different in their selling out of American values to line their own pockets.

The fact that many conservatives and liberals hated Trump so much are the same reasons that many people became endeared to him.

It’s that want of having those who aren’t afraid to throw a wrench into the establishment that many people want more of.

It’s one of the reasons why Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Thomas Massie, and Ron Paul are so coveted, and why they are also so hated by the media. Compare Matt Gaetz recent stint on Tim Pool to the typical interviews given by politicians and the more crass, direct nature can be seen as being far more refreshing relative to what we are normally fed.

Many of these so-called “far right” individuals didn’t play ball in getting Kevin McCarthy his position as Speaker of the House, and it’s telling when one sees the actions of a select few as dividing the party.

In reality, many people have commented that getting DC stuck means no more bills giving money to Ukraine or bills raising the debt ceiling, and actually makes those in power feel uncomfortable, if for only a few days.

Far too often groups require hegemony, or at least an air of cohesion to present a front in order to fight against opponents.

Because of this many people may find it more transparent when such infighting is done more out in the open rather than behind closed doors.

As one person in Nick Rekieta’s comment section stated:

I love the fact that these sort of conversations are happening out in the open. Painful to hear it may be, it sure beats marching in lockstep with any particular approved and disseminated narrative.

So how does all of this relate to the current Crowder/TDW infighting?

I will personally say that my biases are more in-line with Crowder’s way of approaching media even if I do not agree with some of his political positions.

That is to say, Crowder’s crass, foul-mouthed approach strangely comes off as far more approachable than the buttoned-up, more formal approach that places such as TDW and more established conservative outlets take.

It’s more indicative of a newer approach to conservatism, or heck even politics in general with obfuscates all of the fluff and is more in-lined with the every day person.

Compare Crowder’s constant wearing of long-sleeved shirts to TDW’s business attire, and see which one feels more approachable.

Now, of course TDW crew aren’t always dressed up (of course a promo image would look nice compared to the image I have of Crowder, which has a few slim pickings²), but the way that it presents itself has always felt more formal, and more representative of the old ways of conservatism.

Remember that Crowder’s initial remarks suggest that many conservative pundits are told to tailor their content to older conservatives.

This is one of the reasons why Crowder tends to run afoul of YouTube and deals with deplatforming, loss of ad revenue, and even his many strikes on many occasions, although many of those strikes can be owed to Dave Landau…

I can’t recall TDW having the same level of demonitizing issues, or if they suffer strikes to the same degree as others have.

Much of the current argument relies on how one navigates the media landscape or deals with censorship.

For many, the older, typical approach taken by establishment media outlets may try to toe the line of what is deemed acceptable on YouTube or other platforms, creating a more manufactured image in contrast to the freer nature of what one sees on Rumble.

And so the perspective from the Crowder vs TDW ongoing battle isn’t one that just focuses on the contracts, or much of the infighting, but is reflective of the battle between the older, more establishment approach to politics vs the newer, more crass and authentic one that many people are seeking.

It’s more of a reflection of the direction that politics in this country should take. Should it relegate itself to the old ways of fixed talking points and curtailed speech, or one that allows for open discourse even if it may seem uncouth and allow opponents to make a mockery of such disagreements?

I, and I think many others, may prefer the latter if it means that we are allowed to have freedom to disagree with one another without having to concern ourselves with the perception of others.

---

But anyways, please let me know what you all think about everything going on. I had to stop this piece short before it goes to nearly half an hour long. Hopefully I got my point across at some point in here. I find a lot of this going on to be necessary in figuring things out. It’s also a good sign as to why we should not immediately choose sides. We may agree/disagree, but we shouldn’t rush to conclusions or immediately jump on any bandwagons we find.

But again, let me know your opinions on this topic and what you think about everything going on.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. Note: more a term sheet, but since the differences fall on technicalities I’m referring to it as a contract for simplicity.

2. I tried looking up “Steven Crowder dressed up” to get a comparable picture and got…Steven Crowder dressed up… look it up yourself to see what I mean…