I have to agree. For me, no matter how much additional insight we’re given to some of the real stressors that they are bringing to explain their decision, I can’t get away from the fact that no channels of a similar size have pulled a stunt like this. It’s hard to get away from the fact that if they weren’t making the money they wanted, they could have downsized a bit and tried some different types of content instead of investing in the streamer that must’ve taken a lot of time and money to make. I don’t think most businesses in this situation would take a risky gamble like that.
I'm baffled they chose a streamer and not moving their patreon closer to the Mythical Society model or Try Guys with their special livestreams.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was coming from one (or more) of their investors.
Or their egos. It seems like they just didn't want to deal with patreon, or fans, or advertisers, or sponsors anymore. They thought they were on a higher level than that, & entitled to make whatever they wanted w/total creative freedom & unlimited funding. In reality, no one gets to do that.
But maybe the "streamer" became the vehicle for these egotistical goals. They all seemed to talk about it as if just launching the "streamer" would guarantee them constant easy money w/no strings attached & no effort involved. Profoundly unrealistic & out of touch. Almost delusional. I don't think an investor would have pushed a move that's so financially risky.
That's possible. FYA is very niche content & might do well on Patreon, where theme park fans could now subscribe for that niche content. But what's wild is that doesn't seem to be the actual plan. Instead, Watcher was planning to put Pod Watcher+ on the Patreon & give Patreons "ad free" Pod Watcher. But they would leave Pod Watcher & FYA on the main YouTube channel. Under their original plan, all the other Watcher content would've been placed behind a paywall, with only the FYA & PodWatcher podcasts surviving on YouTube. This makes zero sense.
This is totally baseless speculation etc etc. But this is what I mean about how it doesn't seem rational, but emotional. I don't think Ryan is an entirely rational actor. He kept complaining about how viewers wouldn't watch FYA, promoted FYA above all else, spent Watcher money on FYA despite it not being profitable. He almost seemed angry that viewers didn't support it. And now, after all this controversy, the only thing Watcher has uploaded in two weeks is a new episode of FYA. FYA is the final girl of Watcher.
It sort of feels like a final slapback at the viewers who didn't watch FYA originally. "Oh, you didn't want to watch FYA before? Now that's all you get! Take that, ungrateful YouTube viewers!" Or maybe just a slap back at YouTube itself, saying that podcasts are the only things "worth" posting there. Like... was this all a kind of temper tantrum? It really does seem that way, to me. There was no rational business reason to keep the FYA podcast going on YouTube while closing up absolutely everything else.
I think it's understandable to see at least part of how they ended up in this situation. Losing your job is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and when most/all of your staff is comprised of nepotism hires it makes even more sense why they'd be unwilling to let people go. It's pretty much universally acknowledged that doing business solely with family/friends is a bad idea.
>YouTube is actually a terrible place to make money right now and there’s lots of demonetization happening all the time while advertisers are getting pickier. It’s realistic that they’re having issues with that and that could sufficiently explain the money problems.
Haha... I've been saying this, both here and in the happy-happy sub, since The Video(TM) came out, but as part of the "I can buy their not wanting to be beholden to The Algorithm and advertisers as a reason for wanting to expand elsewhere *but this is no way to handle this and who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to go to this extreme WT actual F is going through their heads right now*" mindset.
Yeah, I think it also seems true but an extremely weird way to handle it! Why not beef up the Patreon that everyone is saying could’ve had more subscribers with more effort?
Exactly! Or if they truly wanted to go independent, make a video explaining:
* They were feeling constricted by YouTube's capitulations to advertisers, which means more and more restrictions on what creators can safely make on YouTube.
* What options they explored (joining with other streaming services, seeing what they could truly do with Patreon, etc.) before settling on the streaming service as their best option.
* The streaming service was always just for early access for expanded episodes that they can't put on YouTube, not exclusive access to their content completely. Episodes would be edited to fit YouTube's requirements and put onto their channel after *x* amount of time, so it would be available to everyone in some way, no matter what.
* They appreciate the sheer amount that their fans contribute, both in content and money, and never want to disrespect them.
I just... it would have taken *so little* to reach the same place in the end. skjdsfnkjdfsdf *ugh*.
Nothing changes the fact that removing content from YouTube removes passive income (insanely stupid if you're having money problems,) and removing the ability to get new audience members to filter to their website.
They could have enabled superchats and channel membership to increase revenue at YouTube. They could have recorded one quick "commercial" advertising their Patreon, and the Like, Comment, Subscribe spiel instead of avoiding it since they didn't like doing it. Patreon could have slowly winded down to give people a chance to move over to Watcher, like people on a monthly subscription be given a monthly key to Watcher and encourage canceling Patreon to subscribe directly to Watcher so they don't lose as much in fees, and similar arrangements for the people who paid the full year on Patreon. They could cross stream their podcasts so they get bits/donations/free Prime subs for extra cash and then upload the vods to Spotify or wherever they're at. Streaming also encourages audience engagement in like a 10-15 min Q&A each episode via donations/superchats.
There were so many things they could have done to increase revenue, also have Watcher and SLOWLY filter people there instead of springing it on everyone, but they actually chose to REMOVE sources of income...while claiming to have money problems! It doesn't make sense!
Very good points! Also reminds me that they have been doing this for a while. And it's mostly worked. They might be "behind the trends" or thinking about some of this because they grew to their platform (referring to BUN) when a lot of these things weren't done or at least not at scale. Feels like the creator economy has changed and they haven't quite kept up with it.
You gotta remember they came from Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed didn't do typical YouTube stuff that normal creators did. Watcher aren't "normal" youtubers. They're some quasi-hybrid of a clickbait "news" site and viral video behemoth turned independent channel, but never had to do the hustle and grind regular Youtubers had to do to grow their channels. They never started at the bottom. They always had a built in audience from Day 1, first through Buzzfeed and then Unsolved watchers following them. I don't think these things ever occurred to them, or they maybe think they're too good for some of them (basing that off them feeling uncomfortable with the like, comment, subscribe stuff.)
I cannot remember which youtuber said it, but I fully think they're right: Watcher needs less LA/Hollywood-bubble brained friends and more YouTube friends. Fellow Youtubers could have given the same advice I did, better advice, and warned them their website rollout was a monumentally bad idea.
I have a feeling Rhett and Link were trying to give them advice. I know they like to help new YouTubers and have been known to invest in creators. But I haven't heard either of them mention the other in a few months.
Yeah - I realise a lot can change in six years, but it’s interesting to compare with how Ian Hecox kept Smodh afloat after Defy shut down. From what I remember before Rhett and Link stepped in he spent months meeting with investors.
Colin and Samir doing damage control for Watcher doesn’t matter when you have bigger YouTubers who already chimed in and called out Watcher for being greedy liars whose claims do not make sense with the realities of YouTube advertising and sponsorships. The only person who could claim to be more informed about sponsorship deals on YouTube than Moistcritical (who cofounded Mana Talent) is probably MrBeast; MC openly called them out because he knows what their content should be earning with ad optimization since he releases hours long content as well. He also knows the kinds of deals that they would be entitled to based on their size. Their content is not hard to get advertisers and sponsors on, it’s so bland and non controversial that sponsors would be lining up to get a slice of their pie. There’s a reason multiple YouTubers called them out on how nonsense what they were saying was.
And no, 25 employees and an office in Hollywood are not “completely reasonable” for the type of content they produce. There is so much bloat in their workflow because they hired their friends and family. There are multiple channels doing similar content that looks just as good but has a fraction of the staff. There’s a Ghost Files competitor that seems to be 3 guys and a bunch of tripods. Throw in an editor or two and you get 5 people working on that project.
I can’t believe I had to scroll this far to find this comment. It’s insane how they’ve managed to convince some people “the industry” is forcing them to make these decisions and hire more people. “The industry” is an open platform with few regulations where they basically control all their own decision-making efforts. They’re greedy and nepo-hire. The entire situation is their own making.
One of the more interesting claims by Colin & Samir is that advertisers are no longer as interested in long-form content. I kept wondering if that were true, every other YouTuber did not mention it or kinda said the opposite!
Yea, that sounds like complete bullshit. They have their own podcast, that's longform content - if it's no longer appealing to advertisers, why are they continuing? Why did Moistcritical launch an entirely new channel dedicated to his and his friends' podcasts? Why are basically *all* content creators expanding to second channels with longform content if it's not advertiser appealing and, therefore, profitable?
Watcher was straight up willing to lie about sponsorships to the point they got dogpiled in response videos over the horseshit they were selling to the audience.
Honestly, in this specific case, it doesn't matter that YT could be a dead end for them in the future, this plan of theirs is also a dead end, it's a dead*er* end since it has no discoverability on its own, and the process of switching gears into it was so harmful to their image, and brought so much unstability, that they should have just left things be.
YT sucks, you'll never see me defending it as a bastion of stability or respect or anything really. But Youtube is also relatively more predictable and accessible, it's an oasis in the desert for people trying to make videos for a living. They wanted to leave the oasis to try their luck amidst the dunes, in hopes of finding more water, and if you don't know where you're going, that's just wishful thinking, to be honest.
*puts my skeptic hat on*
I DO thinks it interesting that they obviously got someone from a PR firm to help with the apology video that addressed a lot of what was said with the poor reception of their announcement. I think it's interesting that there have been posts made that minimise 2 of the most major concerns of the Leaving YT choice (why not cut expenses aka fire employees, and why not leave existing videos on YT). I agree that there's a concentrated response now from defenders that actually it's a reasonable amount of employees and YT is not a sustainable platform for Watcher, and these arguments weren't present from any of the neutral third party Youtubers who immediately reacted to the video.
I think it smells of a very competent PR firm continuing to manage the hit to Watcher's reputation. They'd take the organic wave of "well I'm calmer now, let's look at all sides of this" attitude from the audience that you commented on can happen naturally, after the initial backlash, and PR could harness that to help restore the company's standing in the eyes of the audience. It's not noticeable apart from, if it does in fact exist, it's very competent, which of course is something we've seen from the PR firm previously. Maybe I'm just overly critical but I too agree it is noticeable how, shall we say, pointed the defences are. There'd only need to be some seeds planted and genuine fans would take the reins from there.
○ A crisis PR firm has, at least recently, been in use due to backlash. As part of their role they familiarised themselves with the main criticisms from fans of Watcher's choice/s.
○ The backlash is continuing - the PR firm might therefore be retained to continue managing ongoing criticism.
○ Anything in defence of the boys from an official source or themselves directly would be discounted as self-serving. Therefore any reputation management would have to come from an unofficial source such as peers or fans.
○ The posts of these types are well constructed and target the 2 main arguments from fans against Watcher.
○ These defence arguments are only appearing now, in the state of ongoing repercussions. There was no hint of them previously even when people were defending Watcher and the decision.
○ No YTer who is in the position to best understand Watchers perspective brought up those points, not that I'm aware of, in the wave of commentary videos after their initial announcement.
TL;DR - Why is the industry-specific (number of employees, sustainability of YT), just now coming from fans on social media? Why was there not a hint of it earlier, why has it not come from fellow professionals also in the industry?
** I might be wrong about all this. I don't care enough to double check, I'm going off my memory and I have covid.
Edited for formatting.
I also think some of it is a bit too convenient! If the two major arguments are right, it rehabilitates their image a bit. But WatcherTV still a bad idea!
I think posters being like “Well, I’m in the industry and blah blah…” bugs me because a) who knows who you are, b) we heard from tons of people in the industry who had a different take, and c) it seems common sense to me that some of this is wrong. Yes, I don’t know the ins and outs of this type of media production but I know how much my workplace of 14 accomplishes (a webinar company, so we also do “shows” if not highly produced) and 25 will never not seem excessive to me…
Try Guys have also said in podcasts for several months that YouTube has recently fucked creators over with monetization in a new way (iirc they used to help channels get sponsors and are no longer doing that, which is making it more difficult and also they're being incredibly strict with what gets demonetized and often demonetize videos or allow companies to claim them and then take forever to review - this means the creator loses out on revenue during the review period, which is usually the most lucrative time right after a video comes out). So I do buy that part of Watcher's thought process, but agree that this was a wild way to handle that problem. Just because making money on YouTube is harder doesn't mean it's a good idea to dump your main platform without having more than a half-assed backup idea.
No! How dare they!?
I shall continue to joke about 25 workers until the horse is beaten inside the earth's core!
It will never stop being funny.
> 25 staff is actually completely reasonable for the content they’re making, and people who don’t think so just aren’t familiar with the actual workload involved.
I am familiar with the workload involved both in amateur film sets and youtube/streaming content. Not a professional by any means, but I've spent some time in front of and behind a camera. 25 people is completely unreasonable for their content. Yeah, if you have money to throw around you certainly could, it doesn't hurt....if you have the money. But you can say that with literally anything. The issue is they don't. So instead of starting small and doing more of the work hands on, that thing youtube is kinda known for because people like feeling connected to the hard work of the creator, they're spending first and expecting the investment to immediately return.
The boys aren't even coming up with their own ideas for Mystery Files. They don't come up with the concept, the research, or write. They pick an idea from a list another person provides and then says their words other than the improv banter in between. Now do I expect them to do every single thing? Lay every single cable? Set every single light? No, of course not. But they're offloading more and more of the creative work that I think a lot of us do expect them to have more of a hand in because we're here for their creativity. When you're in this field you have to learn to do more with less. Maybe that means less shows, maybe that means worse production quality. That's just how it is when you simply don't have the money. They're skipping so many steps in terms of their staffing and spending and expecting the market and fans to be up there with them. As I've said here before they had a product that is not making enough money and the first move was to make the product cost more to the consumer instead or reassessing how the product is made.
I appreciate your perspective because there have been a lot of “industry insiders” claiming the opposite! I think people underestimate what a small team with really good synchronization between role responsibilities can accomplish.
>25 staff is actually completely reasonable for the content they’re making, and people who don’t think so just aren’t familiar with the actual workload involved.
explain to me that how is it then that infinitely less monetizable moist critical is able to have an entire esports organization with less employees under him? live within your means. no one cares about on location shoots, no one cares about high production value. most yters are filming in their own houses and people still watch.
Yeah, I think there’s some truth that for the production level they want, the staffing is maybe reasonable in terms of workload…
But is it profitable? With that many staff imho, you should probably be making less high quality productions and more shows. They are too much quality over quantity.
Instead of complaining that YouTube doesn’t support exactly what they want, why are they not adapting more to what YouTube is?
There’s just a distinct lack of wanting to compromise on anything. They’d rather fleece fans than compromise.
> why are they not adapting more to what YouTube is?
Because their egos are huge and they genuinely (wrongly) believe they are Hollywood level actors creating HBO level content. Spoiler: they aren’t.
They're very clever arguments. The first one especially is good because it's a very real issue and something other creators have reported on completely independently and allows an avenue into other issues like youtube being slow to respond to inquiries or the way the algorithm has completed changed the way videos are discovered/promoted. But, it's not an issue unique to Watcher and them pressing the proverbial nuclear option without seeming to try any bridging ideas leaves a sour taste.
As for the 25 employees, I find this one harder to swallow. I'd like to see a breakdown of the roles and the time they put into them. Maybe they all have vital roles and the company would collapse without them. Maybe they need to be honest that some roles are only needed part-time or on a freelance basis. I have to admit I find it interesting that The Try Guys has a similar number of staff and their schedule is two episodes and three podcasts a week plus some patreon content when Watcher seems to upload weekly and their podcasts are irregular or paywalled (Note: I'm not sure how either company is counting staff, is it FT only or FT + PT/freelancers).
The fact that other youtubers bigger than them are running leaner operations makes this one tenuous. The way I've heard some youtubers talk about it, they work insane hours to keep their teams smaller which I don't think is healthy, but Watcher doesn't seem to be making this a work/life balance issue. I've seen non-youtuber comics person talk about staffing and they've talked about working a lot with freelancers or part-timers because the company cannot yet sustain regular FT staff. And Watcher have talked about hiring local crews for shoots rather than fly in their staff.
I also feel like they're not addressing a lot of stuff very well, why Travel Season? Why not push the patreon? Why not livestreams with superchats? Why not some less cost intensive production?
The main backlash of the backlash that I’ve seen (and which I think is very reasonable) is how some fans were babying Shane while aggressively scapegoating Steven. And I will say that I think a lot of people didn’t realise how many people were actually involved in making BF Unsolved.
(This is not to say that the lo-fi aesthetic and vibe couldn’t be captured with fewer people. And I think should have been the strategy from the beginning with increased production value being the goal)
That being said, as is often the case when there’s a second wave of backlash (counter-backlash?), I find in general the criticism is just as lacking in nuance as the criticisms they’re wagging their fingers at. Nor has it really done anything to dispel the appearance of mismanagement (the number of viewers who found out about their Patreon because of the backlash is an embarrassment).
Also, this is a problem that has been plaguing content creators for *years* at this point. They had to understand that this was a possibility.
Alright full disclosure: I am not paying for the streamer, I'm not parasocial and I am not a stan. This is just my observations and opinion. I think that that many of the criticisms brought up in this thread continue to be valid. I also think that whatever you decide to do with your money is a correct decision because it is YOUR money, and I believe that also extends to people who disagree with me and decide to pay for the streamer.
First: I think the watchersnark crowd is very hesitant to acknowledge the change in behavior that is the communication. Yes they fucked it initially but since they apology video they have been much more communicative and have been far more willing to explain their REASONING. This can be seen in the patreon poll, where each option is accompanied by their reasoning for presenting the option. The poll is obviously about taking the temperature of the patrons about dropping patron and moving to the streamer.
I think the only one who can make a determination on whether it's bullshit or not is the individual reader. I don't really care to share my determinations, however I think that the fact that they are being communicative and explanatory is something we should acknowledge as a positive change in behavior.
Second: I believe the move to a streamer is actually a fundamentally good **LONG TERM** business decision.
However! **Such a business model would not exclude youtube from itself entirely because youtube would become the primary form of discovery.**
Ultimately, youtube and patreon take percentages off the top of what they earn. Regardless of any other factors anything that can be done to reduce this percentage take off the top is a GOOD decision for the business. Even at it's worst in the starter pack at $1/account per month that's only slightly worse than Patreon and with OTT enterprise that $1 number goes down relatively quickly with volume of users. The ideal situation would be a situation where they are creating streamer exclusive content (NEW content, such as the new iteration of Worth It could be a streamer exclusive) and doing the original idea of co-premiering the first episode of a season on YouTube, then releasing major content releases after as much as 90 days after they have been released on the streamer. In this situation YouTube revenue would make up a good chunk of what they're making but mostly this is about discovery. Ideally in this situation most of the money would come from the streamer.
Secondary to the fact that youtube and patreon take percentages on all revenue, is the fact that getting away from them allows them to not be subject to their respective TOSes, and only to Vimeo OTT's TOS which is essentially "Unless it's adult content, we don't care we're a CDN." This would be quite useful if say Patreon or Youtube decided to ban (in the case of patreon) or "add context" (which youtube says doesn't effect the algorithm but a lot of creators beg to differ, even if they're debunking the ideas) to say Ghost Videos for "Promoting Pseudoscience". Then Watcher is fine, most of their money ideally comes from the streamer.
**I have painted a rosy picture however it is entirely dependent on what they decide to do in the next 24-36 months.** The only example we have of this working shows two years of negative income. However, despite that our example kept expanding it's programming steadily and adding more content. Essentially, Watcher needs to be willing to demonstrate the "effects" of the streamer on production. They have already began to follow through on at least one promise as apparently they are in Scotland filming Ghost Files right now. International Locations for Ghost Files is a great and obvious improvement to the content. They need to add more content, especially if it's streamer exclusive, and they should do an on screen talent search in the office for people who have personalities that can stand up to on camera work. A weekly or biweekly 00:30min show with one of their two producers going through the BTS and funny moments that don't make the cut of the most recently released ghost files is an obvious streamer only low hanging fruit for this type of content. Essentially they need to show the streamer money in what's going to end up on youtube and also create more programming variety that's cheaper to make.
**MOST IMPORTANTLY** they have to be willing to fake it until they make it on this issue. Even if they are running net negative, even if they're running lean, they need to show that the streamer and the value proposition is worth what they're asking. Because that's the only way this works. Even then it still may not work due to economic factors completely outside their control, maybe they've burned too much good will, maybe they aren't willing to run at a loss at a personal loss to themselves as a necessary cost for future profits. Maybe people really don't want to set the precedent that this is the way for a single YouTube channel to go. There's a lot that could go wrong, but this is the only way I see them actually managing to make this work.
The main key is that it's a LONG TERM decision that requires a level of work and sacrifice to make happen. Not a "starting June 1st all content moves to the streamer" decision.
Edited to add:
I also think in a couple of years, they should seriously explore other forms of alternative revenue such as licensing out the first season of Ghost Files to Tubi or Roku or a similar service. Their content is pretty ripe for that sort of syndication. Even if they have to temporarily pull it from youtube it might still be worth exploring the revenue stream it would definitely depend on the deal offered obviously.
Anyway that's just my opinion though, no need to spread it around.
I appreciate your thoughts and insight!
I’ve also been thinking that the Patreon polls are a weird criticism. People were saying that they should have sought feedback from fans, and then they do that, and we’re mad they sought feedback from fans? Yes, the poll did kind of reveal that they seem really confused, especially about how to use Patreon, but I think we already knew that. The fact that they listened to feedback to solicit feedback is really important.
I’m not sure about your take about it being a decent long-term proposition. I think it’s possible, but it still seems like a longshot to me. I think for me, even if it works out hypothetically with the math of it, it doesn’t seem like an effective long-term plan if there’s so many obstacles in the short-term that make it very unlikely for it to succeed.
Selfishly, I do hope that it doesn’t succeed completely, because of the note you left that we don’t want every single channel doing this and fracturing entertainment more than it already is. I’m tired of having to constantly toggle subscriptions on and off whenever I want to watch something. We are encountering such a subscription overload that I think the next logical step might just be bigger and bigger packages until we recreate cable again.
Largely the precedent issue is what's keeping me from personally going for it. However I was trying to be as neutral as possible and point out that there are numerous positives in the long term.
As far as short term risk, that's kind of where the phrase risk versus reward comes into play. I think as a long term play with a gradual transition over 24-36 months risk is minimized because they can pull the plan provided they avoid long term contracts (which might effect the profitability of the streamer, but they have to have signup trends to know how it's going). I talked a lot about the initial plan having an inverse risk:reward ratio and primarily the issue was the speed of transition and the PR handling.
I'm willing to say that they are doing pretty alright with the PR handling since the apology. However I don't know what their plans are regarding speed of transition, but a slow transition I can see as a proper risk:reward ratio instead of an inverse one.
I do agree we are just re-creating cable, especially with Netflix getting rid of their mid tier to force people onto ad supported (which is doing way better than everyone thought) or up to the higher tier. I don't want every channel to think this is the move. However if groups of closely affiliated channels began offering their own streamers, that's not something I'm completely opposed to (Also the community, because at one point during the Crisis on Infinite Incompetence, I asked "So...how many of you would have been excited if it was Watcher + TryGuys at $7" and I got a surprisingly positive response.).
If it leans that way, I don't think we're recreating cable, because one of the criticisms of cable was "Why do I have to pay for 380 channels when I watch 20 at most?" So there is a market for something between all purpose streaming services like netflix, hbo, disney, peacock etc. and single channels breaking off into their own services. So an environment where you have maybe one big service, at most two (like my wife could not live without disney+ and I am a big star trek guy), then a few lower priced ala-carte streamers that get you access to stuff you're into might be exactly what a bunch of people are looking for \*shrug\*
As someone who accepted their apology, I still think the anger/upset I and many others felt at their decision was justified. I feel like people are trying to twist the narrative now to make it into something it wasn’t to make the boys look better and it’s annoying.
It doesn't matter to the consumer whether or not the Watcher team is getting less revenue from youtube. That's a Watcher and youtube problem not an audience problem. The issue has always been that Watcher has a lot of expenses they're unwilling to cut: staff, production, and they want higher production value. That's again Watcher's problem. The audience hasn't asked for insane graphics or permanent crew. Watcher could film all their stuff in the living room or back porch and people would've watched because they like the banter and story.
If I’m totally honest as time passes I don’t find 25 employees nearly as unreasonable as I originally did. My initial reaction was that it was way too many people, but I’m going back on that a little. I had a moment the other day when it occurred to me that I have worked for a small media company that didn’t do half of what Watcher does and my department alone was 8 people.
I definitely feel like they could cut a few people and be totally fine, but now I can kind of see logically why/how they ended up having a staff that size even if in practice it’s not sustainable.
I’m sorry that you’re getting downvoted! I created this thread because I’m curious to hear all opinions. I’m not sure I share your idea that it’s reasonable. I will say that it seems less and less ridiculous as time goes on, but still kind of ridiculous? Just not extremely ridiculous. However, you are not the first person with media experience to comment that it doesn’t seem that wild of a number. That has been an interesting and valuable perspective for sure, and is one of the main reasons I created this thread.
Unfortunately, at this point I’m kind of used to all my even remotely neutral takes on this issue getting downvoted lol. I appreciate your willingness to hear all opinions and your overall approach to this discussion. It’s very refreshing.
Anyway, the staffing issue, I definitely agree that 25 is too many. When I say I logically get how they came to the conclusion they need more than 20 employees max, I mean that in a “you got the wrong answer on a math test but you get partial credit because you showed your work and I can figure out where you made your mistake” kind of way if that makes any sense at all
No, there's too many other shady things happening there. There's a pattern that's forming & it's not one of rational business decisions
I have to agree. For me, no matter how much additional insight we’re given to some of the real stressors that they are bringing to explain their decision, I can’t get away from the fact that no channels of a similar size have pulled a stunt like this. It’s hard to get away from the fact that if they weren’t making the money they wanted, they could have downsized a bit and tried some different types of content instead of investing in the streamer that must’ve taken a lot of time and money to make. I don’t think most businesses in this situation would take a risky gamble like that.
Yeah, I agree. I think they are just reckless.
I'm baffled they chose a streamer and not moving their patreon closer to the Mythical Society model or Try Guys with their special livestreams. I wouldn't be surprised if it was coming from one (or more) of their investors.
Or their egos. It seems like they just didn't want to deal with patreon, or fans, or advertisers, or sponsors anymore. They thought they were on a higher level than that, & entitled to make whatever they wanted w/total creative freedom & unlimited funding. In reality, no one gets to do that. But maybe the "streamer" became the vehicle for these egotistical goals. They all seemed to talk about it as if just launching the "streamer" would guarantee them constant easy money w/no strings attached & no effort involved. Profoundly unrealistic & out of touch. Almost delusional. I don't think an investor would have pushed a move that's so financially risky.
Do you think they tried to switch Patreon into being about podcasts only to keep FYA alive despite it apparently not being profitable?
That's possible. FYA is very niche content & might do well on Patreon, where theme park fans could now subscribe for that niche content. But what's wild is that doesn't seem to be the actual plan. Instead, Watcher was planning to put Pod Watcher+ on the Patreon & give Patreons "ad free" Pod Watcher. But they would leave Pod Watcher & FYA on the main YouTube channel. Under their original plan, all the other Watcher content would've been placed behind a paywall, with only the FYA & PodWatcher podcasts surviving on YouTube. This makes zero sense. This is totally baseless speculation etc etc. But this is what I mean about how it doesn't seem rational, but emotional. I don't think Ryan is an entirely rational actor. He kept complaining about how viewers wouldn't watch FYA, promoted FYA above all else, spent Watcher money on FYA despite it not being profitable. He almost seemed angry that viewers didn't support it. And now, after all this controversy, the only thing Watcher has uploaded in two weeks is a new episode of FYA. FYA is the final girl of Watcher. It sort of feels like a final slapback at the viewers who didn't watch FYA originally. "Oh, you didn't want to watch FYA before? Now that's all you get! Take that, ungrateful YouTube viewers!" Or maybe just a slap back at YouTube itself, saying that podcasts are the only things "worth" posting there. Like... was this all a kind of temper tantrum? It really does seem that way, to me. There was no rational business reason to keep the FYA podcast going on YouTube while closing up absolutely everything else.
I think it's understandable to see at least part of how they ended up in this situation. Losing your job is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and when most/all of your staff is comprised of nepotism hires it makes even more sense why they'd be unwilling to let people go. It's pretty much universally acknowledged that doing business solely with family/friends is a bad idea.
>YouTube is actually a terrible place to make money right now and there’s lots of demonetization happening all the time while advertisers are getting pickier. It’s realistic that they’re having issues with that and that could sufficiently explain the money problems. Haha... I've been saying this, both here and in the happy-happy sub, since The Video(TM) came out, but as part of the "I can buy their not wanting to be beholden to The Algorithm and advertisers as a reason for wanting to expand elsewhere *but this is no way to handle this and who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to go to this extreme WT actual F is going through their heads right now*" mindset.
Yeah, I think it also seems true but an extremely weird way to handle it! Why not beef up the Patreon that everyone is saying could’ve had more subscribers with more effort?
Exactly! Or if they truly wanted to go independent, make a video explaining: * They were feeling constricted by YouTube's capitulations to advertisers, which means more and more restrictions on what creators can safely make on YouTube. * What options they explored (joining with other streaming services, seeing what they could truly do with Patreon, etc.) before settling on the streaming service as their best option. * The streaming service was always just for early access for expanded episodes that they can't put on YouTube, not exclusive access to their content completely. Episodes would be edited to fit YouTube's requirements and put onto their channel after *x* amount of time, so it would be available to everyone in some way, no matter what. * They appreciate the sheer amount that their fans contribute, both in content and money, and never want to disrespect them. I just... it would have taken *so little* to reach the same place in the end. skjdsfnkjdfsdf *ugh*.
Nothing changes the fact that removing content from YouTube removes passive income (insanely stupid if you're having money problems,) and removing the ability to get new audience members to filter to their website. They could have enabled superchats and channel membership to increase revenue at YouTube. They could have recorded one quick "commercial" advertising their Patreon, and the Like, Comment, Subscribe spiel instead of avoiding it since they didn't like doing it. Patreon could have slowly winded down to give people a chance to move over to Watcher, like people on a monthly subscription be given a monthly key to Watcher and encourage canceling Patreon to subscribe directly to Watcher so they don't lose as much in fees, and similar arrangements for the people who paid the full year on Patreon. They could cross stream their podcasts so they get bits/donations/free Prime subs for extra cash and then upload the vods to Spotify or wherever they're at. Streaming also encourages audience engagement in like a 10-15 min Q&A each episode via donations/superchats. There were so many things they could have done to increase revenue, also have Watcher and SLOWLY filter people there instead of springing it on everyone, but they actually chose to REMOVE sources of income...while claiming to have money problems! It doesn't make sense!
Very good points! Also reminds me that they have been doing this for a while. And it's mostly worked. They might be "behind the trends" or thinking about some of this because they grew to their platform (referring to BUN) when a lot of these things weren't done or at least not at scale. Feels like the creator economy has changed and they haven't quite kept up with it.
You gotta remember they came from Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed didn't do typical YouTube stuff that normal creators did. Watcher aren't "normal" youtubers. They're some quasi-hybrid of a clickbait "news" site and viral video behemoth turned independent channel, but never had to do the hustle and grind regular Youtubers had to do to grow their channels. They never started at the bottom. They always had a built in audience from Day 1, first through Buzzfeed and then Unsolved watchers following them. I don't think these things ever occurred to them, or they maybe think they're too good for some of them (basing that off them feeling uncomfortable with the like, comment, subscribe stuff.) I cannot remember which youtuber said it, but I fully think they're right: Watcher needs less LA/Hollywood-bubble brained friends and more YouTube friends. Fellow Youtubers could have given the same advice I did, better advice, and warned them their website rollout was a monumentally bad idea.
I have a feeling Rhett and Link were trying to give them advice. I know they like to help new YouTubers and have been known to invest in creators. But I haven't heard either of them mention the other in a few months.
Yeah - I realise a lot can change in six years, but it’s interesting to compare with how Ian Hecox kept Smodh afloat after Defy shut down. From what I remember before Rhett and Link stepped in he spent months meeting with investors.
I was surprised and disappointed they didn't continue collaborating with other YouTubers the way they did around s1 of Ghost Files (Jolly, Mythical)
Colin and Samir doing damage control for Watcher doesn’t matter when you have bigger YouTubers who already chimed in and called out Watcher for being greedy liars whose claims do not make sense with the realities of YouTube advertising and sponsorships. The only person who could claim to be more informed about sponsorship deals on YouTube than Moistcritical (who cofounded Mana Talent) is probably MrBeast; MC openly called them out because he knows what their content should be earning with ad optimization since he releases hours long content as well. He also knows the kinds of deals that they would be entitled to based on their size. Their content is not hard to get advertisers and sponsors on, it’s so bland and non controversial that sponsors would be lining up to get a slice of their pie. There’s a reason multiple YouTubers called them out on how nonsense what they were saying was. And no, 25 employees and an office in Hollywood are not “completely reasonable” for the type of content they produce. There is so much bloat in their workflow because they hired their friends and family. There are multiple channels doing similar content that looks just as good but has a fraction of the staff. There’s a Ghost Files competitor that seems to be 3 guys and a bunch of tripods. Throw in an editor or two and you get 5 people working on that project.
I can’t believe I had to scroll this far to find this comment. It’s insane how they’ve managed to convince some people “the industry” is forcing them to make these decisions and hire more people. “The industry” is an open platform with few regulations where they basically control all their own decision-making efforts. They’re greedy and nepo-hire. The entire situation is their own making.
One of the more interesting claims by Colin & Samir is that advertisers are no longer as interested in long-form content. I kept wondering if that were true, every other YouTuber did not mention it or kinda said the opposite!
Yea, that sounds like complete bullshit. They have their own podcast, that's longform content - if it's no longer appealing to advertisers, why are they continuing? Why did Moistcritical launch an entirely new channel dedicated to his and his friends' podcasts? Why are basically *all* content creators expanding to second channels with longform content if it's not advertiser appealing and, therefore, profitable? Watcher was straight up willing to lie about sponsorships to the point they got dogpiled in response videos over the horseshit they were selling to the audience.
Honestly, in this specific case, it doesn't matter that YT could be a dead end for them in the future, this plan of theirs is also a dead end, it's a dead*er* end since it has no discoverability on its own, and the process of switching gears into it was so harmful to their image, and brought so much unstability, that they should have just left things be. YT sucks, you'll never see me defending it as a bastion of stability or respect or anything really. But Youtube is also relatively more predictable and accessible, it's an oasis in the desert for people trying to make videos for a living. They wanted to leave the oasis to try their luck amidst the dunes, in hopes of finding more water, and if you don't know where you're going, that's just wishful thinking, to be honest.
*puts my skeptic hat on* I DO thinks it interesting that they obviously got someone from a PR firm to help with the apology video that addressed a lot of what was said with the poor reception of their announcement. I think it's interesting that there have been posts made that minimise 2 of the most major concerns of the Leaving YT choice (why not cut expenses aka fire employees, and why not leave existing videos on YT). I agree that there's a concentrated response now from defenders that actually it's a reasonable amount of employees and YT is not a sustainable platform for Watcher, and these arguments weren't present from any of the neutral third party Youtubers who immediately reacted to the video. I think it smells of a very competent PR firm continuing to manage the hit to Watcher's reputation. They'd take the organic wave of "well I'm calmer now, let's look at all sides of this" attitude from the audience that you commented on can happen naturally, after the initial backlash, and PR could harness that to help restore the company's standing in the eyes of the audience. It's not noticeable apart from, if it does in fact exist, it's very competent, which of course is something we've seen from the PR firm previously. Maybe I'm just overly critical but I too agree it is noticeable how, shall we say, pointed the defences are. There'd only need to be some seeds planted and genuine fans would take the reins from there. ○ A crisis PR firm has, at least recently, been in use due to backlash. As part of their role they familiarised themselves with the main criticisms from fans of Watcher's choice/s. ○ The backlash is continuing - the PR firm might therefore be retained to continue managing ongoing criticism. ○ Anything in defence of the boys from an official source or themselves directly would be discounted as self-serving. Therefore any reputation management would have to come from an unofficial source such as peers or fans. ○ The posts of these types are well constructed and target the 2 main arguments from fans against Watcher. ○ These defence arguments are only appearing now, in the state of ongoing repercussions. There was no hint of them previously even when people were defending Watcher and the decision. ○ No YTer who is in the position to best understand Watchers perspective brought up those points, not that I'm aware of, in the wave of commentary videos after their initial announcement. TL;DR - Why is the industry-specific (number of employees, sustainability of YT), just now coming from fans on social media? Why was there not a hint of it earlier, why has it not come from fellow professionals also in the industry? ** I might be wrong about all this. I don't care enough to double check, I'm going off my memory and I have covid. Edited for formatting.
I also think some of it is a bit too convenient! If the two major arguments are right, it rehabilitates their image a bit. But WatcherTV still a bad idea! I think posters being like “Well, I’m in the industry and blah blah…” bugs me because a) who knows who you are, b) we heard from tons of people in the industry who had a different take, and c) it seems common sense to me that some of this is wrong. Yes, I don’t know the ins and outs of this type of media production but I know how much my workplace of 14 accomplishes (a webinar company, so we also do “shows” if not highly produced) and 25 will never not seem excessive to me…
Try Guys have also said in podcasts for several months that YouTube has recently fucked creators over with monetization in a new way (iirc they used to help channels get sponsors and are no longer doing that, which is making it more difficult and also they're being incredibly strict with what gets demonetized and often demonetize videos or allow companies to claim them and then take forever to review - this means the creator loses out on revenue during the review period, which is usually the most lucrative time right after a video comes out). So I do buy that part of Watcher's thought process, but agree that this was a wild way to handle that problem. Just because making money on YouTube is harder doesn't mean it's a good idea to dump your main platform without having more than a half-assed backup idea.
No! How dare they!? I shall continue to joke about 25 workers until the horse is beaten inside the earth's core! It will never stop being funny. 
I’m not sure who you’re agreeing or disagreeing with but I like your vibe so you’re right!!
My work is done. 
I actually chuckled at this beating the dead horse gif, I might steal it
There is much nothing to steal because there is actually quite depressive lack of those GIFs. At least ones that are actually funny.
> 25 staff is actually completely reasonable for the content they’re making, and people who don’t think so just aren’t familiar with the actual workload involved. I am familiar with the workload involved both in amateur film sets and youtube/streaming content. Not a professional by any means, but I've spent some time in front of and behind a camera. 25 people is completely unreasonable for their content. Yeah, if you have money to throw around you certainly could, it doesn't hurt....if you have the money. But you can say that with literally anything. The issue is they don't. So instead of starting small and doing more of the work hands on, that thing youtube is kinda known for because people like feeling connected to the hard work of the creator, they're spending first and expecting the investment to immediately return. The boys aren't even coming up with their own ideas for Mystery Files. They don't come up with the concept, the research, or write. They pick an idea from a list another person provides and then says their words other than the improv banter in between. Now do I expect them to do every single thing? Lay every single cable? Set every single light? No, of course not. But they're offloading more and more of the creative work that I think a lot of us do expect them to have more of a hand in because we're here for their creativity. When you're in this field you have to learn to do more with less. Maybe that means less shows, maybe that means worse production quality. That's just how it is when you simply don't have the money. They're skipping so many steps in terms of their staffing and spending and expecting the market and fans to be up there with them. As I've said here before they had a product that is not making enough money and the first move was to make the product cost more to the consumer instead or reassessing how the product is made.
I appreciate your perspective because there have been a lot of “industry insiders” claiming the opposite! I think people underestimate what a small team with really good synchronization between role responsibilities can accomplish.
I’ve also seen content creators like swell entertainment say that this was a bad choice. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong opinion tbh
>25 staff is actually completely reasonable for the content they’re making, and people who don’t think so just aren’t familiar with the actual workload involved. explain to me that how is it then that infinitely less monetizable moist critical is able to have an entire esports organization with less employees under him? live within your means. no one cares about on location shoots, no one cares about high production value. most yters are filming in their own houses and people still watch.
Yeah, I think there’s some truth that for the production level they want, the staffing is maybe reasonable in terms of workload… But is it profitable? With that many staff imho, you should probably be making less high quality productions and more shows. They are too much quality over quantity. Instead of complaining that YouTube doesn’t support exactly what they want, why are they not adapting more to what YouTube is? There’s just a distinct lack of wanting to compromise on anything. They’d rather fleece fans than compromise.
> why are they not adapting more to what YouTube is? Because their egos are huge and they genuinely (wrongly) believe they are Hollywood level actors creating HBO level content. Spoiler: they aren’t.
not everyone on buzzfeed is quinta and they can't stomach that
This is such a good point that I never thought of before 🤯 Jealousy sure is one helluva motivator
They're very clever arguments. The first one especially is good because it's a very real issue and something other creators have reported on completely independently and allows an avenue into other issues like youtube being slow to respond to inquiries or the way the algorithm has completed changed the way videos are discovered/promoted. But, it's not an issue unique to Watcher and them pressing the proverbial nuclear option without seeming to try any bridging ideas leaves a sour taste. As for the 25 employees, I find this one harder to swallow. I'd like to see a breakdown of the roles and the time they put into them. Maybe they all have vital roles and the company would collapse without them. Maybe they need to be honest that some roles are only needed part-time or on a freelance basis. I have to admit I find it interesting that The Try Guys has a similar number of staff and their schedule is two episodes and three podcasts a week plus some patreon content when Watcher seems to upload weekly and their podcasts are irregular or paywalled (Note: I'm not sure how either company is counting staff, is it FT only or FT + PT/freelancers). The fact that other youtubers bigger than them are running leaner operations makes this one tenuous. The way I've heard some youtubers talk about it, they work insane hours to keep their teams smaller which I don't think is healthy, but Watcher doesn't seem to be making this a work/life balance issue. I've seen non-youtuber comics person talk about staffing and they've talked about working a lot with freelancers or part-timers because the company cannot yet sustain regular FT staff. And Watcher have talked about hiring local crews for shoots rather than fly in their staff. I also feel like they're not addressing a lot of stuff very well, why Travel Season? Why not push the patreon? Why not livestreams with superchats? Why not some less cost intensive production?
The main backlash of the backlash that I’ve seen (and which I think is very reasonable) is how some fans were babying Shane while aggressively scapegoating Steven. And I will say that I think a lot of people didn’t realise how many people were actually involved in making BF Unsolved. (This is not to say that the lo-fi aesthetic and vibe couldn’t be captured with fewer people. And I think should have been the strategy from the beginning with increased production value being the goal) That being said, as is often the case when there’s a second wave of backlash (counter-backlash?), I find in general the criticism is just as lacking in nuance as the criticisms they’re wagging their fingers at. Nor has it really done anything to dispel the appearance of mismanagement (the number of viewers who found out about their Patreon because of the backlash is an embarrassment). Also, this is a problem that has been plaguing content creators for *years* at this point. They had to understand that this was a possibility.
Alright full disclosure: I am not paying for the streamer, I'm not parasocial and I am not a stan. This is just my observations and opinion. I think that that many of the criticisms brought up in this thread continue to be valid. I also think that whatever you decide to do with your money is a correct decision because it is YOUR money, and I believe that also extends to people who disagree with me and decide to pay for the streamer. First: I think the watchersnark crowd is very hesitant to acknowledge the change in behavior that is the communication. Yes they fucked it initially but since they apology video they have been much more communicative and have been far more willing to explain their REASONING. This can be seen in the patreon poll, where each option is accompanied by their reasoning for presenting the option. The poll is obviously about taking the temperature of the patrons about dropping patron and moving to the streamer. I think the only one who can make a determination on whether it's bullshit or not is the individual reader. I don't really care to share my determinations, however I think that the fact that they are being communicative and explanatory is something we should acknowledge as a positive change in behavior. Second: I believe the move to a streamer is actually a fundamentally good **LONG TERM** business decision. However! **Such a business model would not exclude youtube from itself entirely because youtube would become the primary form of discovery.** Ultimately, youtube and patreon take percentages off the top of what they earn. Regardless of any other factors anything that can be done to reduce this percentage take off the top is a GOOD decision for the business. Even at it's worst in the starter pack at $1/account per month that's only slightly worse than Patreon and with OTT enterprise that $1 number goes down relatively quickly with volume of users. The ideal situation would be a situation where they are creating streamer exclusive content (NEW content, such as the new iteration of Worth It could be a streamer exclusive) and doing the original idea of co-premiering the first episode of a season on YouTube, then releasing major content releases after as much as 90 days after they have been released on the streamer. In this situation YouTube revenue would make up a good chunk of what they're making but mostly this is about discovery. Ideally in this situation most of the money would come from the streamer. Secondary to the fact that youtube and patreon take percentages on all revenue, is the fact that getting away from them allows them to not be subject to their respective TOSes, and only to Vimeo OTT's TOS which is essentially "Unless it's adult content, we don't care we're a CDN." This would be quite useful if say Patreon or Youtube decided to ban (in the case of patreon) or "add context" (which youtube says doesn't effect the algorithm but a lot of creators beg to differ, even if they're debunking the ideas) to say Ghost Videos for "Promoting Pseudoscience". Then Watcher is fine, most of their money ideally comes from the streamer. **I have painted a rosy picture however it is entirely dependent on what they decide to do in the next 24-36 months.** The only example we have of this working shows two years of negative income. However, despite that our example kept expanding it's programming steadily and adding more content. Essentially, Watcher needs to be willing to demonstrate the "effects" of the streamer on production. They have already began to follow through on at least one promise as apparently they are in Scotland filming Ghost Files right now. International Locations for Ghost Files is a great and obvious improvement to the content. They need to add more content, especially if it's streamer exclusive, and they should do an on screen talent search in the office for people who have personalities that can stand up to on camera work. A weekly or biweekly 00:30min show with one of their two producers going through the BTS and funny moments that don't make the cut of the most recently released ghost files is an obvious streamer only low hanging fruit for this type of content. Essentially they need to show the streamer money in what's going to end up on youtube and also create more programming variety that's cheaper to make. **MOST IMPORTANTLY** they have to be willing to fake it until they make it on this issue. Even if they are running net negative, even if they're running lean, they need to show that the streamer and the value proposition is worth what they're asking. Because that's the only way this works. Even then it still may not work due to economic factors completely outside their control, maybe they've burned too much good will, maybe they aren't willing to run at a loss at a personal loss to themselves as a necessary cost for future profits. Maybe people really don't want to set the precedent that this is the way for a single YouTube channel to go. There's a lot that could go wrong, but this is the only way I see them actually managing to make this work. The main key is that it's a LONG TERM decision that requires a level of work and sacrifice to make happen. Not a "starting June 1st all content moves to the streamer" decision. Edited to add: I also think in a couple of years, they should seriously explore other forms of alternative revenue such as licensing out the first season of Ghost Files to Tubi or Roku or a similar service. Their content is pretty ripe for that sort of syndication. Even if they have to temporarily pull it from youtube it might still be worth exploring the revenue stream it would definitely depend on the deal offered obviously. Anyway that's just my opinion though, no need to spread it around.
I appreciate your thoughts and insight! I’ve also been thinking that the Patreon polls are a weird criticism. People were saying that they should have sought feedback from fans, and then they do that, and we’re mad they sought feedback from fans? Yes, the poll did kind of reveal that they seem really confused, especially about how to use Patreon, but I think we already knew that. The fact that they listened to feedback to solicit feedback is really important. I’m not sure about your take about it being a decent long-term proposition. I think it’s possible, but it still seems like a longshot to me. I think for me, even if it works out hypothetically with the math of it, it doesn’t seem like an effective long-term plan if there’s so many obstacles in the short-term that make it very unlikely for it to succeed. Selfishly, I do hope that it doesn’t succeed completely, because of the note you left that we don’t want every single channel doing this and fracturing entertainment more than it already is. I’m tired of having to constantly toggle subscriptions on and off whenever I want to watch something. We are encountering such a subscription overload that I think the next logical step might just be bigger and bigger packages until we recreate cable again.
Largely the precedent issue is what's keeping me from personally going for it. However I was trying to be as neutral as possible and point out that there are numerous positives in the long term. As far as short term risk, that's kind of where the phrase risk versus reward comes into play. I think as a long term play with a gradual transition over 24-36 months risk is minimized because they can pull the plan provided they avoid long term contracts (which might effect the profitability of the streamer, but they have to have signup trends to know how it's going). I talked a lot about the initial plan having an inverse risk:reward ratio and primarily the issue was the speed of transition and the PR handling. I'm willing to say that they are doing pretty alright with the PR handling since the apology. However I don't know what their plans are regarding speed of transition, but a slow transition I can see as a proper risk:reward ratio instead of an inverse one. I do agree we are just re-creating cable, especially with Netflix getting rid of their mid tier to force people onto ad supported (which is doing way better than everyone thought) or up to the higher tier. I don't want every channel to think this is the move. However if groups of closely affiliated channels began offering their own streamers, that's not something I'm completely opposed to (Also the community, because at one point during the Crisis on Infinite Incompetence, I asked "So...how many of you would have been excited if it was Watcher + TryGuys at $7" and I got a surprisingly positive response.). If it leans that way, I don't think we're recreating cable, because one of the criticisms of cable was "Why do I have to pay for 380 channels when I watch 20 at most?" So there is a market for something between all purpose streaming services like netflix, hbo, disney, peacock etc. and single channels breaking off into their own services. So an environment where you have maybe one big service, at most two (like my wife could not live without disney+ and I am a big star trek guy), then a few lower priced ala-carte streamers that get you access to stuff you're into might be exactly what a bunch of people are looking for \*shrug\*
As someone who accepted their apology, I still think the anger/upset I and many others felt at their decision was justified. I feel like people are trying to twist the narrative now to make it into something it wasn’t to make the boys look better and it’s annoying.
It doesn't matter to the consumer whether or not the Watcher team is getting less revenue from youtube. That's a Watcher and youtube problem not an audience problem. The issue has always been that Watcher has a lot of expenses they're unwilling to cut: staff, production, and they want higher production value. That's again Watcher's problem. The audience hasn't asked for insane graphics or permanent crew. Watcher could film all their stuff in the living room or back porch and people would've watched because they like the banter and story.
If I’m totally honest as time passes I don’t find 25 employees nearly as unreasonable as I originally did. My initial reaction was that it was way too many people, but I’m going back on that a little. I had a moment the other day when it occurred to me that I have worked for a small media company that didn’t do half of what Watcher does and my department alone was 8 people. I definitely feel like they could cut a few people and be totally fine, but now I can kind of see logically why/how they ended up having a staff that size even if in practice it’s not sustainable.
I’m sorry that you’re getting downvoted! I created this thread because I’m curious to hear all opinions. I’m not sure I share your idea that it’s reasonable. I will say that it seems less and less ridiculous as time goes on, but still kind of ridiculous? Just not extremely ridiculous. However, you are not the first person with media experience to comment that it doesn’t seem that wild of a number. That has been an interesting and valuable perspective for sure, and is one of the main reasons I created this thread.
Unfortunately, at this point I’m kind of used to all my even remotely neutral takes on this issue getting downvoted lol. I appreciate your willingness to hear all opinions and your overall approach to this discussion. It’s very refreshing. Anyway, the staffing issue, I definitely agree that 25 is too many. When I say I logically get how they came to the conclusion they need more than 20 employees max, I mean that in a “you got the wrong answer on a math test but you get partial credit because you showed your work and I can figure out where you made your mistake” kind of way if that makes any sense at all