That's actually a good point, when you're on the rise the contract isn't a bad thing because you can really demand some excess provisions, but when you're on the decline that contact as a death sentence as it's locking you in at your low if not lower.
You unintentionally triggered some speculations I didn't consider prior, so I thank you for this! Why bother complaining to the platforms about the fixing of algorithms when one can simply sign their death certificate off
to the highest bidder?...
A platform that "saves" Creators with the promise of guaranteed payouts has potentially bought the ability to effectively compete against those same brands more effectively and push their own agenda
regardless of how well those brands do in reality during the agreement.
1) By making him do the Rumble switchover, he forfeits the momentum he had worked so hard to build up when he focused mostly on Youtube superchats. This is very damaging for
any streamer who relies on word of mouth (and thus algorithm suggestions) to promote their brands and the long-lasting effects of this is usually irreversible.
(I seem to remember Youtube's algorithm is biased against "old" streamers who forget to stream or stop streaming altogether for a period of time. It's like they become an Unmentionable)
2) Their current roster of established (read:
profitable) lawstreamers that already operate under the same umbrella as Nick, especially whose commentaries center around the speculations of cases, courts, laws, politics, etc, now have an advantage.
3) Even if Nick starts to directly compete with their best streamers, Rumble knows a lot about the running of his business, personal failings and whatnot, thanks to the ever helpful "advice" he's passed to them under the guise of "just trying to help". So congrats, Nick, on demonstrating
the entire map to your downfall to a platform that maintains a list of your biggest competitors.
TLDR: Nick can't have been a "bad" investment" if Rumble ultimately aided him in the destruction of his brand on a competing platform. Doing so, they may have actually eliminated a worthy competitor to their own roster of Lawstreamers/Constitutional Experts, which has long been their known bread and butter. So it's
win win regardless and how he performs
actually doesn't matter.
Edit: Worth noting, I'm not suggesting this was deliberate on their part. Only that it suggests there's less risk in investing in
any brand that picks away at any of the many parallel offerings on YT. Nick going to Rumble was always the bigger risk.
Nick might be, but he certainly sucks at maintaining social relationships that made his media "empire" worth orbiting.
