- Joined
- Feb 16, 2016
You aren't wrong about Ralph's failings impacting his audience, though I was more talking about everyone more successful than Ralph on that platform (who seem to be mostly Q-grifters). I don't think Q-grifter's and Ralph's business models are exactly comparable at this point though. Perhaps back after WSJ they might have been.Counterpoint: The Gunt's numbers would be much higher if he hadn't driven away most of his audience. You name it: Pillstream, alcoholism, arrests, fucking a highschooler, dropping a sex tape, becoming a deadbeat dad, constantly screaming about Null when no one in his audience even gives a shit, and so on.
I can't speak for how long Ethan would have lasted on YouTube if he had never done the Holocaust rant charity stream, but it's clear his downfall from grace would have been inevitable. He's been banned off of so many other services that it's clear no one wants him unless they can actively charge him thousands on dollars to host his shitty stream. That's how much of a liability he is.
Q-grifters have the selling point of "you literally cannot find this content on mainstream platforms", which is a crutch, but a profitable crutch if you're consistent and one of the first to the party.
By contrast, Ralph used to have that crutch, at least for a time after the WSJ shit, but at this point he's watered his content down so far that he could probably exist on youtube with his current content if his history didn't exist and he didn't have bi-monthly chimpouts which seem to precipitate complaints to platforms about Ralph. The former issue seems to be the main problem with selling "Killstream" as an edgy brand at this point; what's the point of going to Ralph if the truly spicy banned takes are being curated by people who go full Q and don't give a shit about optics?
Hence the nutty revenue the Q-grifters pull as opposed to Ralph's low but more linear viewership/revenue numbers.