hurtyknees

[hurtyknees]

Hey everyone, please consider buying the 2024 itch.io Palestinian Relief Bundle- it's 373 games, game-making assets, tabletop roleplaying games, zines, and comics for a minimum of just 8 USD! They have a goal of 100,000 USD, and as of the time I'm writing this post, they have 8 more days to reach it.

Link will be in the reblog!

[hurtyknees]

And it burns burns burns, the ring of fire

[hurtyknees]

really? another album? didn't she just make one??

[hurtyknees]

People keep talking about 'all the hate' fans have been 'attacking' watcher with over the past few days and I genuinely do not know what they are talking about.

[hurtyknees]

ahoy citizens!

I figured posting this on my birthday will bring me some good luck lol anyway I'm opening comissions! DM me and I'll draw your blorbo. or two of them. they can even kiss. (CLICK FOR BETTER QUALITY FOR GODS SAKE TUMBLR I'M TRYING TO WORK HERE)

also i started streaming on twitch. i play shitty games and draw. hang out with me on mondays and wednesdays?

#comission artist #comissions #art comissions #bg3 #baldur's gate 3 #dnd #dnd oc #dnd character #disco elysium #tattoos #tattoo project #tattoo artist #digital artist #digital art #disco elysium fanart #digital drawing #dnd art #illustrators on tumblr #comissions open #illustration

[hurtyknees]

Comic Venom: This is Eddie, he’s absolutely ripped and he has beautiful blonde hair. We’ve known each other for years and despite our many arguments, we’ve grown to love one another.

Movie Venom: This is Eddie, he’s covered in sweat, cries a lot and has no redeeming qualities. We’ve known each other for day and a half and I have been absolutely captivated by his rizzless behavior. I would and will betray my whole race for him.

[hurtyknees]

....do you know what a trans dude is. Because saying that trans men pretend to be women is actually pretty hilarious.

[hurtyknees]

from twitter user deejaygeejaygee

[hurtyknees]

another super insulting part of the watcher situation i haven't rly seen ppl addressing much

ryan deadass saying smth like "nobody else on youtube has made tv quality content"

like... i really feel like it's important to highlight that bc not only do they obviously have no respect for their audience, but that statement shows they have no respect for their peers in the industry, either.

not to mention it is a shining example of bleeding arrogance to such a high degree, you will straight up fucking lie bc you're truly convinced you're that special when you're anything but.

there's been NUMEROUS online creators who were recognized by entertainment industry workers BECAUSE they made tv quality content & even full stop blockbuster quality content.

bo burnham started on youtube & is now one of the most wellknown & loved standup comedians of our generation, with numerous netflix specials & even a movie he wrote & directed under his belt.

the try guys, fellow ex-buzzfeed employees, had their own tv specials on food network (based off their youtube shows, btw) & a documentary made about them as well

rosanna pansino has also been on numerous food network shows both as a host & a judge

quinta brunsun, another fellow ex-buzzfeed employee, went on to create her own whole ass sitcom that has been highly praised

matpat cameo'd in the fnaf movie because of his theories & multiple other fnaf creators had small cameos through the employee of the month board easter egg

markiplier made multiple high-quality shows on youtube & is now working on a highly anticipated movie (he was also planned to cameo in the fnaf movie but couldn't due to conflicting schedules with his own movie)

hot ones got their own tv gameshow due to their popularity & they are still one of the most wellknown, beloved & respected internet shows

many short films made on youtube went on to premiere at film festivals & even in theaters

the hit horror film "talk to me" was created by youtubers rackaracka

webseries of actual fucking tv shows have also existed for literal decades

the list goes on.

to seriously think that overproduced bullshit is all you need to make "tv quality content" is not only tone-deaf, but shows they do not even know what they're talking about. many tv shows & huge blockbuster movies are made with absolutely microscopic budgets & small teams, & they still get praised & awarded for the passion, dedication, & creativity that shined brightly under those restrictions.

the blair witch project is probably the most wellknown & highly praised example of this, but it is far from the Only example

it is a whole other slap in the face, again ESPECIALLY when puppet history is one of their most popular shows, to spit in the face of internet history. to see the success of their predecessors, even ppl they fucking worked with at buzzfeed, & deny them of all their success & efforts to get where they ended up.

no, y'all are not the first people to make "tv quality content" on the internet. FAR from it. because your crap isn't even genuine "tv quality".

but you are the first ones to ever disrespect not only your audience, but your own fucking industry & your peers on this level.

& you are the first & i sorely hope the only fuckwads dumb enough to pull a stunt this fucking stupid, out of touch & utterly tone deaf.

[hurtyknees]

read animal farm last night

it seemed like communism was exceedingly good in all regards until one dickhead raised a litter of dogs to kill everyone who disagreed with him and became a dictator. in fact, the book goes to great lengths to luxuriate in how much more efficient and bountiful work under the collective was in comparison to the farmer.

i find it interesting that this book has long been held as the thing weiners tell you to read when you say anything about socialism or communism. like it's supposed to change your mind. there wasn't a subtle or gradual shift into the failure of the system caused by its own faulty construction. everything was just ruined by one cunt who had the power to instantly kill anyone, which seems like something that would cause any system to fail.

[hurtyknees]

A Conversation with Richard Siken by Thomas Hobohm

[hurtyknees]

i am really so sorry to continue harping on about the watcher entertainment streaming service. but this kind of stuff (internet content as a business & marketing it as such) is truly my obsession, and i think i will implode if i don't talk about some of the takes i'm seeing.

i'd like to emphasize again i don't have strong feelings about watcher either way. i like ghost files, i watch mystery files sometimes, i watched worth it back in the buzzfeed days. i don't watch any of their shows religiously.

anyway, here's the main things i keep seeing crop up and my thoughts on each:

"watcher has 25 employees they have to pay, and employing people in this economy is good, so we should be banding together to pay them."

employing people is good if you currently have the capacity to pay them. i checked watcher's linkedin page, and many of their employees were hired within the last year or two. if they hired people they cannot pay with the business model they had before, something is seriously wrong with their internal bookkeeping/decision making. it means they either didn't know they couldn't pay these people long term, or they did know and were content with risking newly hired employees' livelihoods on a huge content pivot in the next year.

of note is that none of their employees' titles have anything to do with managing the finances of the company. they are the size of a small business but have no one aside from the figureheads of the company in charge of their finances.

this is the kind of company decision making that leads to downsizing and layoffs, which can be devastating. but you know what's worse than laying off a portion of your staff? laying off everyone because your business is going under.

"not everyone can afford the subscription, but those who can should pay it to support the watcher team."

no. $6/month for a couple hours of content (depending on what shows you actively watch and the natural fluctuation of their release schedule) is a fundamentally bad value. i can pay that much for a few movies on amazon. i can pay that much for dropout, if i want to support a smaller business instead.

and to be totally frank, even if people do sign up, i don't think they'd get enough to compete with the amount they get through patreon/sponsorships. and the fact that they didn't know how many of their subscribers would realistically sign up is a bad sign.

a pretty good conversion rate of free to paid subscribers of a service or content is 3% (usually accomplished through a free trial). given the very poor reception of the announcement, let's say about 1% of their 3 mil youtube subs pay for their service. that's 30k people paying for their new platform. that's $180k a month in their pocket.

(they currently only have 12k subs on patreon so we are being generous here.)

a sponsorship deal (based on my googling, i have less direct experience with this) is anywhere from $10-50 per 1000 views. they've gotten about 1 mil views on their last few videos. 3 mil subs is nothing to shake a stick at, but let's say they're on the lower end of the payscale at $25 per 1000 views. that's $25k a video, $100k a month if they release 1 video a week. their lowest patreon tier is 5 bucks, so even if all their subs are at that tier, that's another $60k, so $160k total. it's entirely likely they're bringing in much more than that when you factor in merch, adsence, etc.

did anyone on their team crunch numbers on how many people would need to sub to make the switch worth it? did anyone do market research on how many people they could convert to paid users? because if not, if they really didn't have a game plan for this, the subscription service was always doomed to fail.

"this was their only option to continue making the content they want to make, with the production value they want."

i watched their announcement video. a key point in that video is that they have done sponsored videos and that's what used to pay for their content, but they did not like the amount of creative control the sponsor had over the content.

look, i get that's no fun. we'd all love creatives to be able to make whatever they want. but when you are a small business with a team of employees relying on you, you have to think about making money, sometimes at the cost of creative liberties.

and they had so many other options to make money for the projects they want to make without jumping to a subscription platform.

they could have started actually promoting their patreon, and maybe done some restructuring of the tiers. why not a highly produced, special series just for patreon members? or a special high-budget episode of each series, while the main series is lower budget?

bite the bullet and continue taking sponsorship deals on some less-produced shows, while axing sponsorships from the ones the crew feels more passionate about.

schedule larger, blowout-production shows only when they can be afforded. this is what Notorious Amongus Guy streamer jerma does. he saves up for big productions like his baseball or dollhouse streams, so he can really get creative with them.

they had other options and they've tried very little, especially when you compare them to other content house business at similar scales. try guys and good mythical morning both put out significant content with significant staff, and have had to diversify their income streams with auxiliary products, shows with widely varied levels of production, etc. but it seems to be working for them. watcher has merch and that's about it, and seems to only want to increase the production quality of ALL their shows.

really, all this just boils down to a terrible business decision. it's hard to say if the watcher team is working with a consultant or anyone outside of their team, but they certainly don't have anyone internally who is experienced with running a business like this. to me, it seems very much like they got in a room together and did some extremely optimistic income ballparking with no research behind it.

and that might have been fine for three dudes running a channel alone, but if they're a business, they have to start making decisions like one.

[hurtyknees]

and the artists etc in the comments defending them talking abt how artists should be compensated for their work like I mean this in the kindest way. watcher is not creating masterpieces they r making dirty jokes and getting scared by farts on a ghost show and having PowerPoint night where they present the most surface level theory to each other (and don't even have interesting discussions about it), and reading stories they found online or were submitted while getting drunk. the pull of their content isn't ~artistic creative~ content, it's their dynamic, and their humour. stop equating urself with them... they are not the same

[hurtyknees]

Watching the whole Watcher situation go down didn't really encourage me to subscribe to their streaming service... But boy I've never felt more tempted to get a Dropout subscription.

#watcher #dropout tv #dropout

[hurtyknees]

It seems that youtube comments on the watcher announcement video are being deleted so imma start posting some of them which feels right here because I want people to remember these before they eventually post the apology because we all know that's happening, right?

No.2 entry

#ngl this is very funny to me

[hurtyknees]

The last time we were on a long flight, my wife and I invented a game we call "Little Guy."

You start a game of Little Guy by saying, "I'm gonna hand you a little guy." The little guy is some kind of baby animal you are imagining. "Oh," she might say in response, "Okay," and hold out her hands for it. I will then mime handing her the animal. This provides some clues as to the little guy's size, weight, and general ungainliness.

She then gets to ask questions about what kind of little guy this is, BUT NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS ACTUAL APPEARANCE OR SPECIES ARE ALLOWED. Qualitative questions, or questions about his behavior, are the only ones permitted. She can ask "Is he soft?" or "Does he seem nervous about being held?" or "If I put him in the bathtub, does he seem okay with that?" or "Would he like a lil grape?" or "Is he the sort of little fellow who would wear a vest in a children's book?" but not "Does he have fur," "Is he a reptile," "Is he from Asia," etc. Some questions are in a grey area so you have to follow your heart, but the point is not to identify the animal as fast as possible: the point is to guess the animal purely based on vibes + how he would act if he were in your living room right now.

And I'm not limited to yes or no answers! If she asks, "Would it feel appropriate to see this little guy in a propeller hat?" I can reply, "Oh no, he has a gravity to him. A bowler hat would be a more appropriate hat." Or if she asks, "Does this little guy have protagonist energy?" I can say something like, "he probably wouldn't be the main character in a children's cartoon. He'd probably be the main character's ditzy best friend who's always eating sandwiches, or something."

We're big Twenty Questions to kill time in a waiting room people, but Little Guy is more about the journey than the destination. It's got a different kind of sauce that's nice if "killing time" and "lowering anxiety" need to happen hand in hand.

[hurtyknees]