IDB

phil looks so bad in hats, it literally surprises me every time

sweetmm wrote:Did you guys read this, I found it amusing they used merch image

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36818384

Florida teens, mistaken for thieves, shot at playing Pokemon Go

lol at that picture.

What the hell are people shooting at kids for though? Just because you think that they might be burglars even though you have no prove of that... That's fucked up.

internetakeover wrote:

mysterylovescompany wrote:

internetakeover wrote:

mysterylovescompany wrote: I wonder if these new shows will include VIP as well, since the Melbourne show is in the afternoon.

I think they probably will, they did do 2 M&Gs in a day on the UK tour.

Oh, okay! I was basing what I said off the second Hollywood show, but then again I don't know much about the UK tour.

That might actually be a better comparison as they're adding it late! We'll see, I guess. I hope they do, and still think they will - it'd be tough if the later tickets for Melbourne and Adelaide didn't include a VIP option and the other shows, where they're on separate days, did.

but the afternoon hollywood show was for filming so it made more sense that they wouldn't have a M&G

About Younow:

They get paid 70% of the price of the bars/tips they get. 6,500 bars are $49,99, thus they get $34,99 every 6,5k bars. Dan at least got a 10k bar tip twice in his past LS, so there's that. I think we have our plans sorted for tonight's LS

Dan, Phil, in case you're lurking...

SquishPhan wrote:

timtam wrote:

mysterylovescompany wrote:

I wonder if these new shows will include VIP as well, since the Melbourne show is in the afternoon.

The Melbourne show says 7:30pm? Where did you get the info about it being in the afternoon? I got excited then because I can't go to any of the other shows but I could possibly do an afternoon one. I'm really disappointed that they didn't do a show on a Saturday night. It's impossible for people like me who have commitments during the week and live hours away from Sydney/Melbourne to travel down for a show. And I know they shouldn't have to cater personally for me but I'm sure there are other people who couldn't go. For example I'm sure some teenagers parents wouldn't let them go on a night before school, especially if you have to travel into the city.

The new shows aren't added yet to the site, the one that says 7:30pm is the old one. Phil confirmed on twitter that it would be an afternoon show.

Oh thank you!! Also thanks to mysterylovescompany too. This is why you should check twitters as well. I saw the post on Facebook.

Oh man... I'm so tempted to buy tickets now. I'll see what time it is on the afternoon and if I can convince a friend to come with. Does anyone know what time other afternoon shows have started and how long the show runs for? I need to see if works with transport before I book.

This morning I was saying I'd never likely go to the tour even if I did have access to tickets and now here I am contemplating purchasing tickets If this had happened before the pokemon go vid I never would have considered this.

I said this in the skype chat but I'm so mad about it that I wanna say it here too
With younow: knowing how much they make from each show, and seeing how public that information is, they should make those shows fucking interesting. If I see Dan acting bored in one more liveshow I'm gonna stick forks in my eyes. I know they don't have to because people will pay them regardless, but it makes me so mad that they still sometimes have that attitude. THIS IS YOUR JOB, DEPPY. ACT LIKE IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

Loved the video
Thought the "threesome with professor oak" part might have been a reference to "you, me, professor oak, a pokemon battle promptly followed by a threesome" from AmazingDan.

Fuck YouNow, seriously, wtf are you doing?

Your servers can't handle shit and show us a laggy livestream and then you expect us to pay if we (lyke myself) don't want to crash your site and let other people see the liveshow?

Fuck You

I'm not going to hate on Deppy if they choose to stay because of the money - Phandom truly is making it rain on them, but just consider YouTube liveshows and making a new channel for those streams. It needs a bit of work (no premium messages, etc) to figure out how to get the questions and ads and jadda-jadda but YN is very hostile towards the users.

[offtopic]Also someone mentioned Kuensukki's sig. and I have to agree. I stare at Phil's face all the time because he knows... he KNOWS what he just said lol. [/offtopic]

About the younow situation: people who get paid for younow have probably known about this change for months. Just like with any company, the employers would know the changes before the public does. I'm pretty sure it's not something you just log in and click ok for. There's clearly a contract that goes along with it since it deals with money. If wanted to sign up for the subscription to make more money, then their accounts would've already had the subscribe feature on it since they would've signed up for it months ago. It's not a feature you can just turn on and off as its a part of a legal contract (probably) with younow with set requirements.

lilMango wrote:I said this in the skype chat but I'm so mad about it that I wanna say it here too
With younow: knowing how much they make from each show, and seeing how public that information is, they should make those shows fucking interesting. If I see Dan acting bored in one more liveshow I'm gonna stick forks in my eyes. I know they don't have to because people will pay them regardless, but it makes me so mad that they still sometimes have that attitude. THIS IS YOUR JOB, DEPPY. ACT LIKE IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

I completely agree, but also, isn't bored Dan what viewers want on some levels? Doesn't it make people think they're seeing more of the 'real' Dan that way? If he was really bouncy and happy in all the liveshows we'd be complaining about that too, saying he was just doing it for the audience.

jaej wrote:phil looks so bad in hats, it literally surprises me every time

I actually think he looks better in hats.

mez29 wrote:

lilMango wrote:I said this in the skype chat but I'm so mad about it that I wanna say it here too
With younow: knowing how much they make from each show, and seeing how public that information is, they should make those shows fucking interesting. If I see Dan acting bored in one more liveshow I'm gonna stick forks in my eyes. I know they don't have to because people will pay them regardless, but it makes me so mad that they still sometimes have that attitude. THIS IS YOUR JOB, DEPPY. ACT LIKE IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

I completely agree, but also, isn't bored Dan what viewers want on some levels? Doesn't it make people think they're seeing more of the 'real' Dan that way? If he was really bouncy and happy in all the liveshows we'd be complaining about that too, saying he was just doing it for the audience.

I agree with this. They can't win in this situation. Either they are all over the top, and get accused of not being real and playing up their persona, or they are just chatting normally with us and than people call them boring.

SquishPhan wrote:

mez29 wrote:

lilMango wrote:I said this in the skype chat but I'm so mad about it that I wanna say it here too
With younow: knowing how much they make from each show, and seeing how public that information is, they should make those shows fucking interesting. If I see Dan acting bored in one more liveshow I'm gonna stick forks in my eyes. I know they don't have to because people will pay them regardless, but it makes me so mad that they still sometimes have that attitude. THIS IS YOUR JOB, DEPPY. ACT LIKE IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

I completely agree, but also, isn't bored Dan what viewers want on some levels? Doesn't it make people think they're seeing more of the 'real' Dan that way? If he was really bouncy and happy in all the liveshows we'd be complaining about that too, saying he was just doing it for the audience.

I agree with this. They can't win in this situation. Either they are all over the top, and get accused of not being real and playing up their persona, or they are just chatting normally with us and than people call them boring.

One thing is Phil calmly chatting with us about a TV show he recently watched and loved, which to me is a bit tedious but I can accept it and I will keep watching the LS. Another thing is Dan barely sitting upright because he is too bored, and I'm not talking about the last liveshow because he was sick. At least, that's the way I perceive him sometimes

When we speak of contracts in reference to YouNow, would someone be willing to please explain where that belief came from and the extent to which it would influence behaviour?

visiblelurker wrote:When we speak of contracts in reference to YouNow, would someone be willing to please explain where that belief came from and the extent to which it would influence behaviour?

I don't think I quite understand you, what do you mean?

Ticia wrote:

SquishPhan wrote:

mez29 wrote:

lilMango wrote:I said this in the skype chat but I'm so mad about it that I wanna say it here too
With younow: knowing how much they make from each show, and seeing how public that information is, they should make those shows fucking interesting. If I see Dan acting bored in one more liveshow I'm gonna stick forks in my eyes. I know they don't have to because people will pay them regardless, but it makes me so mad that they still sometimes have that attitude. THIS IS YOUR JOB, DEPPY. ACT LIKE IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

I completely agree, but also, isn't bored Dan what viewers want on some levels? Doesn't it make people think they're seeing more of the 'real' Dan that way? If he was really bouncy and happy in all the liveshows we'd be complaining about that too, saying he was just doing it for the audience.

I agree with this. They can't win in this situation. Either they are all over the top, and get accused of not being real and playing up their persona, or they are just chatting normally with us and than people call them boring.

One thing is Phil calmly chatting with us about a TV show he recently watched and loved, which to me is a bit tedious but I can accept it and I will keep watching the LS. Another thing is Dan barely sitting upright because he is too bored, and I'm not talking about the last liveshow because he was sick. At least, that's the way I perceive him sometimes

I guess we can't win, but I for one don't like seeing people be bored when they're supposed to be entertaining. It grinds my gears. Just the whole attitude behind it baffles me, like.... How are you bored? How????

Oh sorry - I'll expand and hopefully be more clear. Also still trying to figure out this website so if I screw up - sorry.

It seems like a fair amount of discussion around YouNow is based on the idea that there is a contract between Deppy and YouNow. I was curious as to where that belief came from in the first place. Then secondly, if there is a contract of some sorts, I was wondering what perceptions existed regarding the ability of it to actually influence behaviour through contractual obligations.

visiblelurker wrote:It seems like a fair amount of discussion around YouNow is based on the idea that there is a contract between Deppy and YouNow. I was curious as to where that belief came from in the first place. Then secondly, if there is a contract of some sorts, I was wondering what perceptions existed regarding the ability of it to actually influence behaviour through contractual obligations.

YouNow have a partner scheme which allows users they invite to earn money from liveshows. It's not been any secret they're in the program over the years, plus most of the time when they're doing liveshows they have someone (or used to, it's not always apparent unless something goes wrong) from YouNow on Skype supporting them real time. I've definitely seen Dan chatting to someone from YouNow during his liveshow to talk about various things, issues or problems, and he's read out the response and explained it's someone from YouNow before. I think being a partner used to have some sort of prerequisite which determined you had to have so many liveshows per week or whatever.

Sorry for the vague, it's too hot to think too hard and I can't recall the specific liveshows these things have happened in because they're quite a lot of short examples of these moments.

human wrote:

visiblelurker wrote:It seems like a fair amount of discussion around YouNow is based on the idea that there is a contract between Deppy and YouNow. I was curious as to where that belief came from in the first place. Then secondly, if there is a contract of some sorts, I was wondering what perceptions existed regarding the ability of it to actually influence behaviour through contractual obligations.

YouNow have a partner scheme which allows users they invite to earn money from liveshows. It's not been any secret they're in the program over the years, plus most of the time when they're doing liveshows they have someone (or used to, it's not always apparent unless something goes wrong) from YouNow on Skype supporting them real time. I've definitely seen Dan chatting to someone from YouNow during his liveshow to talk about various things, issues or problems, and he's read out the response and explained it's someone from YouNow before. I think being a partner used to have some sort of prerequisite which determined you had to have so many liveshows per week or whatever.

Sorry for the vague, it's too hot to think too hard and I can't recall the specific liveshows these things have happened in because they're quite a lot of short examples of these moments.

Thank you . I was aware of the partner program and the allowance Deppy fit into. My understanding of it was making it confusing when people were contextualizing the partner program in contractual terms. I just wanted to have it more fleshed out, in case I was missing anything. so again thank you!


Slightly offtopic:

It is my understanding that the partner program works as an opt-in (on invitation), fail-out/opt-out basis. There have been instances where thought processes seem to indicate a belief that YouNow has the ability to enforce contractual obligations, such as holding liveshows, but I don't think that that would be the case. A contract surrounding the partner program would likely limited be to a voiding of the contract, i.e. the partner relationship, on the failure of either party to satisfy their end. Additional legal action seems unlikely without exceptional circumstances.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

visiblelurker wrote:

human wrote:

visiblelurker wrote:It seems like a fair amount of discussion around YouNow is based on the idea that there is a contract between Deppy and YouNow. I was curious as to where that belief came from in the first place. Then secondly, if there is a contract of some sorts, I was wondering what perceptions existed regarding the ability of it to actually influence behaviour through contractual obligations.

YouNow have a partner scheme which allows users they invite to earn money from liveshows. It's not been any secret they're in the program over the years, plus most of the time when they're doing liveshows they have someone (or used to, it's not always apparent unless something goes wrong) from YouNow on Skype supporting them real time. I've definitely seen Dan chatting to someone from YouNow during his liveshow to talk about various things, issues or problems, and he's read out the response and explained it's someone from YouNow before. I think being a partner used to have some sort of prerequisite which determined you had to have so many liveshows per week or whatever.

Sorry for the vague, it's too hot to think too hard and I can't recall the specific liveshows these things have happened in because they're quite a lot of short examples of these moments.

Thank you . I was aware of the partner program and the allowance Deppy fit into. My understanding of it was making it confusing when people were contextualizing the partner program in contractual terms. I just wanted to have it more fleshed out, in case I was missing anything. so again thank you!


Slightly offtopic:

It is my understanding that the partner program works as an opt-in (on invitation), fail-out/opt-out basis. There have been instances where thought processes seem to indicate a belief that YouNow has the ability to enforce contractual obligations, such as holding liveshows, but I don't think that that would be the case. A contract surrounding the partner program would likely limited be to a voiding of the contract, i.e. the partner relationship, on the failure of either party to satisfy their end. Additional legal action seems unlikely without exceptional circumstances.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

However, Younow clearly states on his website (and thus, contract terms with its partners) that there may be exceptions to their general partner obligations, which we feel it seems to be the case with Dan and Phil. It is true that they haven't followed a regular Younow schedule for the last couple of months, but bear in mind that they bring circa 20k viewers per Liveshow* and the revenue Younow gets from any of their live shows (30% of the "tips") is not exactly small.

* In the joint liveshow made while on tour, viewers were around 45k.

Catallena wrote:

sweetmm wrote:Did you guys read this, I found it amusing they used merch image

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36818384

Florida teens, mistaken for thieves, shot at playing Pokemon Go

lol at that picture.

What the hell are people shooting at kids for though? Just because you think that they might be burglars even though you have no prove of that... That's fucked up.

That's 'Murica for you.

Ticia wrote:

visiblelurker wrote:

human wrote:

visiblelurker wrote:It seems like a fair amount of discussion around YouNow is based on the idea that there is a contract between Deppy and YouNow. I was curious as to where that belief came from in the first place. Then secondly, if there is a contract of some sorts, I was wondering what perceptions existed regarding the ability of it to actually influence behaviour through contractual obligations.

YouNow have a partner scheme which allows users they invite to earn money from liveshows. It's not been any secret they're in the program over the years, plus most of the time when they're doing liveshows they have someone (or used to, it's not always apparent unless something goes wrong) from YouNow on Skype supporting them real time. I've definitely seen Dan chatting to someone from YouNow during his liveshow to talk about various things, issues or problems, and he's read out the response and explained it's someone from YouNow before. I think being a partner used to have some sort of prerequisite which determined you had to have so many liveshows per week or whatever.

Sorry for the vague, it's too hot to think too hard and I can't recall the specific liveshows these things have happened in because they're quite a lot of short examples of these moments.

Thank you . I was aware of the partner program and the allowance Deppy fit into. My understanding of it was making it confusing when people were contextualizing the partner program in contractual terms. I just wanted to have it more fleshed out, in case I was missing anything. so again thank you!


Slightly offtopic:

It is my understanding that the partner program works as an opt-in (on invitation), fail-out/opt-out basis. There have been instances where thought processes seem to indicate a belief that YouNow has the ability to enforce contractual obligations, such as holding liveshows, but I don't think that that would be the case. A contract surrounding the partner program would likely limited be to a voiding of the contract, i.e. the partner relationship, on the failure of either party to satisfy their end. Additional legal action seems unlikely without exceptional circumstances.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

However, Younow clearly states on his website (and thus, contract terms with its partners) that there may be exceptions to their general partner obligations, which we feel it seems to be the case with Dan and Phil. It is true that they haven't followed a regular Younow schedule for the last couple of months, but bear in mind that they bring circa 20k viewers per Liveshow* and the revenue Younow gets from any of their live shows (30% of the "tips") is not exactly small.

* In the joint liveshow made while on tour, viewers were around 45k.

Yup. Thats exactly what I was saying with the Deppy allowance. I was just curious as to when there was discussion on the idea of having to do one liveshow a month where that idea originally came from and thought I would add to it.

I actually have an estimation of how much they made on that joint liveshow too if anyone is curious so I'll put that here. This one needs a healthy dose of there may have been human error in my adding because I was distracted and I recall getting a different number a different time, but on the low scale of profit, they made between $1254- $1793, with YouNow on the other hand getting about $537 - $768.

So definitely YouNow is making a profit off of them. I was just saying that if they choose to leave, it would not be a breach of contract in the traditional understanding because the legal relationship seems to be defined in present terms (as in Deppy as partner does liveshows, Younow keeps 30% and pays them the rest), not a requirement of future behaviour.

I hope that made sense.

jaej wrote:phil looks so bad in hats, it literally surprises me every time

(back) jaej!

The Younow situation is sad but if they are under contract we cannot immediately ask for a change. Maybe Phil will address is in the liveshow. If they do leave would their once a week schedule change? They wouldn't be obligated to do it weekly and for one hour so what would happen? Also are the Youtube liveshows interactive with questions or are they just deppy talking?

Regarding their legal status with Younow, these websites may be relevant:

https://www.younow.com/policy/en/terms
https://www.younow.com/policy/en/rules

CAN ANYONE BE A YOUNOW PARTNER?
The YouNow Partner Program is geared exclusively to qualified content creators. To qualify as a YouNow Partner, we look for:

Average concurrent viewership of 500+
Content that conforms to our Terms of Service and DMCA Guidelines
Once you're a Partner, we ask that you follow our Partner guidelines.

If you create content elsewhere (for example, on YouTube, Vine, Twitter or Instagram) you should still apply! Multi-platform audiences will only serve to increase your earning potential. We look for:

Average views per video: 25,000+
Subscribers / Followers: 75,000+
THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS SERVE AS GENERAL GUIDELINES. WE MAY DENY ANY APPLICATION THAT CONFORMS TO THESE GUIDELINES, OR MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR OUTSTANDING TALENT, AT OUR DISCRETION.

Summary: from the public information, it seems their contracts don't have a certain duration nor penalty clauses of sorts.

this makes me so happy, he's adorable