>>76336965>that's what you demonstratedWrong.
>From the earnings report, we know that Cover now makes the majority of their money from merch, concerts, and sponsorship deals. Not streaming.Read what I wrote back to yourself, nice and slow. I never said anyone makes the majority of their money from streaming, nor is this the implication.
>So your notion blah blah blah was categorically wrongNo, it wasn't. Sorry, your premise is completely wrong, you've failed to follow the logical thread of the conversation, and even if you WERE right, your logic STILL wouldn't follow at all.
First of all, because as various anons have already explained, acquiring lucrative sponsorships is predicated on a streamer's popularity, ccv and subs - their NUMBERS - looking good to prospective business partners. The better the numbers, the better the business opportunities. So yes, even if she was putting money above everything else (which is not the "greedy, lazy whore" hypothesis that you're conflating this with, because that's part of the "mascot welfare" rrat, NOT the "she cares about money and is doing what makes her the most money" rrat).
And that's the second thing you're wrong about. I'm obviously using "numbers" in the way that it is used /here/, because we are /here/. You know... views, ccv, subs, etc., NOT revenue. How new are you exactly?
What she is doing now is clearly NOT optimizing her subs, ccv, etc. - her "numbers" - and it is OBVIOUSLY not magically making her MORE popular. It's not even her using her few streams most efficiently to optimize returns when she DOES stream. (You) are categorically wrong.
>I have no idea. I'm not you and I can't read your mind.You didn't have to read my mind, you just had to read the post. That's more than enough information to make the obvious connection that "welfare" is being used in a tongue-in-cheek . Language is a very useful tool like that, allowing communication of ideas and concepts despite people.
>You failed to define what you meant by "mascot welfare"No. There is no "failure" on my part. The phrase is literally self-explanatory. Words mean what they mean, in both the figurative and literal sense. I am under no obligation to redefine words with the definitions and connotations they already have by default every time I use them in the normal way. You're suggesting that everyone has to literally reconstruct the entire English language every time they have a conversation. That is fucking ridiculous. It's YOUR job as a listener to use your fucking brain to understand clearly communicated concepts, like literally every other anon was able to do, because that's how language works.
>and I wasn't going to assume only for you to try and deflect the conversation away to what was convenient for you later.Pathetic fucking excuses. What you mean is that you're acting in bad faith, playing dumb and pretending that correctly parsing a clear, simple, self-explanatory message with the most minimal amount of interpretation you could ever ask for in human speech is somehow "making an assumption", because (You) want to conveniently deflect NOW.
>If you meant blah blah blah thought was required to maintain her fanbase.And I already addressed THAT, by pointing out that she could have achieved that minimum threshold more easily and effectively if she'd streamed for the holidays that everyone was excited for, like Halloween. But she didn't. Instead her returns didn't seem to be associated with any special occasion whatsoever.
>This post is getting too long, I'll answer a) through d) in a separate post if you still want me to.I'd much rather you not, actually, because you're a disingenuous fucking moron and trying to hold your hand through the basics of the English language is aggravating. In fact, since you asked, I'd much rather you not reply to me again at all. Fuck off.
