this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)
Dropout
574 readers
2 users here now
A community-ran lemmy community to talk about all things Dropout!
- Posts should be about dropout related things
- Check for duplicates before posting
- If you can beat the bot to posting a show, go for it!
- Everyone deserves respect: this isn't the place for racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism etc.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Was this just an episode to give Jacob a bunch of money? I don't know how to feel about that...
Yes. Specifically, it's an episode to give Jacob a bunch of LinkedIn's money.
It was pretty funny to me how blatantly rigged the rules were to ensure that Jacob walked away with 100% of the money. I think that the other "contestants" were in on the plan from the beginning. Notice how they all even blatantly flubbed the first pick drawing.
It took me some time to process, but I came around to: less money in the hands of LinkedIn and more money in the hands of Jacob W is probably a good thing for the world.
Yeah, but why should Jacob get all the money and not just share it between themselves? I hardly believe that Jacob is the only person who is in need for money in the company. I don't mind much when it's smaller amounts of money, but 100k? That's SO much money!
I noticed that too. I suspect that Jacob has a specific plan to launch something that will involve the others - and this ends up being a way that DropOut can partner without DropOut outright owning the result.
I recall a brief moment where Jacob accidentally mentions working together on something with some of the others present, and then realizes that it's probably too early to mention whatever it is "on air".
That said, I wish DropOut would borrow more from how Maximum Fun is structured, leaving ownership among the creatives.
The baffling thing to me is that it was LinkedIn. Like, I'm sure Sam went with whoever was offering the most, but LinkedIn thinks the Dropout audience is a good target demographic for them? That at least feels unlikely, though perhaps the price tag was simply very small compared to what they normally work with. (Or maybe there's one or two people at LinkedIn who are into Dropout and managed to pitch it lol.)
Then again, I'm probably way out of the loop out that site. Or on how advertising works effectively.
It's interesting to me that LinkedIn is willing to pay $100,000.00 to advertise on DropOut right around when they made the news with a shitty anti-trans policy change.
With TV filming timing - it raises the question if LinkedIn knew the change would generate bad press, and actually cared?
Or more likely they just recognize that early adopters and influencers are tired of the big streaming services?
Or $100.000.00 is so little money - to LinkedIn - that LinkedIn doesn't care how they spend it...