Talk:Defy Media

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello to the editors of the Defy Media talk page. I would like to propose a wording change to the first paragraph of the Defy profile. The line is "Despite the official claim of "marketing conditions" being the cause of shutdown, a number of former employees blamed poor financial practices" and the Hollywood Reporter article by Natalie Jarvey is footnote #8.

“Poor financial practices” is quite vague. A more specific explanation of the industry dynamics and actions that catalyzed Defy's failure is in the following article:

https://digiday.com/media/defy-media-youtube-shutdown/

I believe the following proposed language more accurately summarizes the root causes of Defy's shutdown:

"On November 6, 2018, the company announced that it was ceasing operations. Despite the official claim of "market conditions" being the cause of shutdown, industry reporting has also cited the cost of paying key distributors such as YouTube, a softening digital and social advertising market, and the debt burden incurred to fund the company's aggressive growth ambitions.^[1]

Thank you for considering this suggestion. Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Digiday source is helpful. This is enough of a change that it might be better to rephrase the paragraph completely. "Market conditions" is one of those phrases that seems sillier the more I look at it, since it is also extremely vague, and seems even less informative than "poor financial practices". The Digiday source says that the company shut down abruptly and had its assets frozen, so I have used the source to explain that. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Defy editors: I am writing to ask for a phrase deletion and to suggest a further clarification in the second paragraph of the Defy Media profile.

On November 6, 2018, the company ceased operations after its assets were frozen by creditors. Several former employees blamed poor financial practices, while high overhead from YouTube, legal troubles, overly-aggressive expansion, and a shrinking advertising market were also described as contributing factors.[8][9]

The phrase several former employees blamed poor financial practices is so vague as to not be meaningful, nor is it supported. As it is defamatory to former employees, please delete the phrase from the article.

The phrase "high overhead from YouTube" could be improved by writing "significant revenue sharing obligations with YouTube". This type of cost is generally not considered overhead. Also legal troubles are a symptom of the company's financial condition, not a cause of financial distress.

I think the edits made so far have helped the article become more accurate. Below would be suggested wording for the paragraph in question:

On November 6, 2018, the company ceased operations after its assets were frozen by creditors. High revenue sharing payments to distributors such as YouTube, overly-aggressive expansion, and a shrinking advertising market were described as factors leading to the company's financial distress.[8][9]

Thank you for considering these additional edits.

Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Defy editors, the phrase "poor financial practices" is also included in the Decline section. For the same reasons as my earlier request please delete this phrase from the Decline section.

Thank you for considering this edit.

Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about how Wikipedia works. There are no separate category of editors for each page, we are regular human beings who edit Wikipedia as a volunteer effort. This should be a discussion, not a transaction, and it's not helpful to post these as separate sections for every single edit you want. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As for the changes themselves, I do not see consensus for removing this completely.

The cited source is a good one, and while the claim is too vague, it's also a valid interpretation of the substance of the source, which documents a multi-party lawsuit which alleges that Defy executives misrepresented plans to separate Generate into an independent company and withheld financial information that would have... in addition to claims made by Defy's creators. This seems like a clear example of an accusation of "poor financial practices", although I agree it could be explained better.

"Financial distress" is a euphemism, and Wikipedia should avoid those. Having their assets frozen was a direct consequence of legal troubles, so legal troubles caused their "distress".

As for defamation, Wikipedia takes this very seriously. Defamation is not acceptable here, but it's not clear who is being defamed in this case, or how this would qualify as defamation. Accurately reporting on facts, such as lawsuits, or that accusations have been made by specific people, is not defamatory. Be aware that Wikipedia doesn't allow legal threats to be made on talk pages. Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats and clarify your intentions. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

To Grayfell, apologies for any misunderstanding I may have about how Wikipedia works, I'm new to the platform but of course want to conform to the rules.

The problem with the phrase "poor financial practices" and the reason it's damaging and defamatory to former employees, is that it's so broad that it could be attributed to any aspect of the financial operations of the company and the people associated with that area. It has come to my attention that this language has come up in a detrimental way in discussions with recruiters who wonder what it means. So this language has real-world negative implications in the employment prospects for former employees who are not at fault.

So I would ask again that you please remove the phrase "poor financial practices" throughout the article as it's overly broad, and instead replace it with very specific language about whatever it is you want to cite, the Generate lawsuit, etc. that is supported by qualified reporting.

Thanks for considering --

70.19.75.92 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Thanks all for the conversation.

Many people, including those in the financial and hiring community, interpret the phrase "financial practices" to mean core day to day processes such as financial reporting, accounting, tax, internal controls, budgeting, analytics, etc. Many people at all levels in many functional areas of the finance organization are involved.

The way the article is written now, "poor financial practices" is listed as the primary reason that the company shut down an creditors seized its assets. There is no justification for the assertion that day to day financial practices as defined above are the primary cause of the company's shutdown.

Mr. Patel's reports that some spending and investment priorities were ill considered and did not pan out. "Blocking and tackling" can mean many things, it is very vague in itself. Sometimes investment decisions don't work out or the decision making process that led to them is flawed, yet that does not necessarily mean "poor financial processes" are in place.

The main point of Mr. Patel's sentence -- bad investment decisions were damaging to the company -- is captured in the current version of the article in the following language:

On November 6, 2018, the company ceased operations after its assets were frozen by creditors. Several former employees blamed poor financial practices, while high overhead from YouTube, legal troubles, overly-aggressive expansion, and a shrinking advertising market were also described as contributing factors.[8][9]

The article should of course be as accurate as possible based on sources and I appreciate that's what everyone is working towards. At the same time I don't think it is appropriate to paraphrase source material using language that is so broad and subject to interpretation that it has the potential to tarnish people, reputations and practices that are not at fault.

Can't we find some language that achieves both?

Thanks -- Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please carefully review Wikipedia:Edit requests. The requested edit template should only be added after consensus has formed through discussion (or for non-controversial edits, such as grammar or reverting vandalism). You should not start a new section for every comment, and you should be respectful of other people's time by being brief.

You need to actually propose replacement language. Multiple reliable sources broadly describe this in a similar way, so it's appropriate for Wikipedia to summarize it in our own words. Your speculation about how many people might interpret this is reasonable, but it's still speculation. People with experience working for this company have attributed the closure to poor financial practices, or "predatory practices and lack of professionalism", if you feel this is misleading, you should put forth an actionable change for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, cite a reliable source that might present a different opinion. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Below please find suggested language to add specificity to the Defy article in place of the phrase "poor financial practices". I think the exicting sources cited are sufficient.

On November 6, 2018, the company ceased operations after its assets were frozen by creditors. High distribution costs charged by YouTube, overly-aggressive expansion, and a shrinking advertising market have been cited as contributing factors in the company's decline. The abrupt shutdown left many content creators participating in Defy's YouTube network claiming they have not been paid and frustrated by lack of communication from the company. Also, several former employees have filed lawsuits against the company. [8][9]

Thanks for considering -- Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think this is an improvement. As above, a source discusses this possibly being "predatory practices and lack of professionalism", and another cites MatPat calling this a Ponzi scheme... If those aren't accusations of poor business practices, what are they? Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If those are legitimate sources you have referenced according to Wikipedia guidelines and you want to write about their allegations in a specific way, that's totally appropriate. It is not OK to potentially harm reputations and careers with incredibly broad statements. You asked me to provide alternative language ... I did the best I could and it's accurately aligned with the cited sources. Could you please remove the phrase "poor financial practices" in the several places it appears and replace it with specific language.

If helpful, I am happy to take another shot at it since Ally Bank has posted publicly about the reasons for their actions, and several brands have been sold in the past month or so.

Thank you -- Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there are some sources which, to my eyes at least, support that accusations of poor financial practice have been made, I think you should provide new sources which provide a different perspective. For example, press releases are usually not particularly weighty, but if Ally Bank has issued a press release, that would be something, at least. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think different sources are necessary, but again it is not appropriate or accurate to paraphrase sources in such a vague way. The sources provided do not say there is anything wrong with the day-to-day financial practices of the company (reporting, tax, audit, etc). What they talk about are lawsuits between employees and the company, Ally allegedly taking control of the company's finances, and certain creditors struggling to get paid. Those are very specific things that are easy to describe. Why is it too much to ask that you decsribe that as vividly as you want, but do not use language that defames employees in the finance area? Finance recruiters and hiring managers look at this article (I have first hand knowledge that this is happening), take it on its face, and come away with a negative impression for which there is no basis. Make it as specific as needed but do not use such broad language ... you're hurting reputations and livelihoods (and people with families) for no reason.

This is a super easy fix (which I have already drafted) that improves the accuracy of the information for the reader, does not dilute it in any way, and spares former employees from being tarnished with an unnecessarily broad brush. As it stands, the second paragraph is simply not accurate, none of the things you describe as "poor financial practices" are causes of Ally freezing the assets of the company. Ally says in its tweets on 1/25 that it is liquidating because the company was unable to repay a loan and its owners refused to support the company.

Thank you --

Keepitsimpleplease (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed "practices" to "management". These are a lot of specific things. This was, from multiple sources, a systemic problem which lasted for years. Your proposal does dilute it, because the people making these accusations are placing responsibility on the people managing the company. Shifting this to outside forces, such as Youtube and the advertising market is, at best, only partly accurate according to sources. If you can think of a way to summarize all these many, many sources which describe this as a failure of management, let's hear it, but in my opinion, your proposal was not sufficient to remove this completely. If you have a source which presents the rank-and-file financial staff as blameless, all the better, but we have to summarize in a way which reflects sources. Summarizing things is what encyclopedias do.

This isn't about me, and this attempted guilt-trip is not appreciated. I didn't shut down Defy, and if you want someone to blame for the company's fate, look at the people who actually had control over the company.

Defy Media was an exception, according to an executive at one multi-channel network, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for his job security. The company secured $70 million of investment in 2016, but ran through it surprisingly quickly, which some put down to simple bad management.

“I don’t think Defy fell victim,” the executive said. “Defy was one of the first few MCNs that worked with premium content creators. If you look at Defy’s contact list, they’ve got some pretty big names, they’ve got the big guys. Defy was never impacted by YouTube’s terms of service and changes. I think Defy was just poor executives and poor management that ran the company.”

A tweet from a bank seems like an extremely odd source, but if you have a link to that tweet, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What you are writing is simply not accurate per the sources. The sources cited in the paragraph in question mention employees who filed a lawsuit against the company and another suit against certain executives, see below:

Defy’s laid off workers have responded more quickly, with one filing a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles against the company on Nov. 13 that claims Defy didn’t provide the California mandated 60 days of advance notice of the layoffs. Defy did send a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) letter to around 80 employees on the morning of Nov. 6, notifying them that the company’s primary office in Beverly Hills would shut down by Jan. 2, but then proceeded to lay everyone off and cease operations by the end of the day. Georgina Guinane, a former writer and producer for Clevver who is bringing the case on behalf of her colleagues, is seeking 60 days of wages and benefits. Another lawsuit was filed Nov. 14 in Los Angeles by the co-founders of management firm Generate, a division of Defy. It alleges that Defy executives misrepresented plans to separate Generate into an independent company and withheld financial information that would have prompted the Generate founders, David Rath and Kara Welker, to terminate their relationship with Defy sooner.

That's it, the class action lawsuit is a result of the company's demise, not a cause. And the Generate lawsuit is a discrete event involving a limited number of people, none of whom are in the finance area. The other article is appropriately summarized.

None of the employees in those two suits blamed financial management, according to the articles, so I don't understand how you are coming up with this language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitsimpleplease (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To recap:

• "...predatory practices and lack of professionalism"
• "I think Defy was just poor executives and poor management that ran the company."
• "Ponzi Scheme"
• "...but had not paid him for any ads that had run in 2018"
• "Less than a day after Defy announced that it would be closing its Beverly Hills production office, the company notified all employees that it was shutting down immediately."
• "Other revenue plays, including an Indiegogo campaign for a video game that raised more than $250,000, were just as mismanaged by the company, according to Padilla." and “I made zero dollars for that. I don’t know what the company did with the money.”
• “The offices in North Carolina had been closed. Nobody was even bothering to sell ads on the thing.”
• etc.

Many people are, in various ways, blaming the company's management for poorly handling finances. If you would like to propose a different way of summarizing this, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Verge article cited above is full of additional support that former employees and stakeholders blame poor financial practices for the decline of the company.

• “I made zero dollars for that. I don’t know what the company did with the money."
• "A third issued by talent manager David Rath suggested that Defy Media purposely hid its financial woes, misleading individuals and companies entering into partnerships with Defy."
• "A separate lawsuit filed by ViewAll Investments, a media publishing and ad platform, complained that Defy Media failed to pay invoices."
• "Shandy Media, which runs three YouTube channels with more than 2.5 million subscribers across the channels, filed a lawsuit in June claiming a breach of contract over an advertising deal, ultimately costing the channels more than $100,000"

And this quote, which was already cited in this discussion, *“I don’t think Defy fell victim,” the executive said. “Defy was one of the first few MCNs that worked with premium content creators. If you look at Defy’s contact list, they’ve got some pretty big names, they’ve got the big guys. Defy was never impacted by YouTube’s terms of service and changes. I think Defy was just poor executives and poor management that ran the company.”

I believe that "poor financial practices" and "poor financial management" are both valid ways of summarizing the accusations former employees are making against the company, but if you have another phrasing that adequately sums up these accusations, please feel free to share it. Shadow3265 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)