Breaking Points is an American daily online news show hosted by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball. The show launched in 2020 after Enjeti and Ball left the Hill’s Rising news program. Breaking Points has quickly grown in popularity, attracting over 200,000 YouTube subscribers in its first year. However, as an independent media company, questions have emerged about Breaking Points’ funding sources and financial backers. Understanding who funds Breaking Points can provide insight into the show’s incentives and any possible conflicts of interest.
Overview of Breaking Points
Breaking Points was founded in 2020 by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball after they departed from Hill TV’s Rising news program. Enjeti and Ball felt their contract with The Hill constrained their journalism and prevented them from fully speaking their minds. As a result, they launched Breaking Points as an independent daily online news and opinion show free from corporate control.
Breaking Points releases an hour-long episode on YouTube each weekday at 10am ET. The show also releases short segments on social media and an audio-only podcast version. Enjeti and Ball aim to provide news and commentary from a populist perspective outside of the traditional partisan divide. They criticize establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle and cover stories overlooked by the mainstream media.
The show quickly found an audience hungry for alternative viewpoints. Within its first year, Breaking Points gained over 200,000 YouTube subscribers. Episodes regularly get between 100,000-300,000 views. The show also has over 150,000 followers across Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
Breaking Points’ Funding Sources
As Breaking Points is an independent media company without corporate backing, its funding sources are less transparent than traditional news outlets. Breaking Points relies on viewer support through paid subscriptions and donations rather than advertising revenue.
Breaking Points co-founders Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball have disclosed some information about the show’s finances:
– Enjeti and Ball self-funded Breaking Points for the first six months with their own savings. This allowed them to launch the show independently without relying on outside investors.
– In January 2021, Breaking Points launched a paid subscription service called Breaking Points Premium. For $5 per month or $50 per year, subscribers get access to exclusive content and episodes. This subscription revenue helps fund Breaking Points’ continued operations.
– In March 2021, Breaking Points received an undisclosed investment from entrepreneur and venture capitalist Ben Swann. With this funding, Breaking Points hired additional staff writers, producers, and marketing employees.
– Breaking Points accepts donations from viewers through Patreon, Locals, and Direct Support. Fan funding provides another revenue stream to sustain the company’s work.
However, the full extent of Breaking Points’ funding and investors remains opaque. As a private company, Breaking Points is not obligated to publicly release detailed financial statements or donor information.
Criticisms and Controversies
While Breaking Points has quickly built a large audience, the show has also faced criticisms and controversies, some tied to its funding sources:
Alleged Right-Wing Ties
Some progressive commentators have criticized Breaking Points and Saagar Enjeti for alleged right-wing sympathies. They point to Enjeti’s previous career as a conservative opinion writer for publications like The Daily Caller. Critics argue Breaking Points’ populist perspective frequently aligns with conservatism and lets right-wing narratives go unchallenged.
However, Enjeti maintains he supports a true middle-ground populism that criticizes both political extremes. He argues the show’s perspective is best described as “populist nationalism” rather than partisan conservatism.
Nonetheless, alleged right-leaning tendencies raise questions about Breaking Points’ possible funding ties to conservative donors, think tanks, or political groups. Without transparency on funding, Breaking Points leaves itself vulnerable to such speculation and mistrust from progressive viewers.
Undisclosed Funding from Venture Capitalists
While Breaking Points founders present the show as independent media funded by fans, its funding from venture capitalists and entrepreneurs contradicts this narrative. For example, the undisclosed seed investment in March 2021 from Ben Swann links Breaking Points to venture capitalist money from Silicon Valley.
Swann is an investor in tech startups and previously worked as a TV news anchor funded by right-leaning groups. Critics argue that taking investment capital from Swann undermines Breaking Points’ stated mission as independent people-powered media. It shows the show relies on big money benefactors behind the scenes, which may influence its coverage.
Lack of Transparency Around Donors
The lack of transparency around Breaking Points’ full range of donors and investors breeds suspicion. As an independent media company soliciting donations, Breaking Points does not disclose exactly who its high-dollar benefactors are. Critics contend Breaking Points could take money from anonymous special interests who sway its reporting.
For example, a group funded by right-wing billionaire Charles Koch could theoretically donate anonymously to influence Breaking Points’ populist perspective. Without transparency, viewers cannot track such potential conflicts of interest or motivate biases. Greater openness around donors and investors would bolster Breaking Points’ stated mission as transparent independent media.
Arguments in Favor of Breaking Points’ Funding
However, Breaking Points founders and supporters make counterarguments defending the show’s funding sources and business model:
Self-Funded Launch
Enjeti and Ball point out they self-funded Breaking Points for six months with their own savings. This allowed them to build the foundations of the show before later expanding with outside investment. Relying on their own money at launch means no big donors influenced the show initially.
Viewer-Supported Revenue
While Breaking Points accepts some large donations, the vast majority of its funding comes from small-dollar subscriptions and donations from regular viewers. This fan funding provides independence from corporate control or advertiser influence. Relying on widespread grassroots support means Breaking Points remains accountable to its general audience rather than any particular special interest.
Investments Allow Growth
Seeking some venture capital allows Breaking Points to grow faster by hiring more staff. This expended capacity improves Breaking Points’ journalism and reach rather than compromising or influencing it. Investments are a pragmatic business necessity, not an ideological betrayal.
Non-Profit Potential
Breaking Points founders have mentioned their intent to eventually convert the company into a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. This would provide maximum transparency around donors and require all funding be earmarked towards the company’s public mission. This potential future path shows a commitment to openness around funding sources.
Conclusion
Breaking Points’ opaque funding sources raise fair critiques regarding possible conflicts of interest and lack of transparency. As a media company soliciting public support, Breaking Points would benefit greatly from disclosing its major donors and investors. This would bolster its mission as independent people-powered media.
However, Breaking Points also has reasonable counterarguments. The show’s self-funded launch, widespread fan funding base, and non-profit ambitions suggest a genuine commitment to editorial independence. Breaking Points faces inherent business realities as a new media startup that complicate pure viewer-only funding.
Ultimately, Breaking Points’ success shows the appeal of its unique populist perspective that challenges partisan narratives. But fully realizing its mission as transparent independent media necessitates greater openness around donors. This would mitigate legitimate concerns about who might influence the show’s content behind the scenes.
Detailed Breakdown of Breaking Points’ Funding Sources
Here is a more detailed breakdown of Breaking Points’ known and speculated funding sources:
Viewer Subscriptions
– Breaking Points Premium subscriptions – $5 per month or $50 per year
– Estimated 10,000-50,000 paying subscribers based on comparable media outlets
– Generates ~$500,000+ in annual revenue
Direct Viewer Donations
– Donations via Patreon, Locals, Direct Support, etc.
– Unknown number of donors and average donation amounts
– For example, Chapo Trap House podcast generated ~$170,000 monthly from 30,000 Patreon donors in 2019
– Speculated that Breaking Points may have 5,000-15,000 donors generating ~$50,000-$150,000 per month or ~$600,000-$1.8 million annually
Venture Capital Investors
– Ben Swann provided undisclosed seed investment in March 2021
– Swann is an investor in numerous tech startups and right-leaning media figures
– Investment amount likely in the mid six-figures range
Anonymous Donors
– Breaking Points accepts some large anonymous donations
– donors could include wealthy individuals, corporations, foundations, or political groups
– Anonymous donations enable potentially influential donors to quietly fund Breaking Points
Youtube Ad Revenue
– As a monetized Youtube partner, Breaking Points likely earns a 55% revenue share on ads run on its videos
– With 150,000-300,000 views per video, Breaking Points likely earns $3,000-$5,000 per day or ~$1 million annually from Youtube ad revenue
Licensing Fees
– Breaking Points licenses its show format and content to television broadcasters
– These licensing deals provide another revenue stream
– Financial terms of the licensing deals are undisclosed
Comparisons to Funding at Other Media Outlets
It is instructive to compare Breaking Points’ funding to other independent progressive media outlets with transparent funding:
The Young Turks (TYT)
– Funded primarily by viewer subscriptions and small donations
– Has taken some venture capital investments to fuel growth
– Currently has around 200,000 paying subscribers providing bulk of revenue
– Also earns ad revenue from Youtube and licensing fees for show format
– Founders Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola retain majority ownership and control
Democracy Now!
– Funding comes from viewer donations and foundation grants
– Accepts no advertising, government funds, or corporate sponsorships
– Raises $12 million+ annually from 175,000+ individual donors
– Average daily podcast audience of 1.3 million shows loyal grassroots support
The Intercept
– Funded by First Look Media non-profit launched by E-Bay founder Pierre Omidyar
– First Look Media does not disclose identities of additional donors
– The Intercept viewed skeptically by some as funded by “billionaire benefactor”
– Glenn Greenwald says Omidyar has no influence over editorial content
The Majority Report
– Funded by viewer subscriptions through Patreon and Youtube ad revenue
– Brings in over $40,000 monthly from Patreon subscriptions
– Viewed as progressive media funded primarily by small-dollar audience donations
Media Outlet | Primary Funding Sources | Revenue Estimate |
---|---|---|
Breaking Points | Subscriptions, donations, licensing, Youtube ads | $2 million+ |
The Young Turks | Subscriptions, Youtube ads | $20 million+ |
Democracy Now! | Viewer donations, foundation grants | $12 million+ |
The Intercept | First Look Media non-profit | Tens of millions |
The Majority Report | Subscriptions, Youtube ads | $500,000+ |
Key Takeaways
– Breaking Points’ funding model of subscriptions, donations, licensing, and Youtube ads generally aligns with other independent progressive media outlets
– However, Breaking Points lacks the transparency around donors and investors provided by outlets like Democracy Now!
– Securing some venture capital investment is common among independent media to spur growth, but should be disclosed clearly
– Reliance on unknown anonymous donors differentiates Breaking Points from purely viewer-funded outlets like The Majority Report
Best Practices for Independent Media Funding Transparency
To improve funding transparency, Breaking Points could adopt some of these best practices:
– Create a donor wall listing all subscribers who donate over a certain threshold, similar to Wikpedia’s donor appreciation pages
– Publish an annual report detailing revenue breakdowns from subscriptions, investments, donations, licensing, and other income sources
– Appoint an ombudsman or independent editorial board to review funding sources for possible conflicts of interest
– Set a cap on anonymous donations at a low percentage of overall revenue to limit influence of anonymous special interests
– Conduct periodic third-party financial audits to verify funding details and share results with audience
– Establish a maximum dollar amount viewers can donate to prevent disproportionate influence of wealthy mega-donors
– Disclose any corporate sponsorships or advertising deals along with details on editorial firewalls
– Abide by standards similar to NPR underwriter disclosures when acknowledging investors and sponsors
– Update funding transparency pledges regularly and close any loopholes that threaten independence
Pros and Cons of Various Funding Models
Funding Model | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|
Viewer subscriptions | – Greater audience connection and accountability – Stable recurring revenue |
– Limit audience reach – Require constant subscription promotion |
Viewer donations | – Allows content to remain free for all – Fan funding base |
– Unpredictable income – Relies on constant donation appeals |
Advertising | – Scales with audience reach – Shared ad revenue from platforms like Youtube |
– Pressure to create advertiser-friendly content – Data collection and monetization |
Venture capital | – Provides capital to expand quickly | – Investors may exert influence – Focus shifts from mission to profit |
Non-profit | – Prioritizes public mission over profit – Philanthropic funding |
– Bureaucracy and inefficiency – Reliance on foundations or wealthy donors |
Government funding | – Stable long-term funding | – Editorial interference and control – Bias towards status quo |
Key Takeaways
– Relying heavily on viewer subscriptions and donations fosters audience connection but limits reach
– Advertising and venture capital allow rapid growth but threaten independence
– Non-profit and government funding provide stable resources but increased oversight
– A diversified mix of funding sources balances these tradeoffs while maintaining editorial control
Conclusion
In summary, Breaking Points’ funding likely stems from a mix of viewer subscriptions, donations, licensing deals, Youtube ad shares, and venture capital investments. However, full transparency about donors and investors would boost its credibility as independent people-powered media.
To realize its mission and values, Breaking Points should implement best practices like capping anonymous donations, disclosing sponsors, and appointing an ombudsman. A diversity of funding sources is ideal, but must be balanced thoughtfully to enable growth while preserving transparency.
As a young media company, Breaking Points continues evolving its business model. But by proactively improving funding transparency, it can solidify its reputation as a leading independent voice in news media.