The problem for YouTubers is that their fans are on YouTube, and moving fans from one platform to another is really, really hard.
I’ve also been rather negative on the viability of distributed social media sites, because they’re really hard to explain to non-nerds. Even as someone who understands the theory and goals, dealing with picking an instance and navigating the differences is a hurdle I’m not really interesting in dealing with.
I can’t tell how much the writer knows Joe’s content, but he would probably have never went with a subscription model. The free access has always been one of the #1 things he attributes to his success. I say this as a listener from episode ~250 which is still not that long ago.
It’s clear to a long-time fan that Spotify made some assurances that their app can be downloaded for free so all his listeners can join him.
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sq9r87jnRo
It WOULD seem UNLIKELY that he WOULD NOT have the proper advice to make a deal like this AND NOT be ripped off.
“He probably has good advisors that made sure he wasn’t being ripped off.”
It honestly took me 5 minutes to figure out what you were saying. I feel like I uniquely struggle with this, like I have some kind of undiscovered form of dyslexia. Maybe it’s just late.
And now he is putting himself into a spotify box.
Sure, he can most likely retain all of his freedoms (due to his seer size), but once spotify becomes youtube for podcasts, then he could be partially blamed for supporting the very mechanism he spend most of his podcast life criticizing.
They start out by talking about some of the issues you mentioned. They break mid-way, and apparently Tim got off the phone with Rogan and cleared up that censorship was not the primary motivator. The cut to after the Rogan call is 15:27.
For some reason he has done a 180 from his earlier position on Spotify as quoted in the article.
In my experience he's as unbiased as a journalist can be regarding American happenings.
As it should be.
>He is hoping that Spotify will give him more creative freedom
Spreading pseudoscience isn't creative, its destructive.
How is contrarian coverage "pseudoscience"?
An example of contrarian coverage is the suicide rate rising due to the Bay Area stay-at-home order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396
Thus, evidence of the harm of lockdowns can be considered contrarian, regardless of whether it comes from medical professionals.
Ignoring mental health consequences of difficult times is foolish, but this sounds much more like it was a "well, actually" sort of conversation meant to stroke people's egos.
Then they'd collect advertising revenue based on all the eyeballs they can get.
This is not the flu, it is much worse, but we are generally not enforcing "seat belts" to protect the vulnerable even close to as much.
Furthermore, economic depressions lead to suffering and death. This is a fact that's widely known and studied. Ignoring all the coming secondary effects to focus on only acute deaths from a single cause is clearly not scientific either.
I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting (if anything).
But he did compare harm rates, for example of alcohol, which is perfectly legal and is sold in abundance EVEN during this health crisis and weed.
* Masks do not work on corona virus
* Taiwan is a Chinese province, not an independent country
* Corona virus does not transmit between people.
The very first signs of human-to-human transmission in the epidemic were on Jan 14th, as some family members of the initially-identified cluster began to fall ill. At this time, there were about ~50 identified cases, and zero deaths.
On January 20th, one single incubation period later, as healthcare workers began falling ill, both China and the WHO confirmed human-to-human transmission.
There are large numbers of examples of respiratory illnesses that do not easily transmit between humans. Most commonly, there are frequently outbreaks of H1N1 influenza from farms, with animals as the primary vector. Among coronaviruses, MERS transmits very poorly between people.
Would you have preferred the WHO loudly proclaim the virus easily transmits between people when there was no evidence that it did? That would be absurd.
Please stop spreading this misinformation.
Taiwan informed the WHO in December that person to person transmission was likely taking place. The only sense in which it hadn’t been confirmed is in a tautological sense the WHO hadn’t confirmed it. Doctors in Wuhan were getting infected and Taiwan had proof of that.
China notified the WHO on December 31st of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause, and noted that the patients had been isolated.
Taiwan's health minister then emailed the WHO, suggesting that the unknown illness might well be SARS, and made note of China's acknowledgement that the patients had been put in isolation.
Taiwan had zero first hand knowledge of the the virus, and zero information on the virus beyond what China had provided to the WHO and what had been reported in social media.
Taiwan's health minister's email to the WHO was literally based on nothing more than China's own statements to the WHO, and social media rumors. That is it in its entirety.
Again, like I suggested to the original commenter, please stop spreading misinformation.
Taiwan had no proof, they just did not trust China.
If you're referring to the case covered by the article published in The Lancet, those patients were admitted to hospital between Jan 10 and Jan 15.
Yet, prior to that date there were already reports the virus spread between humans.
There is a lot of diplomatic weasel words and trade offices instead of embassies to keep that up but it suports the One China policy.
It may not work if too many people are too stupid. But it may work if enough people are smart enough. And it's the only way to have a free society.
That's his appeal--few people would be interested in hearing him grill his guests. We have CNN for that. Saying he "lobs softball after softball at them" is true but not really a bad thing given that he doesn't claim to do otherwise.
You're free to listen to the uninterrupted hours of talk directly from the guest and form your own opinion. That's usually a far better way to learn about someone than following an opinionated interviewer asking "hardball" questions that don't get clear answers anyway and will reduce the caliber of guests to appear in the first.
I mean, yeah, I get it, phones have data plans, but still. I LOVE Spotify, I'm a family plan subscriber, etc etc. But I'm not interested in my rates going up to pay for access to content I don't care about and could get for free if I did.
I tried to switch over to Spotify as a podcast app when Sonos ditched the ability to stream from your phone (the AirPlay2 cutover), but Spotify's podcast functionality is virtually nonexistent.
Also we don't really know Rogan's plans. If he plans on keeping this going for another 10-15 years staying independent would make some sense. But if he wants to retire after his Spotify deal runs out this may not be unreasonable.
point being, I think the YouTube platform has played quite a large role where users don't have to "seek out" new episodes and I don't think that can be understated.
ultimately, only the numbers will tell.
It definitely adds a layer of friction, though. Instead of just clicking and immediately watching the full video on YouTube, you have to shift apps, to something you might not be signed up for or want to pay for (I'm one of the latter, I used to pay for Spotify years ago but stopped and I don't want to go back to it).
Personally, I think the real point in this analysis is that 90% of people just aren't going to sollow him to spotify. Which is fine for spotify, they're buying users, but for Joe Rogan it'll be the end of his place in popular culture.
The other advantage of Ferrari for race drivers was that their testing, they had the Maranelo testing track right next to the lab.
But this now forbidden, it was an "unfair" advantage. So I see no other reason why anyone wants to work for the crazy Italians with their unusual language. If they would not pay more. I don't see the Ferrari dream being much better than the Mercedes or McLaren dream. Lots of marketing money, but as race driver above 18 you mostly go for the engineering culture.
And exactly this engineering culture got lost with Google and Apple lately. That's why people want to leave.
Rogan loses a portion of his existing audience to be sure, but he gains a more committed audience this way, and those hundreds of millions of people that are already listening to Spotify may have a new favorite show.
his success is basically a middle finger to traditional media and corporations - having a very small team, organic growth, and being more authentic and making millions without NEEDING to sell out.
of course I've never had a 9 figure deal so I'm soapboxing here.
but I'd be lying if I didn't say this damages what i really admired about the podcast. idk.
On Spotify, Joe Rogan is Joe Rogan with a smaller audience.
I don't see how this is "the dream".
The analogy doesnt work. Rogan built a ferrari brand and now he's letting it be bought out by a midtier team with deep pockets like Stroll's dad.
This ain't rocket surgery. Ferrari invests a ton more in their brand and their program than other teams do. The money you make outside of F1 from endorsements more than makes up the slightly lesser pay.
> Stern and Rogan are already super rich. The difference between $50mm/year of profit and $100mm means zero to their day-to-day lifestyle. What I imagine does matter to them is the size of their audience and their impact, and both made choices that will limit that forever.
Can't imagine Jamie doesn't have equity in the show and remained just a employee. On this kind of level of earnings, an important part is choosing who you share with.
Cheap debt influences the cashflow multiplier in a great way when doing a discounted cash flow analysis. The estimated financial gains are off by at least a factor 2 or 3. It doesn't make sense to make a deal of 100 million when you received 30 million last year.
> Joe Rogan's podcast 'The Joe Rogan Experience' earned a staggering $30 million in revenue across 190 million downloads per month in 2019.
Colour me skeptical.
I have a hard time believing that Joe (who has been in show business a long time), or the business people he surrounds himself with as advisors, would sign a ~$100MM exclusive contact when they're printing $50MM+ a year. That doesn't make sense, does it?
Sure, until subscription fatigue kicks in. People pay for Spotify or SiriousXM because of the overall value. I doubt many people would be interested in paying just for Stern or Rogan's podcast. That is in addition to all the other services they're already paying for, such as Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc...
They could have offered consumers a choice of channels instead of packages. It would have required changing their business model but most cable companies are local monopolies so they should be able to declare new economics.
With their position as ISPs for many they were well positioned to offer streaming services first. These could have subscriptions by show instead of network. I would happily pay for the handful of shows I actually watch rather than the pantheon of streaming services we have now.
First, if Rogan is doing this deal then he values himself at less than whatever they paid. I am assuming he has a fairly good understanding of that worth is (the guy has worked in media for a very long time) given that he knows what he earns, and the author doesn't/
Second, the value of these kind of audiences is pretty much always over-estimated. Spotify is way overvaluing Rogan's worth, and the author is way overvaluing Rogan's worth too. No, there isn't a huge subscription business here (Stern doesn't have one, people buy Sirius subs). Can you make money from podcast subscriptions? Yes. Should you? No.
Third, most of these media-ish companies don't think about this in a very sophisticated way (as Rogan's quote at the end demonstrates). They are desperate to create growth at any cost, they seldom focus on product or think about customer/supplier value, and usually have execs with bureaucratic/big media ways of thinking (which is useless for growth). I suspect this will be more Ninja and Mixer than Stern/Sirius...they have bought some listeners great...but unless they buy literally every podcast, their platform isn't growing (it is actually very like Twitch, what incentive does any podcaster have to move onto Spotify and make them rich...it is a ludicrous insight into the level of thought that goes into these huge, expensive deals...now Ninja is streaming to a few thousand rather than 30k...genius play Microsoft).
Fourth, the stuff about Spotify not having editorial control is not true. I don't know who is fooling who here but this is like Facebook acquiring WhatsApp and saying they are going to show ads...LOOOOOL. Spotify is a content company, if Facebook gets blamed for what other people right on their platform then Spotify is going to get hammered when Rogan (inevitably) does something unwise.
Ultimately seems to be a lose-lose-lose for the platform (where they don't pull 1/4 of their prior numbers), fans (who generally just stop caring), and creator (who makes money short term but loses major brand equity, relevance, growth)
Rogan didn't know how high he could've taken it. Now he does.
Maybe he was ready to retire anyway?
The article's revenue estimates are based on Rogan doing more work...setting up subscription programs, keeping up with YouTube's content policies to avoid getting kicked off the platform, and continuing to find podcast guests and creative material.
Perhaps he wants to kick back, not work so hard (depending on the contract he actually signed), and collect a steady paycheck? The author likens Rogan's podcast to sitting on an oilfield (where the value of oil can be easily evaluated), but creative endeavors are hardly so cut and dried.
if his desire was to kick back it seems like the move would be to just relax his release schedule
wanting something steady in the chaos of creative work though, I can completely understand
>And make no mistake: Joe Rogan is a business...I think he is capable of, his corporation would easily be valued at over $1,000,000,000...
>As I pointed out in my last post, if Rogan had added subscription, he would have owned a company that looked like the world’s best SaaS business.
The problem is that there is no exit for this business. Nobody is going to pay 20x past earnings for JRE without Joe.
This is the difference between being a performer (literally a gig worker), and a business owner.
Also would like to see alternative opinions that contrast the consensus / mainstream narrative.
Also hope the video is still about on Spotify.
With Spotify he just secured a guaranteed paycheck and a guarantee that he (and his team) don't need to work nearly as hard.
And what audience does he really lose? Non-paying customers via YouTube and podcast apps can be non-paying customers on Spotify and it makes no difference to him.
This whole ‘privatization of podcasting’ process is nothing but harmful to culture.
Spotify is a pure predator.
That's a big _if_, and so far as I can see, there's not much in the way of justification for that in the article.
Edit: Found on Quora what MM means:
>Lowercase "mm" does mean millimeters, but uppercase "MM" is used for millions. "Mille" is Latin for "thousand". MM is Mille Mille.
Seems like Rogan is going to retain upload rights to other platforms, negating nearly all the articles assertions.
Now I force myself to see all his episodes with utmost skepticism and doing that I can neither enjoy nor tolerate them anymore. And now with this move to Spotify, I will finally have a reason to quit, sadly. It was great while it lasted though.
Its not just the anti-lockdown comments that turned me off. I can agree to some degree with that. There's more like in the episodes that followed afterwards with Brendan Schaub or fight companion where they are just spouting stupid shit. But I guess you can't always invite the best guests.
I don't think you realize that when you get to extreme wealth, your time is the most precious thing you have. Having a month more of free time every year is really priceless.
He made a good deal.
Not every decision trump or his administration does is bad.
That's a fact. Is he a manchild only interested in himself? Absolutely but,
If trump says 2+2=4 are you going to argue with that? Does agreeing that 2+2=4 makes you trump supporter?
I have seen some of those questions trying to get tramp to fail for some quick news.
Those attempts are as childish as trump is. And it doesnt belong to journalism.
Uhhm... he also said trump was right to close the border with china and eu at the start of pandemic and that he was called rasist for it. He was right though, that was the right move. Whatever the motivation, restricting frivolous travel is a way to go to fight pandemics.
He laughed at some joke tweets.
I cant recall anything else apart from that.
Look he is a democrat by believes, he wants tulsi gabbard to be the president.
> Do you even listen to his shows?
this is not reddit, cut this out or get out.
This tunnel vision of this place is incredible. Not everyone wants to be Elon Musk. Some people are happy where they are.