It's kind of impossible to say where this stands with regard to money since we don't know the length of the contract. The really interesting thing here really is that they've abandoned it as an exclusive, which kind of hammers the nail into the coffin of spotify trying to takeover podcasting. It looks a lot like they're basically paying Rogan and taking the ad revenue from across all platforms. This seems great for Rogan though - getting back his reach. But I just don't see how it makes any sense for Spotify other than saving face for their terrible strategic move.
Open standards -- and RSS is the open podcasting standard -- always win in the end. Listenership of the show (and the embedded ads) will skyrocket. Would be good if Spotify went further and embraced more open standards like OP3[1] and other aspects of Podcasting 2.0 but returning to an open RSS feed for the JRE is a good first step.
So far it's been OK. I don't plan to buy the subscription, but I check the web app from time to time and listen if I find something interesting.
> Spotify reportedly cut an $18 million check for Meghan Markle to headline a podcast called “Archetypes,” though it struggled to nab a top spot on the Spotify charts, which was blamed on staffers’ error in judgment.
> Spotify has locked Joe Rogan into another “multiyear” contract worth as much as $250 million, per The Wall Street Journal, though the audio giant will no longer be the sole distributor of his popular podcast.
Is the $250M figure for each year? Or is it a 5 year deal worth $50M annually? Kind of a big difference (though both scenarios involve FU-money, of course).
More importantly, Spotify is giving up their exclusivity. This is great! I had to download their app and make an account just to listen to a clip one time. I look forward to deleting the app forthwith.
From a PR perspective, I can understand why insiders would be keen to leak a massive headline figure and gloss over the fact it's probably a big step down from the previous deal - and as you say, is more likely to either be $50m annually or has some incentive structure that's unlikely to be met.
If the deal were 250m per year that would be an incredible headline, there's no way they'd be quiet about that.
It makes sense that it would be much smaller than his initial deal on an annual basis. There's much less value in exclusivity since he already brought his biggest existing fans over to the platform. So they jettisoned exclusivity and enabled him to make tons more by monetizing on other platforms (twitter, youtube, third-party podcast apps). It would be interesting to know what percent of his total revenue ends up coming from this deal, now that the exclusivity is ending.
Oh I read it the opposite way- he won’t be exclusive but Spotify would get the revenue from all advertisers. So say he releases on YouTube? The ad placement and revenue for that would at least go via Spotify and presumably Spotify would take a tidy chunk of that.
That would seem to set up very strange incentives. Are there other agreements like this, where one distributor gets a cut of advertising that is derived by an artist/speaker on a totally different platform?
There is no upper limit to the value generated by a slackjawed middle age guy saying “Woooooaahhhhooohhh!!!” to another little guy talking about tiger penis hairline treatments
Have you listened to the Joe Rogan Experience? If you find “slackjawed” to be inaccurate, video recordings of the interviews are also available for you to review.
I welcome an alternative description of your personal experience listening to Joe Rogan that is more “substantive” than what I’ve written. Admonishments are all well and good, but constructive feedback is even better if we’re asking for better posts!
Edit: To clarify, the term is a quote from Rogan himself in an episode so…?
When discussing Joe Rogan do not quote him or comment on the substance of the podcast in any way. Any reference to the comedy podcast that itself may be construed as being a joke is not even a “borderline call“ for moderation, got it.
It’s okay to not have listened to the podcast Dan, it isn’t for everybody.
I apologize for the flame war I started. The massive amount of arguing and misunderstanding in response to my earlier post makes me sick. It is my shame that no single person understood the reference
Joe Rogan is "that guy at the bar." He's fun, bros it up, doesn't challenge you too much, and he totally used to do MMA. Then when he gets a few too many in him he leans close and starts asking "do you really think they went to the moon?" Then the bar closes and you're pretty sure he drove home even though he was hammered.
He fills sort of the same niche as Howard Stern, but Stern was more like that guy who still has coke at 3am and has a crowd around him listening to uncomfortable too-much-information stories because he still has coke. Then when he runs out of coke everyone leaves except the likely sex offenders.
Those are like two Jungian archetypes of that dude you talked to last night for too long, which means they translate nicely into a podcast or talk radio program you listen to for too long.
Rogan used to be a bit better but he's really gone down market since the first Spotify deal. He's probably just chasing the largest audience.
I wish there was a Joe Rogan's podcast where all of Joe is edited out, and I get to enjoy the guests without any of his commentary about the crazy college kids, and the woke cultural marxists, elk meat and DMT trips.
Same with the Lex Friedman podcast, where we don't have to listen to the "Tell me how this is all about love" question ever again.
New AIdea... A "fast-forward or mute when person X is talking" app/plugin/whatever. You'll never have to hear X again! The core tech would actually be pretty simple, considering what's available open source.
I wish I could get a music only Spotify subscription.
I’d be willing to pay slightly more than I pay for my subscription with everything, if they removed the other stuff from the UI entirely, guaranteed that none of my money would go towards podcasts or audiobooks or whatever, and that every extra penny went to the musicians I listen to not more profit for Spotify.
Yes, Spotify is worth less to me when it includes anything other than music.
> Also, I’d like a button which allowed my kid’s music to be erased from any algorithm that helps chose me music.
Preach.
My “Replay 2020” music is the last yearly replay that’s any good. Because I had my first child in 2021 and everything after that is lullaby music. My “For you” and personal radio station are now saturated with the music I play for my kids, and it’s completely destroying my music discovery. Apple Music really needs to fix this.
Set up an Apple Music account and then one for the child. However car rides still contaminate my music as my phone is the one plugged in, and I’m left back where I started.
It badly needs some sort of ‘exclude this artist, always’ option.
For me this would be indistinguishable from a ‘no Taylor Swift’ option.
They also have a ever so slightly finer grained control over telling it that you don't like the song or (one of, I forget which) the album/artist that is playing.
Same. I have a dedicated app for podcasts, I'd rather keep Spotify specialized. Long-term the push to podcasts is simply better economics for Spotify, so they aren't going to stop going in that direction anytime soon.
> Corporations run on a form of code – financial regulation and accounting practices – and the modern version of this code literally prohibits corporations from treating human beings with empathy. The principle of fiduciary duty to investors means that where there is a chance to make an investor richer while making a worker or customer miserable, management is obliged to side with the investor, so long as the misery doesn’t backfire so much that it harms the investor’s quarterly return.
That’s not the full story. Corporations have charters that include things other than a return for investors. Investors also don’t care about maximizing returns as long as expected targets can be hit.
I want to start by saying that I'm not defending Spotify's position, but rather trying to explain it.
The problem with a music-only Spotify subscription is that it's a pretty undifferentiated product with little control over the forces around it. Anyone else can sell what they're selling: Apple, Google, Amazon, Tidal.
Spotify is a tiny company compared to most of those and doesn't control any of the platforms it uses: iPhone, Android, Alexa. While Europe's Digital Markets Act might make it harder for a company to kick Spotify off their platform, that's hardly worldwide. While the DMA might mean in-app payments with lower fees, it's looking like platforms will still be getting something.
Spotify doesn't own the music content that it's streaming. It's getting that from labels and artists.
Not to denigrate Spotify's software or user experience too much, but to an extent they're just a middleman between you and the music you want to hear. I'm sure people will reply about how they prefer the Spotify experience to other services and I don't want to dismiss that, but it's certainly less differentiated when everyone has the same content.
Now with non-music content, Spotify has differentiation. Even if the deal isn't 100% exclusive (since video is going on YouTube), it might still lock out Apple and Amazon. It might also restrict the ability for Google/YouTube to use it in a non-video format. Now there's more differentiation. There's stuff you can (mostly) only get from Spotify.
Even if platforms aren't doing dirty things to harm Spotify, there is often value in being the default in an ecosystem. If you don't have a streaming service, Alexa devices will suggest Amazon Music and you can sign up with no friction at all. That's different from signing up for Spotify and then linking it to my Alexa account. Apple Music is installed by default on iPhones. Spotify has a significant first-mover advantage, but companies that control important platforms and have deep pockets are coming after them. Offering something you can't get from the competition gives Spotify a way to keep subscribers and gain new subscribers instead of being an undifferentiated middleman between you and your music.
I ended up switching to Qobuz for that reason basically. It's much more music-focused than Spotify and the editorial content is pretty good (lots of albums have an "about" section which gives you some context about the album).
I wish I could get podcast only Spotify subscription. I don't want to open the app then have to click around to get the podcasts, podcasts should come up by default.
What is your basis for this? I've spoken to many people about it, and most people who actually listen to podcasts I know use a seperate app for podcasts. Not wanting then unified seems pretty normal from my perspective.
That's a strange parallel to draw. Spotify is one of many places to stream music. Most of which are better than Spotify. Unless we're talking about shopping around citizenship, taxes aren't generally a thing you have granular control over.
If Joe Rogan does one thing well, it has to be that despite popular perception in mainstream media there's a pretty big non-woke market and audience out there.
I left Spotify when they signed Rogan the first time. Rogan was spreading disinformation about COVID, that was potentially dangerous. Rogan's fans trust him and information they hear on his show, and when that information is potentially dangerous, that is unethical on Rogan's part.
Also, Spotify pay artists the least of the streaming services per track. I don't consider Spotify ethical.
Oh and after being treated to lossless fidelity streaming on other platforms, Spotify sounds like trash.
> Spotify pay artists the least of the streaming services per track
Citation? Every source I can find shows Spotify pays less than Tidal, Apple, but more that YouTube, Pandora, and Deezer... with the caveat that you need 1000 streams before you get paid at all.
Edit: not sure how reliable that source is. There is so much wildly conflicting information. I can't find much consistency for current artist stream comp.
Your comment is being burned to the ground, but I remember watching this anthropologist talk about Islamic terrorism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc and I see parallels in the white men extremism.. Someone's exploiting the felt lack of future/goals and recruited them to extremist movements.
Extremism is extremism. Doesn't matter if it's religious, racial, or nationalist.
There's a reason why we've been lucky so far with relatively few domestic terror attacks - the DHS, FBI, and local police have been experience with being on the lookout for extremism using the same playbook they used against Islamists back in the 2000s and 2010s.
For example, from the DHS [0]
Edit: wow, OP got flagged for calling out the similarities between white nationalism and Islamic terror back in the 2000s
There was neuroscientist who specialized in amygdala/prefrontal cortex interaction who noted that baseline resets were incredibly important to a functioning, objectively normal fear response.
Absent occasionally getting chased by a tiger, things go a little haywire.
And before you know it, our brains are confusing angry/scared person in our ears or on a screen with an actual reality.
With an occasional baseline reset, we properly note that that situation seems very interesting, but don't confuse it as imminent or affecting us.
Tl;dr - Laying around and not putting yourself in actually physically dangerous situations from time to time results in your fear center becoming overactive.
Hmm... I wonder why older people become progressively more and more obsessed with politics?
> Laying around and not putting yourself in actually physically dangerous situations from time to time results in your fear center becoming overactive
When I was in elementary school, I was in the demographic that would end up with a criminal record.
To help channel our anger and angst as the children of immigrants documented and undocumented, our local PD linked a couple of us hot headed kids with boxing/martial arts lessons.
They were fairly useful in channeling that angst into something more constructive
I've been somewhat frustrated by the rise of political rhetoric on here for a couple of years.
Not political discussions -- the comments that are quick, memeish soundbites that are meant to gather upvotes and responses that are also quick, memeish soundbites.
Discussing meta politics (why politics are the way they are) is interesting and on-topic.
Parent could have definitely worded their comment less flippantly, but it's an interesting discussion as to why inflaming people draws $250M worth of listeners these days.
lol, no. Not in any way. If they get pushback when they're jerks, that doesn't mean they are persecuted. If they have stopped being the default character type in some (not most, but some) media, that doesn't hurt them at all.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that about 60% of the country is white? [Source: 1, 57.84% white in 2020]
Well, look at me at Friday night researching suicide numbers, thanks in part because you didn't cite your sources.
The graph after the map of the country in this article[2] shows absolute rates and per race rate, yeah white people have the tallest absolute rate, but damn, 28% suicide rate for American Indian or Alaska Native, vs. 17% for White.
But gotta love white people seeing the march of equality/everyone facing a shitty situation with a pandemic, and thinking they're the ones being targetted. Perception vs reality.
70% of suicides are white AND male. While white people are 58% of the country, males are only HALF of that number. Put another way, 70% of all suicides are committed by just 29% of the population.
28 per 100k is nowhere near 28% (it's 0.028% per year). White and American Indian suicide rates track each other pretty closely until the mid 00s where both continue to increase, but American Indians pull ahead (also indicating a major problem in our American Indian community).
In any case, rates for white men in 2021 was 35.7 per 100k beating out American Indians overall (but still slightly shy of American Indian Men at 41.3 per 100k).
Comparing to overall suicide rates for other races (the other breakdown in the article you provided), we have 6.8 for Asians, 8.7 for Blacks, 12.6 for Pacific Islanders, 9.7 for multi-racial, and 7.9 for hispanics.
Put another way, overall white suicide rates are DOUBLE that of blacks, hispanics, asians, and almost double that of multi-racial people. White men have a suicide rate more than FOUR TIMES that of the overall rates for these groups.
Maybe you should set aside your own preconceived biases and realize that the reality doesn't match up to your perception. The fact is that most white people aren't privileged. They live in poor, broken-down places while working low-wage jobs and have nothing to show for it -- just the same as any other group of people.
The fact that you and I are on Hacker News debating this shows that we have been way more blessed that we probably deserve.
Thanks for correcting the magnitudes - not 28% or 17% - but the ratios work.
Still, there's no citation for your figure for white males in particular.
> White men have a suicide rate more than FOUR TIMES that of the overall rates for these groups.
Huh? Show the math if you please?
> They live in poor, broken-down places while working low-wage jobs and have nothing to show for it -- just the same as any other group of people.
We are in agreement.. so why is it that the white men are turning extremist and listening to Joe Rogan? It seems like it's not even the same set of white men, the followers of Joe Rogan/other "toxic" male figures probably come from more privileged backgrounds.
One of the reasons I pretty much stopped listening to podcasts all together was the trend Rogan set of interviewing comedians. I guess having a podcast and doing the podcast circuit is easier than getting behind a mic and being funny. It turns out most comedians are dorks who decided to be professional joke makers in order to compensate for being uninteresting. Nothing wrong with that, but comedian stories on podcasts just blend together after a while.
Woke is a straw man for people who want to say something ignorant, offensive or inconsiderate and pretend there is some evil force trying to stop them (their conscience?).
The only people really angry about Rogan that I’ve met in real life either think he’s a complete idiot or purposely spreading misinformation, which always cracks me up, because theyre just as purposely spreading their half-informed ideas.
Were I a musician with control of my output, I’d sure as hell disallow Spotify streaming. Paying this dork $250M and me 3 cents for the same time period? Nope.
You may only get 3 cents in the same time period if no one likes your music enough to listen to it.
You don't just get to throw anything up there and expect to get the same $250M.
Certainly you understand that they don't pay by time period, right? Value to them comes from time spent actually consuming the content and how much they can make inserting ads during that time or getting new subscribers to avoid the number of ads.
Maybe musicians are getting a bad deal, and I'm no longer fan of JRE either... but your argument is clearly so off-base.
