5 ms·

> In his memo, Ek said the company is committing to “an incremental investment of $100 million” for licensing, development and marketing of music and audio cont

> In his memo, Ek said the company is committing to “an incremental investment of $100 million” for licensing, development and marketing of music and audio content from historically marginalized groups. It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. 0: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca... Edit: What astounded me is that his contract was so huge, I had no idea until I just looked it up.

nextlevelwizard 5y ago
I dont get why you feel astonished by that. Being historically marginalized doesn't automatically mean you will bring in more money than JRE.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  When the commitment is triggered by Rogan's controversy, you'd expect this apology to include commitment for more. But maybe that's just me.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I would think it would be a lot less. One is buying very popular content for their core business, the other is appeasing a few employees/twitteristas
Veen 5y ago
It's a business, not a charity. Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Rest assured they will be investing in only a tiny few of the very least marginalized people in said “marginalized groups.” That’s how identity politics works.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  Indeed, spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate is big business. Spotify is a small player though and Facebook is the big winner in this category.
  - LoveGracePeace 5y ago
    If you're referring to Rogan, he isn't doing any of that and neither is Spotify that I'm aware of in this universe.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    have you ever listened to a full session of Rogan? This is pretty much the opposite of what he does. He has thoughtful conversations with a variety of people, including Bernie Sanders. He talks like normal people do when having a conversation.
    - Karsteski 5y ago
      Anyone who is boiling down media content to "spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate" is almost certainly repeating nonsense they've heard, and it's clear that this commenter has either never listened to a JRE episode or is purposefully being disingenuous.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
        "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy." "Ivermectin alone is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction." "I don't think it's true there's an increased risk of myocarditis from people catching Covid-19 that are young, versus the risk from the vaccine." Guest claims that if you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects. https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614 https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614
    - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
      Who are "normal people"? People like Rogan? Or maybe people who agree with you?
- samwillis 5y ago
  > It's a business, not a charity. I hate this phrase, we are better than that. No one is asking businesses to become charities, what they are asking for them to become more socially conscious. Invest even a small quantity of profits into areas of the business that, while may not be profitable, could provide some level of support to society. We as a society need to move past this excuse of "they are just a business" and not expect them to be better than that. > Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so. Spotify should be using some portion of their profits to give these marginalized groups a platform to tell their story. We should not dismiss them.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    You can pay some alternative spotify where your favorite groups are represented. That's how it works.
  - pl0x 5y ago
    How about you donate a portion of your profits to these "groups"? How many marginalized groups have you helped with your cushy career?
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    what happens when they choose to support groups that you dont like? What if they decided to invest 15 million a year in supporting conservative causes or securing the border? Companies getting involved in things outside of their core reason is just asking for trouble. What you consider support to society may be very different than what someone else does.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Yes, it's not like the groups traditionally considered marginalized are underrepresented in popular music. What are they going to spend that $100 million on? Anglican bell-ringers and Appalachian skiffle groups?
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
mongol 5y ago
Is it? I assume that they are both based on business valuations. Of course, Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan, and probably would have paid less in retrospect. As it turned out he cost them more than 200 million when all is accounted for.
- b112 5y ago
  There was also all that free advertising about the platform, when they signed him.
- duck 5y ago
  > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan I think this could be true and at the same time I think they might have even paid him more knowing what they know now.
  - mongol 5y ago
    Yes perhaps. I think they would have liked to avoid the current controversy but in a month's time it may not matter.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan Really? They didn't view any of the 1700 something streams they imported ahead of the deal?
  - mongol 5y ago
    I think they did not expect this controversy
filoleg 5y ago
> It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Not saying that what Spotify is doing is the right thing to do, but it is a bit less surprising when you look at the viewership numbers[0] (I know it is a tweet, but it links to the official Nielsen chart with the numbers). It kind of blew me away to see it. JRE essentially has more viewers than the next 4 major shows combined (which are extremely mainstream, like major tv primetime averages or the Hannity show). The only thing that gets more viewers is Superbowl. 0. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=...
nradov 5y ago
The ironic thing is that the most popular podcasts today grew with no investment or marketing. Anyone can start a podcast for free! If the content is good then it will go viral and there's no need to spend $100M.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Why would they do that? would investing $100 million in "historically marginalized groups" bring as many new ears as Joe Rogan? I don't think it would, why would a company that is required to maximize returns to share holders and investors invest money they know would not bring the strongest returns? Its a business, not a charitable institution.
kamaal 5y ago
>>It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Capitalism can be very brutal at times. The approach capitalism takes when a restaurant business begins to fail is to ask 'How can I make tasty food for cheap, so that more people can buy from me?' This is really like asking why does Costo sell its hot dog deal for $1.50, why shouldn't they be more responsible selling a Salad or something. The right way to approach such questions is to ask, what do people want to eat?

nextlevelwizard 5y ago

I dont get why you feel astonished by that. Being historically marginalized doesn't automatically mean you will bring in more money than JRE.

colejohnson66 5y ago
When the commitment is triggered by Rogan's controversy, you'd expect this apology to include commitment for more. But maybe that's just me.
- redisman 5y ago
  I would think it would be a lot less. One is buying very popular content for their core business, the other is appeasing a few employees/twitteristas

Veen 5y ago

It's a business, not a charity. Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Rest assured they will be investing in only a tiny few of the very least marginalized people in said “marginalized groups.” That’s how identity politics works.
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
Indeed, spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate is big business. Spotify is a small player though and Facebook is the big winner in this category.
- LoveGracePeace 5y ago
  If you're referring to Rogan, he isn't doing any of that and neither is Spotify that I'm aware of in this universe.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  have you ever listened to a full session of Rogan? This is pretty much the opposite of what he does. He has thoughtful conversations with a variety of people, including Bernie Sanders. He talks like normal people do when having a conversation.
  - Karsteski 5y ago
    Anyone who is boiling down media content to "spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate" is almost certainly repeating nonsense they've heard, and it's clear that this commenter has either never listened to a JRE episode or is purposefully being disingenuous.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
      "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy." "Ivermectin alone is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction." "I don't think it's true there's an increased risk of myocarditis from people catching Covid-19 that are young, versus the risk from the vaccine." Guest claims that if you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects. https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614 https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614
  - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
    Who are "normal people"? People like Rogan? Or maybe people who agree with you?
samwillis 5y ago
> It's a business, not a charity. I hate this phrase, we are better than that. No one is asking businesses to become charities, what they are asking for them to become more socially conscious. Invest even a small quantity of profits into areas of the business that, while may not be profitable, could provide some level of support to society. We as a society need to move past this excuse of "they are just a business" and not expect them to be better than that. > Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so. Spotify should be using some portion of their profits to give these marginalized groups a platform to tell their story. We should not dismiss them.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  You can pay some alternative spotify where your favorite groups are represented. That's how it works.
- pl0x 5y ago
  How about you donate a portion of your profits to these "groups"? How many marginalized groups have you helped with your cushy career?
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  what happens when they choose to support groups that you dont like? What if they decided to invest 15 million a year in supporting conservative causes or securing the border? Companies getting involved in things outside of their core reason is just asking for trouble. What you consider support to society may be very different than what someone else does.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Yes, it's not like the groups traditionally considered marginalized are underrepresented in popular music. What are they going to spend that $100 million on? Anglican bell-ringers and Appalachian skiffle groups?
    - wonderwonder 5y ago

mongol 5y ago

Is it? I assume that they are both based on business valuations. Of course, Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan, and probably would have paid less in retrospect. As it turned out he cost them more than 200 million when all is accounted for.

b112 5y ago
There was also all that free advertising about the platform, when they signed him.
duck 5y ago
> Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan I think this could be true and at the same time I think they might have even paid him more knowing what they know now.
- mongol 5y ago
  Yes perhaps. I think they would have liked to avoid the current controversy but in a month's time it may not matter.
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
> Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan Really? They didn't view any of the 1700 something streams they imported ahead of the deal?
- mongol 5y ago
  I think they did not expect this controversy

filoleg 5y ago

> It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Not saying that what Spotify is doing is the right thing to do, but it is a bit less surprising when you look at the viewership numbers[0] (I know it is a tweet, but it links to the official Nielsen chart with the numbers). It kind of blew me away to see it. JRE essentially has more viewers than the next 4 major shows combined (which are extremely mainstream, like major tv primetime averages or the Hannity show). The only thing that gets more viewers is Superbowl. 0. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=...

nradov 5y ago

The ironic thing is that the most popular podcasts today grew with no investment or marketing. Anyone can start a podcast for free! If the content is good then it will go viral and there's no need to spend $100M.

wonderwonder 5y ago

Why would they do that? would investing $100 million in "historically marginalized groups" bring as many new ears as Joe Rogan? I don't think it would, why would a company that is required to maximize returns to share holders and investors invest money they know would not bring the strongest returns? Its a business, not a charitable institution.

kamaal 5y ago

>>It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Capitalism can be very brutal at times. The approach capitalism takes when a restaurant business begins to fail is to ask 'How can I make tasty food for cheap, so that more people can buy from me?' This is really like asking why does Costo sell its hot dog deal for $1.50, why shouldn't they be more responsible selling a Salad or something. The right way to approach such questions is to ask, what do people want to eat?