6 ms·

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get bett

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...

HideousKojima 3y ago
>It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. >I don't get why people listen to him... I think you just contradicted yourself here. Whether or not it was a stupid decision to buy the rights to his podcast is orthogonal to whether or not he's funny or smart or if his content gives "value" to listeners.
10u152 3y ago
You don’t listen to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. You listen because he has the most interesting guests on.
- anon23432343 3y ago
  And lets people spread fake news and stupid theories. Just because they are "interesting" they should not get a free promo.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    That's precisely what people like about it. Anyone can come on his show. No matter how batshit crazy. Many people don't want to be coddled and protected from viewpoints other people have decided are fake news or stupid. They can make up the balance themselves.
  - kvetching 3y ago
    That's your opinion. Most guests have a wealth of knowledge that shouldn't be discounted outright.
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    “But but misinfo!” Man I hate where we’re at for free speech in the West.
  - 10u152 3y ago
    Who defines what's "Fake"? Who defines what's stupid?
  - eddtries 3y ago
    I love it when people parrot what they heard - what misinformation? Do you mean the Robert Kennedy stuff? I can have my own strong views that the vaccines were useful and still enjoy content - if you just consume what you hear and relay it of course you shouldn't be around "fake news and stupid theories". Saying that 99% of Rogans podcasts are not like this.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Joe Rogan isn't an insightful, active listener like Charlie Rose was and with actual interesting guests at a higher signal level.
mvdtnz 3y ago
I feel neither positively nor negatively about Rogan himself (I've never listened to him) but it was plainly a very stupid investment on Spotify's part. Anyone could have predicted (and most of us did) that only a fraction of his audience would follow him behind the paywall and removing him from mainstream free outlets would instantly diminish his cultural relevance.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  ‘Diminishing his cultural relevance’ may have been the goal. Reducing his audience, censoring his most controversial past episodes and preventing certain conversations from happening in front of his large audience in future?
  - Shish2k 3y ago
    Spotify paid $200 million… to tie a podcaster to their sinking-ship podcast platform (and this plan only works if they know and intend for their platform to sink)… just to get him from a big spotlight to a small spotlight?
    - bluescrn 3y ago
      Elon paid vastly more for Twitter, seemingly primarily as an act of activism. In this incredibly divided world, politics has started to come before profit.
      - Shish2k 3y ago
        And when they paid an additional several hundred million buying up tens of random science and tech news and D&D podcasts - was that to intentionally kill those podcasts too? Or were they just a necessary sacrifice in order to create a more believable “we want our product to succeed” fascade, so that Joe didn’t realise he was getting tricked?
    - rickdeckard 3y ago
      It wasn't a "sinking-ship podcast platform", it was Spotify's strategy to own content and thus reduce cost for per-play licensing. They went for the Netflix strategy for growth. We now know the podcast-idea didn't translate into as many paid subscribers as they expected, but with ~25% of all Spotify subscribers listening to podcasts [1] it's not a "sinking-ship podcast platform" [1] https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscriptions-no-creator-fees-until-2023-1234961186/ https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscr...
baby 3y ago
He’s a great podcaster.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Good enough to bring in $200M of revenue through subscriptions or ads?
  - rapsey 3y ago
    Unless Spotify releases numbers none of us have a clue. Considering his youtube numbers before the move, that number was actually him selling himself short.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    By definition he is since that is what spotify paid now.
  - anthonypasq 3y ago
    that wasnt the purpose of buying him. the purpose was to buy a gigantic audience of listeners that would hopefully now use spotify as their main podcast app
  - baby 3y ago
    yes that's his valuation since that's what Spotify paid.
- kvetching 3y ago
  He's really gone downhill lately. Looking really rough. And stoned on top of that. I wonder if he can even comprehend half of what his guests are saying.
  - baby 3y ago
    Na he is still great
Shish2k 3y ago
Are “it was a stupid decision to buy him” and “I don't get why people listen to him” supposed to be related statements? The business decision isn’t about your personal feelings, it’s about his objectively measurably enormous audience
- anon23432343 3y ago
  I want to see how they got the 200 million back and as they have to lay off 17% of there people it looks like a stupid decision in the end.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    It's a ridiculous amount of money for that content. But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I doubt that the 2nd-best offer was significantly less. After all, they also paid him to NOT make any further money with the podcast on YouTube or other platforms...
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I don’t understand how that could have ever been a strategy without buying the businesses that own most of the popular music, such as Warner, Universal, and Sony.
      - rickdeckard 3y ago
        Spotify is largely owned by those businesses, that was part of the deal to get them to even open their catalog
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        That is not true. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/ Any ownership by the record labels must be less than 1%.
Roritharr 3y ago
Would you say that about any other type of media/culture/art you dislike? "I don't get why people like the Mona Lisa, the painting is neither original nor particularly well done" Is just as much a subjective statement. JRE is, by most released figures the top interview podcast on the planet, his interviews regularly move Charts of third party media like Book Bestseller Lists and Music Charts. There obviously is a huge audience and value there and I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math.
- coryrc 3y ago
  > I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math. Working at Microsoft during the Ballmer era and seeing the number of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions written-down to nothing, I would never assume corporations spend large amounts wisely.
  - Roritharr 3y ago
    You certainly have a point there, but I also remember being absolutely wrong about the Minecraft aquisition which has now paid for itself multiple times. Your math doesn't have to work out, even if it's solid.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      Sometimes it's the case that you do 10 investments, each $1b where one makes you $100b. But in hindsight the 9 looked stupid, but at the time you were using the same strategy to do all the 10 investments. Not sure if it's case with Joe Rogan, but just how sometimes there's a lot of failure, while the strategy itself is solid.
  - walteweiss 3y ago
    I will never understand why that idiot was hired as a CEO in the first place.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    I think, sometimes, buying the competition and killing it is the intended effect. Especially if you're as anti-competitive as Microsoft.
stjohnswarts 3y ago
It's simple, different people have different opinions in life and his show is still the most popular podcast on spotify. was it worth $200 million, I have my doubts on that one.
rowanG077 3y ago
You don't watch Joe Rogan for Joe Rogan. You watch Joe Rogan for the guests. I love his episodes with Elon Musk.
1letterunixname 3y ago
[flagged]
eddtries 3y ago
It’s light entertainment and he tends to cover topics I am interested in like BJJ/Muay Thai. If he goes on about Covid etc I just half listen, it’s rarely that long.
andsoitis 3y ago
> I don't get why people listen to him... People have different tastes. That's OK. The Joe Rogan Experience has continued to be at the top of Spotify's podcast charts, bringing in 11m listeners an episode. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-podcasts-2023-joe-rogan-tops-crime-junkie-and-the-daily/?sh=690804e64ccf https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
- Solvency 3y ago
  [flagged]

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...

HideousKojima 3y ago

>It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. >I don't get why people listen to him... I think you just contradicted yourself here. Whether or not it was a stupid decision to buy the rights to his podcast is orthogonal to whether or not he's funny or smart or if his content gives "value" to listeners.

10u152 3y ago

You don’t listen to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. You listen because he has the most interesting guests on.

anon23432343 3y ago
And lets people spread fake news and stupid theories. Just because they are "interesting" they should not get a free promo.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  That's precisely what people like about it. Anyone can come on his show. No matter how batshit crazy. Many people don't want to be coddled and protected from viewpoints other people have decided are fake news or stupid. They can make up the balance themselves.
- kvetching 3y ago
  That's your opinion. Most guests have a wealth of knowledge that shouldn't be discounted outright.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  “But but misinfo!” Man I hate where we’re at for free speech in the West.
- 10u152 3y ago
  Who defines what's "Fake"? Who defines what's stupid?
- eddtries 3y ago
  I love it when people parrot what they heard - what misinformation? Do you mean the Robert Kennedy stuff? I can have my own strong views that the vaccines were useful and still enjoy content - if you just consume what you hear and relay it of course you shouldn't be around "fake news and stupid theories". Saying that 99% of Rogans podcasts are not like this.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Joe Rogan isn't an insightful, active listener like Charlie Rose was and with actual interesting guests at a higher signal level.

mvdtnz 3y ago

I feel neither positively nor negatively about Rogan himself (I've never listened to him) but it was plainly a very stupid investment on Spotify's part. Anyone could have predicted (and most of us did) that only a fraction of his audience would follow him behind the paywall and removing him from mainstream free outlets would instantly diminish his cultural relevance.

bluescrn 3y ago
‘Diminishing his cultural relevance’ may have been the goal. Reducing his audience, censoring his most controversial past episodes and preventing certain conversations from happening in front of his large audience in future?
- Shish2k 3y ago
  Spotify paid $200 million… to tie a podcaster to their sinking-ship podcast platform (and this plan only works if they know and intend for their platform to sink)… just to get him from a big spotlight to a small spotlight?
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    Elon paid vastly more for Twitter, seemingly primarily as an act of activism. In this incredibly divided world, politics has started to come before profit.
    - Shish2k 3y ago
      And when they paid an additional several hundred million buying up tens of random science and tech news and D&D podcasts - was that to intentionally kill those podcasts too? Or were they just a necessary sacrifice in order to create a more believable “we want our product to succeed” fascade, so that Joe didn’t realise he was getting tricked?
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    It wasn't a "sinking-ship podcast platform", it was Spotify's strategy to own content and thus reduce cost for per-play licensing. They went for the Netflix strategy for growth. We now know the podcast-idea didn't translate into as many paid subscribers as they expected, but with ~25% of all Spotify subscribers listening to podcasts [1] it's not a "sinking-ship podcast platform" [1] https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscriptions-no-creator-fees-until-2023-1234961186/ https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscr...

baby 3y ago

He’s a great podcaster.

epistasis 3y ago
Good enough to bring in $200M of revenue through subscriptions or ads?
- rapsey 3y ago
  Unless Spotify releases numbers none of us have a clue. Considering his youtube numbers before the move, that number was actually him selling himself short.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  By definition he is since that is what spotify paid now.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  that wasnt the purpose of buying him. the purpose was to buy a gigantic audience of listeners that would hopefully now use spotify as their main podcast app
- baby 3y ago
  yes that's his valuation since that's what Spotify paid.
kvetching 3y ago
He's really gone downhill lately. Looking really rough. And stoned on top of that. I wonder if he can even comprehend half of what his guests are saying.
- baby 3y ago
  Na he is still great

Shish2k 3y ago

Are “it was a stupid decision to buy him” and “I don't get why people listen to him” supposed to be related statements? The business decision isn’t about your personal feelings, it’s about his objectively measurably enormous audience

anon23432343 3y ago
I want to see how they got the 200 million back and as they have to lay off 17% of there people it looks like a stupid decision in the end.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  It's a ridiculous amount of money for that content. But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I doubt that the 2nd-best offer was significantly less. After all, they also paid him to NOT make any further money with the podcast on YouTube or other platforms...
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I don’t understand how that could have ever been a strategy without buying the businesses that own most of the popular music, such as Warner, Universal, and Sony.
    - rickdeckard 3y ago
      Spotify is largely owned by those businesses, that was part of the deal to get them to even open their catalog
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        That is not true. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/ Any ownership by the record labels must be less than 1%.

Roritharr 3y ago

Would you say that about any other type of media/culture/art you dislike? "I don't get why people like the Mona Lisa, the painting is neither original nor particularly well done" Is just as much a subjective statement. JRE is, by most released figures the top interview podcast on the planet, his interviews regularly move Charts of third party media like Book Bestseller Lists and Music Charts. There obviously is a huge audience and value there and I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math.

coryrc 3y ago
> I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math. Working at Microsoft during the Ballmer era and seeing the number of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions written-down to nothing, I would never assume corporations spend large amounts wisely.
- Roritharr 3y ago
  You certainly have a point there, but I also remember being absolutely wrong about the Minecraft aquisition which has now paid for itself multiple times. Your math doesn't have to work out, even if it's solid.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Sometimes it's the case that you do 10 investments, each $1b where one makes you $100b. But in hindsight the 9 looked stupid, but at the time you were using the same strategy to do all the 10 investments. Not sure if it's case with Joe Rogan, but just how sometimes there's a lot of failure, while the strategy itself is solid.
- walteweiss 3y ago
  I will never understand why that idiot was hired as a CEO in the first place.
- xdennis 3y ago
  I think, sometimes, buying the competition and killing it is the intended effect. Especially if you're as anti-competitive as Microsoft.

stjohnswarts 3y ago

It's simple, different people have different opinions in life and his show is still the most popular podcast on spotify. was it worth $200 million, I have my doubts on that one.

rowanG077 3y ago

You don't watch Joe Rogan for Joe Rogan. You watch Joe Rogan for the guests. I love his episodes with Elon Musk.

1letterunixname 3y ago

[flagged]

eddtries 3y ago

It’s light entertainment and he tends to cover topics I am interested in like BJJ/Muay Thai. If he goes on about Covid etc I just half listen, it’s rarely that long.

andsoitis 3y ago

> I don't get why people listen to him... People have different tastes. That's OK. The Joe Rogan Experience has continued to be at the top of Spotify's podcast charts, bringing in 11m listeners an episode. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-podcasts-2023-joe-rogan-tops-crime-junkie-and-the-daily/?sh=690804e64ccf https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...

Solvency 3y ago
[flagged]