I don't really know who this guy is or why you'd spend 100 million on him to secure a deal. But he's walking away with that money and Spotify is left with the infighting. They fucked themselves over with that absurd investment.
Is Spotify going to blow another 100 mil on that one and hope for the best?
They messed up by betting large on a celebrity and ignoring the fact that Joe Rogan wasn't a cultural fit.
He's a cultural fit for x hundreds of millions. You may not fall into that demographic, but there's no discounting that other cultures exist outside of your own.
He's a pro weed, universal health care loving, self-described left of center guy big in the MMA and stand-up comedy circles.
He now has the world's most popular podcast, but because he frequently has guests who are right wing, despite debating them about these things on the show, he is attacked for giving these folks a platform to spread their ideas.
Due to his expertise in MMA and the fact that he's a formally trained fighter and martial artist, he was shaken by an event he witnessed: The fracturing of a woman's skull by Fallon Fox, a transgender woman who hid the fact that she had previously been a male, and had recently transitioned from the league. He commented on it.
This put him in very hot water with the trans activist community, despite the fact that the vast majority of the American public has similar concerns.
The reality is this deal made Spotify a lot of money and brought them listeners and advertising revenue. You don't know who he is, but you aren't the target audience, and your opinions and the opinions of the employees don't matter. Spotify exists to make investors money by creating value for the listeners. The employees shouldn't have any power over how it does that, because they own as much as the equity they've been given, and nothing more.
Okay, sure.
> [...the rest of the post...]
I don't see how this connects.
> your opinions and the opinions of the employees don't matter
But your opinion does? It must matter to you, since you spent a few paragraphs on it.
Guessing that what ljm meant was that those opinions shouldn't be important in their personal choice about what to listen to or not listen to.
Their logic dictates that none of our opinions matter. That's fine by me; we're squabbling over nothing.
Expressing my opinion on a message board isn't a claim that the executives should listen to me.
I'm unaware of any law which requires a business to make money for investors. A business can promise to pay dividends and they can speculate on where their stock can be at a future date, but there is no legal recourse if they lose money.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/24/stakeholder-gover...