Joe Rogan Gets New Spotify Deal Worth Up to $250M | Hacker News Reader

Joe Rogan Gets New Spotify Deal Worth Up to $250M

wsj.com

48 pointsmikece98 comments

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.

[1] https://op3.dev/

Good for him.

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.

Shocker. :D

> 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

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.

Confession: I fast forward when Lex is speaking

Ditto, friend.

I find his voice incredibly hard to listen to, he slurs in a way that just makes it hard for me to keep my attention on what’s being said.

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 liked Garfield without Garfield, you might be on to something.

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'm not saying you should talk to my NAZI buddy sitting in the dark corner later, but I'm not saying you shouldn't!"

Oh no, not lowbrow content! Anything but that!

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

You may not owe slackjawed middle age guys better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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…?

It was obviously an unsubstantive flamebait comment regardless of what you meant by "slackjawed". Not a borderline call.

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

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.

Agreed, nothing more annoying than having to deal with unwanted podcasts when looking for music.

I love podcasts. I love Spotify. I do not want them in the same UI. It's like finding email notifications or Google Docs content in among my songs.

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.

Agreed. It's like Amazon Video's slide towards being an advertising supported cable company.

No company owes anybody being a company of a specific sort.

And it's a nigh impossible battle to argue in favor of an order of magnitude less profitable business model if there are more profitable alternatives.

One reason I always said Apple's lock on the App Store was a few down quarters from being seriously abused to the detriment of users.

I think Cory Doctorow put it aptly:

> 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.

Source https://locusmag.com/2015/07/cory-doctorow-skynet-ascendant/

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.

Can you point me to substantial evidence that corporations side with their customers or employees when doing so is in conflict with their bottom line?

I can point to examples that validate my point.

1. Facebook: https://apnews.com/article/facebook-whistleblower-frances-ha...

2. Apple: https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropp...

3. Youtube: adding more and more advertisements to each video even after they became profitable

4. Purdue Pharma and Pharma in general: The opioid crisis in the US

5. Volkswagen: Dieselgate

I can list many more, but I think you see a pattern.

There is no profit right because all the money goes to artists (labels really)? That’s why the aggressive push for other kind of content.

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).

Then the music focused tidal.com maybe be for you. They claim to send a higher percentage of revenue to the artists.

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.

I want option where my sub cost going towards content production gets split into payment for artist whose content which I've "liked" and listend to.

I wish my money went exclusively to the artists I actually listen to, split proportionally to how much I listen to them.

Amazing (not to mention sad) that the obviously fair, reasonable thing feels like an unattainable fantasy, isn’t it?

I went to Apple music for this reason. It’s fractionally better.

Kagi search has user setting that let you block domains. It would be pretty great if a music subscription let you have a master filter.

Never show me:

Podcasts

Mega church music

Sleep sounds

Sound effects

Also, I’d like a button which allowed my kid’s music to be erased from any algorithm that helps chose me 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.

I left Spotify, in part due to 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.

Why don’t you subscribe to services that do that instead?

You’re literally subsidizing the behavior you dislike.

1. I’m lazy. I have hundreds of albums saved to my library and I can’t face recreating that.

2. I collaborate on a small number of shared playlists with others who I won’t persuade to move.

Nonetheless I agree with you, I probably should. Until the next platform I choose pulls the same shit and I’m back to square one.

At this point I’m more likely to revert to buying/pirating music and self-hosting than give any more energy to another streaming service.

https://github.com/KRTirtho/spotube

Spotube might be the answer if you don’t have an iPhone.

Using it on Windows and the client is good enough.

I wish my taxes only went to things I wanted them to go to

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.

In Hungary, every year you can decide where a (small) part of your taxes go.

This.

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.

I agree, this is why I refuse to give Spotify a red cent.

This of course is not the NORMAL perspective.

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.

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.

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.

That's the majority of people around the world tbh.

Good on him for getting that bag. But poor Spotify. Nowhere to go and noway to escape from the trap.

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.

Don't use Spotify.

Remember when CNN turned him yellow?

> 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.

I suppose that means zero for most artists.

I was basing that comment on what I have seen in the past. Checking now, it looks like Spotify is kind of middle of the road now in terms of artist comp. https://sugomusic.com/music-streaming-services-that-pay/

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.

This will likely anger the woke crowd. I like the JRE. It's generally a good and interesting conversation. I normally skip the comedian guests though.

>woke

LOL, I always enjoy finding someone who uses that unironically. JRE appeals to the lowest common denominator, enjoy!

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?).

Nope it's not.

Hey, if you don't understand what woke means you can just ask. Also, don't be so fake.

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.

I've noticed most people I've met, whom seem to have strong negative opinions about him haven't listened to a single episode.

Yep, they are people who want to be outraged about something. They are just ignorant

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.

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 do understand they're not paying him $250M per listen, right?

I don't think the artists get 3c per listen either.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com