Why Spotify can’t afford to lose Joe Rogan

Photo by Carmen Mandato/Getty Images

The story was originally published in Hot Pod. You can get more scoops here.

If you haven't seen it by now, Neil Young gave a ultimatum to Spotify: keep Joe Rogan or me. It is not possible to have both on the service.

According to Rolling Stone, he wrote in a now- deleted letter that he was doing this because he was concerned that the fake information on vaccines could cause death to those who believed it. He said that the main issue was Joe Rogan, who was paid up to $100 million for an exclusive license to his show.

Young and his record label removed his music from the service yesterday after he made good on his promise. Young thanked his label and encouraged others to follow suit in a letter on his website.

This is a turning point in the company narrative. It is no longer a music company but one that is committed to podcasting and will compromise with musical artists to ensure its success. We could have assumed this would play out the way it did. Who was going to be picked by the service, a musician whose heyday was decades ago or a comedian who causes PR headaches but also commands a minimum ad spend of $1 million?

Do you have more to say about what's happening? Reach out to me through the social media channels. You can always use Signal or SecureDrop to send files and messages without revealing your identity.

I'm processing the situation in a few different ways, but one is assessing the economic incentives. It is obvious that the thinking is obvious. What does losing Young mean? The company isn't financially dependent on his streams or subscribers, and unless a mass exodus of subscribers over his missing catalog, things remain business as usual. The company loses money every time someone streams Young's songs, which is why it wanted to get into podcasting in the first place. Every time someone listens to Rogan, it makes money.

I am not sure what Warner Records gets out of this. Maybe it wants to change the conversation about streaming. I'm not sure, but I assume that some sort of politics is going on behind the scenes that could help Warner. Maybe people listen to other people. Do you want to buy some CDs? Unclear.

The lesson from the skirmish is that it's not possible to ostracize Rogan or his audience. The show was licensed by the company to make money through ad sales and convert his audience to the platform. JRE is the glue that holds the entire podcasting apparatus together.

A source previously told me that if marketers buy ads on Rogan, they have to buy ads on the rest of the catalog as well. Call Her Daddy and Armchair Expert are available on the platform, but they do not reach Rogan's scale. It's easy to see why the service didn't cave easily.

The thing that interests me the most is what this says about moderation. When we think about moderation issues on social media platforms, it's usually one in which the content is promoted and monetized. Until now, podcasting has been out of the conversation. The industry relies on word of mouth, and the hope is that software recommendations will do more in the future.

We aren't there yet, that's why we're siding with the star podcaster and why the streaming service is financially motivated to push his content to users.

Maybe the core issue wouldn't be that big of a deal if the company fully communicated its guidelines. I received a statement in December that prohibits content on the platform which promotes dangerous false, deceptive, or misleading content about COVID-19 that may cause offline harm and/or pose a direct threat to public health. The appropriate enforcement action is taken if that content is found to be in violation.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the streaming service has taken down 20,000 episodes for violating its detailed content policies. I don't know if the policy is detailed or not. The open question is what is crossing its line. Rogan has not crossed it. What did the other people say to be taken down? Who is this in-house team? These violations are flagged by software or humans.

If I hear back, I will update.

It needs to say that Rogan doesn't cross a line. We can acknowledge its incentive to look the other way or move the moderation line. Even if it means tanking its reputation, it cannot afford to lose its star.

I'm here for you if you want to vent or share what you're thinking, because I imagine this is a lot. I'm on email at theverge.com.