The Spotify Wars: Tied Neil Young 1, Joe Rogan 1 at Half-Time

[KuruPrionz]

At this point, it's hard to suss out the "cause and effect". Spotify stock has been going down recently and continues to do so. 

Maybe it's related to current events and maybe it was simply over-valued. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/spotify-loses-2-billion-stock-182108629.html

 

I've never considered the stock of any music streaming company in my own portfolio, there is too much change there and not much innovation. 

There are much better places to park money. 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, KuruPrionz said:

At this point, it's hard to suss out the "cause and effect". Spotify stock has been going down recently and continues to do so. 

Maybe it's related to current events and maybe it was simply over-valued. 

 

 

Well, here's the deal, accurate as of the end of 2020. Apple Music is in a distant second for market share, at 15% behind Spotify's 31%. Looking at numbers alone, Spotify is adding more subscribers than any other service. But...

 

Percentages, which can be more forward-looking, tell a different story. Amazon music grew more than Spotify (25% vs. 20%), and YouTube grew the most in 2019 and 2020, with 50% growth in the year leading up to 2Q 2021. It was also the only streaming service to increase its global market share, because of its Gen Z/Millennial demographic. Spotify's demographic is aging, which may account for its continued erosion of market share and growth, as well as thinking that its path to future growth will be more about podcasts than music. And remember that Apple has a pile of cash and a rabid fanbase. By offering spatial audio and lossless audio at no extra cost to subscribers, Apple drew a line in the sand as the premium music service.

 

Bottom line is Spotify isn't going anywhere. But hot web sites come and go, it's always risky to bet on something that's dependent on trends, fashion, and a highly focused demographic. If I was going to park my money on Spotify for 10 years, it would be with the expectation of selling short 

 

(One of my favorite headlines from yesterday is "Cryptocurrencies Crash - Billions of Nothing Disappears")

[Anderton]

Well, my cynical self stands corrected: apparently one person CAN make a difference.

 

Spotify's stock has slipped 25% since this brouhaha started, which translates to $4 billion in market value. That means with Rogan having 11 million listeners, each Rogan listener has cost Spotify $364. 

 

Rumors are that Foo Fighters are next in saying bye bye Spotify, but we're not done. Since labels often have to approve removing music, and they profit from Spotify (remember, a lot of the poor payouts to artists is because labels are getting the money), it will be interesting to see how labels finesse the value artists bring to them vs. the cash they bring in.

 

I think I need to change the thread title to Neil Young 1, Rogan 1. Seems like the score might be tied up at the moment.

[KuruPrionz]

If it's costing Spotify money to keep Joe Rogan then maybe the title should be "Neil Young 2, Joe Rogan 1 (he did get a contract and $$$), Spotify -2"?

 

This will take time to evolve, we are hearing about major acts who leave Spotify - Neil, Joni, Foo.

Smaller acts may be in the process of withdrawing as well. One or two here and there won't change much but over time there could be a measurable effect. 

 

I guess we'll find out as we go...

[KuruPrionz]

Haven't verified but I just read online that Nils Lofgren and Crazy Horse have both pulled their music off of Spotify. Neither is a major act, both are talented and have followings. 

Tip of the iceberg? The next few weeks could be "interesting". 

[KuruPrionz]

And another one, this time a podcaster. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/brene-brown-spotify-podcast-pause-152507732.html

[KuruPrionz]

And, Spotify responds.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/spotify-covid-19-content-advisory-210856599.html

[Joe Muscara]

Rogan’s podcast might not bother me if he would have “both sides” presented (I out that in quotes because it’s another issue for another time). Before the pandemic, he had tropical infectious disease expert Peter Hotez on more than once, I believe. You may recognize Dr. Hotez from his appearances on news programs and his bow tie, and he has helped developed another vaccine that uses a completely different technology that he’s pushing to help vaccinate those parts of the world that don’t have medical access like ours. Dr. Hotez has offered to be a guest on Rogan’s podcast regarding the pandemic but has heard nothing back. It would be a short trip to Austin from Houston for him or he could do it remotely. 
 

If Rogan is going with these anti-vaccine guests just for the money, don’t you think having Dr. Hotez and one of these other guys on to debate the subject would be a ratings bonanza? I know I’d want to listen to that. 
 

I hated Spotify, Ek, their poor payouts and “exposure” for artists long before they even signed Rogan. 

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, Joe Muscara said:

Rogan’s podcast might not bother me if he would have “both sides” presented (I out that in quotes because it’s another issue for another time). Before the pandemic, he had tropical infectious disease expert Peter Hotez on more than once, I believe. You may recognize Dr. Hotez from his appearances on news programs and his bow tie, and he has helped developed another vaccine that uses a completely different technology that he’s pushing to help vaccinate those parts of the world that don’t have medical access like ours. Dr. Hotez has offered to be a guest on Rogan’s podcast regarding the pandemic but has heard nothing back. It would be a short trip to Austin from Houston for him or he could do it remotely. 
 

If Rogan is going with these anti-vaccine guests just for the money, don’t you think having Dr. Hotez and one of these other guys on to debate the subject would be a ratings bonanza? I know I’d want to listen to that. 
 

I hated Spotify, Ek, their poor payouts and “exposure” for artists long before they even signed Rogan. 

Rogan rides the slippery slope of conspiracy theories because he’s a conspiracy theorist himself and his audience loves it. They eat it up.  He’s said it before - he’s a comic, an entertainer, not an expert on anything and his audience should realize that.  But he’s being coy if he won’t acknowledge that his popularity doesn’t equate to influence.  That his audience does follow his lead.  Being a media personality unfortunately does require accepting a certain amount of responsibility for what flies from one’s mouth. No one is going to make Rogan tell a two sides of a story, that sense of responsibility should come from himself.  

[PrairieGuy]

1 hour ago, Joe Muscara said:

Rogan’s podcast might not bother me if he would have “both sides” presented

Does anyone present both sides? I haven't seen it yet. Maybe Rogan just presented the side that no one else did.

[Anderton]

53 minutes ago, PrairieGuy said:

Does anyone present both sides? I haven't seen it yet. Maybe Rogan just presented the side that no one else did.

 

Given the current state of the culture, presenting both sides isn't going to happen because it thins the audience. Tribes want to hear what tribes want to hear. But there's also the problem with false equivalencies masquerading as "presenting both sides." 

 

It's sort of like how "I don't know, I'm just asking questions" masquerades as probing journalism that dares to go where no one else goes. I mean, I could say "Did Mother Theresa set fire to stray cats, and sell cocaine to first graders? I don't know, I'm just asking questions." To which the only proper response is "Wow, that's a really stupid question" 

 

 

[Anderton]

Here's what Daniel Ek has to say about the situation. And hey, I'll present both sides, because that's how I roll!!!

 

"Excellent, it's about time they did something."

"It's just damage control that doesn't go far enough."

[ElmerJFudd]

11 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

Given the current state of the culture, presenting both sides isn't going to happen because it thins the audience. Tribes want to hear what tribes want to hear. But there's also the problem with false equivalencies masquerading as "presenting both sides." 

 

It's sort of like how "I don't know, I'm just asking questions" masquerades as probing journalism that dares to go where no one else goes. I mean, I could say "Did Mother Theresa set fire to stray cats, and sell cocaine to first graders? I don't know, I'm just asking questions." To which the only proper response is "Wow, that's a really stupid question" 

 

 

That’s the difference between news, entertainment and the media wings of a political party.  The US public prefers entertainment and propaganda to news and honest journalism.  We’d apparently rather be told what we want to hear and how we should feel by comedians, actors and taking heads than be informed on the issues.  

[Notes_Norton]

[Edited to remove political reference - CA]

 

I truly miss the Fairness Doctrine. It assumed that the bandwidth belonged to the public, and not to one side of a political divide. Opinion had to be labeled as opinion, and both sides had to be aired. (Anyone old enough to remember "Point / Counterpoint" segments?)

 

This of course did not reduce bias in the media, but it kept it at a minimum anyway.

 

I think it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Notes ♫

[Anderton]

You can't win either way. When the Fairness Doctrine is in the hands of entertainers instead of bona fide journalists, then the false equivalencies will get even further out of control. ("We just ran a story about all those airplane flights being canceled, we gotta find someone who can say why it's great to leave people stranded at airports.")

 

FWIW, Rogan issued a statement saying that he's going to try to do better in terms of presenting the other side as a counter-balance to controversial viewpoints.

 

This story is far from over, and it's going to drag other elements into it - like how record labels handle ownership and rights. Do artists who've sold their catalogs have any say over how their music is used? Of course not...but if they have requests, will they be honored? 

[Joe Muscara]

2 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

The US public prefers entertainment and propaganda to news and honest journalism.  We’d apparently rather be told what we want to hear and how we should feel by comedians, actors and taking heads than be informed on the issues.

To be fair, this appears to be a human condition and not just an American one. It takes work to know more than just what some "authority" tells you. They way it's happening may be more unique to us, but everyone is trying to live their life and take care of their family and do their job and avoid being eaten by tigers and whatever else.

 

As far as "both sides," I think most audience members would think their guy won, if they came in with a bias towards one side or the other. It happens all the time. But for those who truly haven't formed an opinion, it would give them the opportunity to learn what's out there. I also think people would like to see/hear a good "fight" but what do I know.

13 hours ago, PrairieGuy said:

Maybe Rogan just presented the side that no one else did

That's hilarious, dude. As if the anti-vaccine side has no voice anywhere…

[ElmerJFudd]

“To be fair, this appears to be a human condition and not just an American one.”
 

Yes, of course. But I made the comment as a citizen born and bred and I’m not suggesting it’s much better elsewhere.  Certainly not in countries where being critical still gets you locked up or eliminated. 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

FWIW, Rogan issued a statement saying that he's going to try to do better in terms of presenting the other side as a counter-balance to controversial viewpoints.

 

Neil Young issued a statement and then he did what he said he was going to do. 

I saw Joe Rogan's statement. Soon we will see what action he takes. 

[PrairieGuy]

Rogan responded. Apparently he has had both side of the issue on his show. So at least he's making an attempt to be fair whether you like it or not. He make a good point...a lot of stuff that was called misinformation a few months ago is now accepted fact. Who knows what else will change.

 

 

 

[Anderton]

17 hours ago, PrairieGuy said:

a lot of stuff that was called misinformation a few months ago is now accepted fact. Who knows what else will change.

 

I think it's important to differentiate between misinformation and mistakes. When trying to wrap their heads around something they hadn't seen before, immunologists are going to make mistakes, and discard theories, as their knowledge changes. Making a mistake is not the same as lying or misinformation, because either one requires an intent to deceive.

 

IMHO the first place to look for misinformation is from someone who makes money off what they're proposing, without any evidence to back up efficacy. If I had a podcast, I wouldn't allow those people on it. (I'm not saying Joe Rogan did, I've never listened to his podcast. But there are plenty of examples of people scamming off of the pandemic and reinforcing their scam with misinformation.)

 

Another place to look for misinformation is when someone says something, later acknowledges that it was wrong, yet others continue to repeat it as if it was correct.

 

A more innocent source of misinformation is not knowing the difference between cause and effect. For example, I have not gotten omicron, and I have a cup of coffee in the morning. Therefore, a cup of coffee in the morning prevents omicron. My vaccinated wife did get a breakthrough omicron infection. She watched movies for a day while being tired and congested, and then was pretty much back to normal in a couple days, without getting sicker. So clearly, she was cured by watching movies for a day.

[Greg Mein]

On 1/29/2022 at 10:42 AM, Greg Mein said:

Now that Spotify is thrust into the spotlight it would be interesting to know more about it. Is there anyone here that has/had an account? Is it just something you download to your phone?

 

So this is all very interesting to me and it seems safe to assume that no one here has actually listened to a Joe Rogan podcast. Yesterday my favorite doctor (otherwise known as my wife) signed us up for a duo account on Spotify and I've just listened to his short video that addresses the current "controversy". I found him to be straightforward, sincere, honest and a bit overwhelmed by the drummed up hoopla. I look forward to listening to more.

It would also be interesting to know if I'm the only one here that suspects Neil Young has never actually listened to a Joe Rogan podcast.

 

To be perfectly clear, there are few things I find more frightening, evil and disgusting than attempts to censor others. 

[Anderton]

For what it's worth, I was familiar with Joe Rogan before Spotify. He's basically a stand-up comic who branched out into other areas, and is neither a doctrinaire liberal or conservative. Socially, he's quite liberal, but he takes conservative positions in other areas. 

 

Frankly, that could describe me, aside from the part about starting my career as a stand-up comedian (although there is a lot of humor in my workshops).  

 

I don't listen to his podcasts because I have any bias pro or con about the guy, but because I have more important things to do with my time. I can read a lot faster than I can listen to podcasts or watch videos, so I'm still mostly text-oriented. But another reason I don't listen is because he has a lot of right-wing and conspiracy theory-oriented guests on his show. I get that's where the money is, but I'm not going to hear something I don't know, any more than listening to Bernie Sanders (who he's also had as a guest) will tell me something I don't know.

 

But the way he's reacting to this tells me that he's pretty naive. He's just having fun, making wads of money, and talking to people, but he doesn't realize that speaking about politics and/or life-and-death matters through a gigantic megaphone to 11 million people carries a certain degree of weight. Advising younger people not to get the vaccine because they're "young and fit" was doing a serious disservice. Plenty of young and healthy people have died, or been damaged from contracting covid. If he had simply said the reality - the odds are much better you'll be okay, but statistically, getting the vaccine improves your odds - that would have been accurate information, and a good example of presenting both sides of the story so people can make up their own minds.

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

4 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

To be perfectly clear, there are few things I find more frightening, evil and disgusting than attempts to censor others. 

OK, to be perfectly clear, when you vote do you vote for both candidates or do you make a choice?

That's all that is going on here - Neil Young was very specific in offering a choice "you can have Young or Rogen but not both". Spotify chose Rogan. 

Just like an election in our country, true? Candidates will push on each other's weak spots during the campaign and in the end voters pick one.

 

Often enough, I dislike Candidate A but despise Candidate B so I will choose the "least worst" and vote for them. 

The aftermath is other people making their own choices and letting them be known. Graham Nash just pulled his music from Spotify too, there will be more. 

I don't see any of this as being censorship, frightening, evil or disgusting. 

 

If you want disgusting, there's that guy on YouTube who says we should drink our own piss to prevent Covid. No scientific data supports that whatsoever plus it's nasty and weird. So, I mostly ignore him but it somehow amuses me to bring it up now... 😇

[PrairieGuy]

6 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

I think it's important to differentiate between misinformation and mistakes. When trying to wrap their heads around something they hadn't seen before, immunologists are going to make mistakes, and discard theories, as their knowledge changes. Making a mistake is not the same as lying or misinformation, because either one requires an intent to deceive.

I agree. Where people differ is that some think that every mistake made by the experts was just a mistake and others think that some "mistakes" were deliberate misinformation. Remember, Fauci lied under oath.

 

We were told that the vaccine would be 100% effective.

We were told that one shot would be enough.

We were told that getting the vaccine meant that you couldn't catch Covid or spread it.

We were told that masks worked.

 

Are we to believe that the above 4 statements were just mistakes and then "new" information came out? Really? The people who told us those things reached far more people than Rogan and for a far longer period of time than just one podcast. Those statements were all accepted fact a year ago and anyone who said different was accused of misinformation.

 

I'm really not trying to argue, but we've been mislead repeatedly by the experts. Is it any wonder that some people are skeptical?

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, PrairieGuy said:

We were told that the vaccine would be 100% effective.

We were told that one shot would be enough.

We were told that getting the vaccine meant that you couldn't catch Covid or spread it.

We were told that masks worked.

 

With respect, when you paraphrase and don't include links, I have no idea whether you have interpreted what you read accurately enough to draw the conclusions you've drawn. If you want to continue this discussion, I expect links from credible sources that explain the basis of your summaries. I'll even take uncredible sources if they reference studies they did that go beyond anecdotal evidence.

 

Most of my links are from the relatively early days of the vaccine, except for the last one, which covers more recent wide-scale studies.

 

We were told that the vaccine would be 100% effective.

We were told that one shot would be enough. Both Pfizer and Moderna said from the beginning their vaccine was a two-shot regimen. J&J said one. All three companies made the mistake of basing their projections of 80% of the population being vaccinated shortly after the vaccine's introduction, which by dropping covid cases dramatically and discouraging the development of variants, would mean an additional course of vaccines wouldn't be needed. They were wrong, but I wouldn't call that misinformation. I'd call it an inability to have gauged the extent to which anti-vaccine people would be given a platform. 

We were told that getting the vaccine meant that you couldn't catch Covid or spread it.

We were told that masks worked.

 

Here's some information on Dr. Malone's contentions. I find it interesting he won't present evidence to back up his claims, claiming he's too busy. A link to a study would be sufficient. So, people have no choice but to guess at why he says what he does. Maybe he believes "vaccines aren't working" because their efficacy wanes over time. Maybe he believes they aren't working because not enough people took them soon enough to achieve herd immunity. I don't know.

 

 

[Anderton]

One more thing: There aren't always two sides to every story. Sometimes, there's one (yes, man did land on the moon, my Dad was a consultant to NASA and had first-hand knowledge). Sometimes, there are many. 

 

The world is often much too nuanced for "two sides to every story" and "give me a yes/no answer." Those two statements make perfect sense in a digital world, but not in an analog one...which is the one we inhabit.

[KuruPrionz]

2 hours ago, PrairieGuy said:

We were told that the vaccine would be 100% effective.

We were told that one shot would be enough.

We were told that getting the vaccine meant that you couldn't catch Covid or spread it.

We were told that masks worked.

On Feb 3rd 2021, a friend who is a pharmacist called me and told me he had 10 appointments that day for Moderna Covid vaccines. He said it was almost certain that one of those appointments would not show up and if they didn't, did I want the shot since once they were thawed out you had to use them. I said yes and he called me again later with a cancellation. I went and got the shot and the pharmacist made my second appointment right then and there. On March 3rd, I got my second dose of Moderna vaccine. 

On March 23, 2021 I went to an appointment with a surgeon to evaluate having reconstructive surgery on my right foot. The doctor inquired about my vaccine status and I told him when I'd had my shots. He said "You won't die and you won't be hospitalized. You might get Covid so be careful, limit your interactions with other people and always wear a mask. If nobody else is wearing a mask, end your interactions and leave, it's not a safe place to be."

And, in late August I tested positive for Covid. I felt like I'd had a bad allergy attack, within 2 days I was asymptomatic. That would have been the Delta variant, which killed many people. 

As far as masks working, I had a gentleman at work tell me masks did not work but he was wearing his under his nose so he was still breathing in and out into the open air. 

He was also unvaccinated. He caught Covid shortly thereafter and was very sick for 3 weeks. I was glad I was me and not him!!!!!

[Anderton]

Masks are an excellent example of what I'm talking about. There are conditions under which they inhibit the spread of infection, and conditions where they don't.

 

If masks really don't work, people in Asia (especially Japan and China) have sure been conned big-time.

[KuruPrionz]

This appears to be related to the topic in the OP.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/science-podcaster-calls-spotifys-support-041814325.html

[Anderton]

Ever get the sinking feeling that maybe Spotify will end up treating music the way MTV ended up treating music? It currently airs 1 celebrity show, 1 news show, 2 competitions, 4 variety shows, 17 "reality" shows, and...3 music shows.