Joe Rogan, Economics, and CCP Blame: A Deep Dive

The Joe Rogan Experience and the Spotify Controversy: An Economic Overview

It is highly probable that you are aware of the recent events surrounding the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, irrespective of your typical listening habits.

The ongoing dispute involving Rogan and Spotify has garnered significant attention, prompting a need for a comprehensive assessment of the underlying economic dynamics at play.

Understanding the Key Players

Let's examine the roles of platforms, content creators (publishers in this context), and the resulting market responses to better understand the situation.

It’s crucial to differentiate between individual consumer choices – people exercising their agency – and the influence of governmental bodies like the Chinese Communist Party.

Platforms and Content Creators

Spotify functions as a platform, distributing content created by individuals like Joe Rogan.

This relationship resembles a publisher-author dynamic, where the platform provides reach and infrastructure, while the creator generates the content that attracts listeners.

Market Reactions and Consumer Agency

The controversy sparked various market reactions, including calls for boycotts and discussions about content moderation policies.

Consumers demonstrating their preferences by choosing to listen or not listen to the podcast represents a legitimate exercise of agency.

Distinguishing Individual Choice from Political Influence

However, it is vital to distinguish this organic consumer behavior from coordinated efforts or pressures exerted by political entities.

Attributing shifts in listening habits solely to external political forces overlooks the power of individual decision-making.

The Broader Implications

This situation highlights the complex interplay between platforms, creators, and consumers in the modern media landscape.

Analyzing the economic forces at work provides a clearer understanding of the motivations and potential outcomes of such controversies.

Deconstructing the Spotify Controversy

Spotify established itself as a pioneer in the realm of music streaming and has experienced considerable success. This assessment comes from a long-standing user, advocate, and believer in the benefits of streamed music. It is my contention that the current pricing for music streaming services is undervalued, partially due to Apple’s ability to maintain a lower price point leveraging its revenue from hardware sales, though this is a separate consideration.

The Exchange provides insights into startups, markets, and financial matters.

Access it daily on TechCrunch+ or subscribe to The Exchange newsletter each Saturday.

The music streaming landscape is characterized by commoditization. A large number of platforms offer largely identical music catalogs at comparable subscription costs. This presents a challenge for artists, who must weigh the benefits of platform availability against the acceptance of streaming rates that are often perceived as insufficient compensation for their creative work.

Spotify faces a distinct challenge originating from this same commoditization: its limited ability to influence pricing. It cannot, for instance, successfully implement a $15 monthly fee when competitors offer the same service for $10.

Consequently, Spotify’s financial performance is largely predetermined, and adjustments to pricing have a restricted impact on gross margins. This constrains its profitability, which is undesirable. In response, the company initiated substantial investments in the podcasting sector, acquiring startups and exclusive shows with the aim of securing a portfolio of distinctive content that could potentially justify higher subscription fees, thereby enhancing revenue quality and overall financial stability.

This is my interpretation of the situation, and I believe it to be accurate.

As a key component of this podcasting strategy, Spotify allocated significant resources to secure an “Exclusive Partnership” with Joe Rogan’s podcast. This substantial financial commitment was a calculated risk, integral to its broader podcasting ambitions, and represented a deliberate editorial decision by the company.

This distinction is important, as Spotify generally hosts music without exercising editorial discretion. For example, singer Chris Brown, despite a history of assault, remains available on both Spotify and Apple Music. However, the acquisition of Rogan as an exclusive represented a departure from simply offering the same musical content as its competitors.

Rogan’s podcast has featured guests whose views have been considered objectionable by many within the Spotify community, including both subscribers and content creators. The latter group garnered attention when several musicians announced their intention to remove their music from the platform, citing concerns about Spotify’s podcasting content and its potential impact on public health – a concern that remains relevant during the ongoing pandemic.

This created a dilemma for Spotify. The company aims to operate both a commodity music service and an exclusive podcasting business. However, its podcasting strategy threatened to undermine its core value proposition and primary revenue source: providing access to a vast library of recorded music for a recurring fee.

While the departure of artists like Neil Young and others would not significantly diminish the platform’s music catalog, a continued trend of artist withdrawals could lead subscribers to seek alternatives, such as Apple Music. Spotify needed to address the situation, as even substantial Rogan viewership would not compensate for a loss of music content – the company fundamentally remains a music streaming service with a podcasting component.

In response, Spotify published its existing content policies and announced that it would add informational notices to podcasts discussing COVID-19. Joe Rogan subsequently released a video on Instagram addressing the controversy. In his characteristic style, the video included personal anecdotes, but he also stated his intention to seek out a wider range of perspectives to balance out more contentious guests.

Concluding his video, Rogan expressed gratitude to Spotify and his audience, adding: “Thank you to the haters, because it’s good to have some haters – it makes you reassess what you [are] doing, and put things into perspective, and I think that’s good too.”

I concur. The marketplace is a dynamic system where individuals can exercise agency over their resources (music) and preferences (streaming subscriptions). When the market expresses disapproval of a corporate decision, individuals can influence outcomes. This is, essentially, the functioning of a capitalist system.

And yet…

A Notable Contradiction

Interestingly, consider the perspective of David Sacks.

He is a prominent figure within the startup ecosystem, recognized both as an operator and an investor. Numerous founders have publicly acknowledged his valuable insights and support during interviews concerning their collaborations with him.

However, observe the following:

And also this:

Key Observations

Several points merit consideration:

• In the initial tweet, Sacks equates individual market participants with a “woke cancellation mob,” and characterizes their economic choices as mirroring “CCP tactics.” This line of reasoning appears unfounded. Disagreement with market outcomes is acceptable. However, labeling such outcomes as Communist demonstrates intellectual inconsistency and a lack of introspection.
• The second tweet is somewhat ambiguous, seemingly blending elements of Fox News-style criticism of Dr. Fauci with a conventional instance of whataboutism.

It’s important to remember that Spotify’s payment to Joe Rogan was driven by a belief that it represented a sound financial investment. Their current decisions are similarly motivated by the conviction that Rogan continues to offer the greatest potential for revenue generation. This is a fundamental aspect of how capitalism functions.

The frustration expressed by some who identify as capitalists regarding market responses feels paradoxical. If Spotify wished to avoid scrutiny of its editorial decisions, it should not have engaged in making them. However, facing criticism for those choices is an inherent risk. Venture capitalists, for example, often voice complaints about negative coverage in the New York Times. I propose a label for these investors: a “woke mob” employing tactics reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party!