A Spotify And General Streaming Discussion

bearfan said:
From a strictly consumer perspective, services like Spotify IMO are fantastic. I cannot tell you how many albums I bought in the 80s/90s based off of a good single, some hype, etc to find out that there were 2 of 10 good songs. I have some bands that I will hit the pre-order button the moment anything is announced, but for the most part, it lets me check out unlimited bands for $10 a month and if I like them, I will buy their LPS. Compared to what it used to be, the monetary value is great. I get it that I can do the same thing on YouTube for free, but I think Spotify sounds better and being able to listen offline/cast to speakers, etc is worth it for me.
Click to expand...
I'm of the same opinion. The convenience is simply unmatched. The user experience is impeccably quick and easy. I have listened to a ton of new bands because I'm able to find their entire discography on Spotify. That's incredible.

From the artist perspective: streaming sucks and is incredibly detrimental to the life of professional musicians. Making virtually zero money off of tons of streams is a travesty for anyone on a record label. For folks who aren't on a record label, I guess there is potential to make more money, but first they'd need to be promoted enough for the stream count to matter (for which they'd need a record label....).

In terms of the content, I'm pretty opposed to Neil Young and Joni Mitchell's opinions here. Don't get me wrong, Joe Rogan is an absolute tool and Covid anti-vaxxers are selfish idiots actively hurting our society, but I don't think Spotify should be in control of the content on an opinion-based podcast. If they took down Rogan's show, what does that accomplish? We're over a year into having vaccines. No staunch anti-vaxxer Rogan fan is changing their mind right now unless they get seriously ill with Covid itself. The damage has been done for a long time and setting a precedent for Spotify to choose what they do and don't allow doesn't bode well for artistic integrity.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
I don't think Spotify should be in control of the content on an opinion-based podcast.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but at the same time there is a difference between allowing content on your service and paying for it to be included. The real issue as I see it is that the crazy figure they paid for the podcast reads as an implicit endorsement of the content.
 
DJMayes said:
I agree with this, but at the same time there is a difference between allowing content on your service and paying for it to be included. The real issue as I see it is that the crazy figure they paid for the podcast reads as an implicit endorsement of the content.
Click to expand...
I don't really think so, it is them saying enough people listen to this person to justify the cost to grow the platform. I think the real answer is if you do not like Rogan or anyone else, do not listen to it and do not give them any ad revenue from the podcast. I think it is similar to cable tv, there will always be stuff on a station someone does not like, but I am not going to cancel the service that has other content I do enjoy
 
bearfan said:
I don't really think so, it is them saying enough people listen to this person to justify the cost to grow the platform. I think the real answer is if you do not like Rogan or anyone else, do not listen to it and do not give them any ad revenue from the podcast. I think it is similar to cable tv, there will always be stuff on a station someone does not like, but I am not going to cancel the service that has other content I do enjoy
Click to expand...
My point is simply that allowing someone to espouse controversial views on their platform and actively paying them to do so are two different things with very different optics. At the same time I am not naive enough to assume Spotify care about the optics beyond any effects on their bottom line.
 
DJMayes said:
My point is simply that allowing someone to espouse controversial views on their platform and actively paying them to do so are two different things with very different optics. At the same time I am not naive enough to assume Spotify care about the optics beyond any effects on their bottom line.
Click to expand...
In some way they are paying for all content. They surely realized it would be controversial and thought the benefits (more subscribers) outweigh the risks (fewer subscribers or not enough new ones to justify the cost). Only time will tell there. I am speaking a bit from my point of view that there is a ton of stuff on Spotify I do not like (from podcast opinions to just crappy music) ... What they have on the platform that I do not listen to really does not concern me, because I do not listen to it :)
 
Can somebody tell me, how in the world dr. Robert Malone can be antivaxxer?

People are using antivaxxer word so easily and without thinking who is that person.
 
Spotify and streaming services are necessary evil I think. I love to find some music very quickly and make playlists for a fair price of money.
But it sucks that they pay the artists so low and their CEO is a multi millionaire, so there is cleary something wrong there. So I still buy CD’s of my favorites, and go to a show if I’m in good shape.

About that podcast vs Neil Young, mr Young just sounds like an grumpy old man IMO. Its a free world. Spotify can just mark warnings about excliptic content regarding that podcast episode.
 
Sth2112 said:
About that podcast vs Neil Young, mr Young just sounds like an grumpy old man IMO. Its a free world.
Click to expand...
The problem is that often people can’t differentiate between facts, opinions and misinformation. And people like Rogan are jointly responsible. The attention that people who contradict scientific consensus get should be in an appropriate ratio. Meaning: if 98% of experts agree on something, don’t give the other 2% half or even more of your coverage, because that way people start thinking both “opinions” are equal in value.
 
Spotify have vastly underestimated the need to moderate their platform, and they are going to take a hit from this. How big that hit is going to be depends a lot on how they handle it going forward.

MrKnickerbocker said:
In terms of the content, I'm pretty opposed to Neil Young and Joni Mitchell's opinions here. Don't get me wrong, Joe Rogan is an absolute tool and Covid anti-vaxxers are selfish idiots actively hurting our society, but I don't think Spotify should be in control of the content on an opinion-based podcast. If they took down Rogan's show, what does that accomplish? We're over a year into having vaccines. No staunch anti-vaxxer Rogan fan is changing their mind right now unless they get seriously ill with Covid itself. The damage has been done for a long time and setting a precedent for Spotify to choose what they do and don't allow doesn't bode well for artistic integrity.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, as soon as they got into the podcast business they need set rules for what to allow and not allow. Just like Youtube/Twitter/Facebook aren't forums to turn to if you want to promote pedophilia or whatever. It's not about this specific case, it's a much bigger question. That said, they've already taken down content concerning the pandemic. The issue here is rather that they've paid a lot for exclusive rights to Joe Rogan's podcast and that has put them into a very bad PR-situation with this.

Also - you can't talk about artistic integrity when it comes to information, news & advice. For music? Yes, but we're not talking about the music side of Spotify here. They have already taken steps to become a media platform and need to regulate accordingly.
 
I'm with Maturin. Podcasts are not art, they are methods by which information is delivered, and they are thus responsible for the content of that information. If they aren't responsible legally, they are certainly responsible financially to their shareholders. Joe Rogan has no constitutional right to a platform on Spotify.

In fact, nobody has a constitutional right to a platform anywhere. Spotify can choose to stick around with Joe, and suffer the consequences, or they can fire him...and suffer the consequences. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
I think their best bet is to do nothing, this will blow over and at the end they will evaluate how many subscribers they lost and how many they gained and use that as a guide going forward. People will vote with their dollars. I subscribe to them, outside of 2 podcasts (1 history and 1 sports-related) I do not listen to any podcasts on Spotify outside of a random episode here or there that has a guest I am interested in.
 
I think that's their plan, to put their heads down, suffer the loss of a few thousand accounts, and keep going on their media centric plan. The problem with that plan is will they have an additional controversy six months down the road (not necessarily from Joe Rogan)? If that continues to happen, well, sometimes it takes more than one swing of the axe to fell a big Swedish streaming tree.

I'm cancelling Spotify, but I was probably going to do it anyway to move to a service that offers a yearly fee for a discount.
 
It is not suitable for streaming, I also convinced myself from my own experience. Ahhhh, it was horrible, it hung up all the time. I had to connect reseller iptv to make it work. These record labels who PR their campaigns could invest in developing their platform. But no, they need donations, investments, and definitely from people. No label is going to get puffed up. There's almost always a benefit to the user, but not that resource
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top