Circling back, doubling down
Hello dear reader, I hope all is well. This week’s dispatch is a tiny bit more opinionated than previous posts and I’d be interested to know what you think. Too preachy? Dismount my high horse? Please respond if you feel so inclined – you can reply by email, or comment below. And if you like what you read, please feel free to share it.
The flounce
At the beginning of last year, I had a flounce on Twitter – a series of tweets where I expressed my disdain at something that particularly irked me.
Even in the pre-Musk days, my use of Twitter was sporadic, and I rarely found myself moved to proactively tweet. A few job ads, the occasional reply or retweet, and some snarky posts about the (so-called) metaverse and cryptocurrencies are about the sum total of my output for the last two or three years.
My predisposition has always been to tread carefully on social media. This was certainly the case while I was a civil servant, but even before then I tended to play it safe and maintain awareness of what I was broadcasting and how it might be received.
There are several reasons for this. I’ve worked for a long time in and around communications, where the need to balance a corporate or brand line is a pretty fundamental part of the job. I’ve also had to deal with the analysis and the aftermath of HR processes that have been triggered by individuals’ use of social channels – not fun.
But maybe more pertinent than both those examples is the fact that I’ve never felt hugely comfortable speaking out on topics where I don’t have quite enough skin in the game or background knowledge to merit comment.
My rule of thumb has therefore been to err on the cautious side rather than deliberately starting or fueling fires, and avoid anything that resembles a pile-on.
I’m sure there’s much to deliberate on the pros and cons of “staying in lane” and the changing etiquette of social media, but that’s something for a future musing. As a sidenote, Caroline Criado Perez posted interesting observations on this issue last week.
Anyway, on this particular occasion – the flounce – I did decide to put my head above the virtual parapet and publicly make a point. That point was about Spotify, and specifically the controversy around The Joe Rogan Experience and Rogan’s repeated peddling of anti-vax conspiracy theories.
The problem with Joe
Rogan’s podcast is among the most popular in the world, with each episode attracting an average of 11 million listeners. It is available exclusively on Spotify, a privilege they have reportedly paid in the region of $200 million for to date.
Reasons to take umbrage are many, including Rogan’s use of racial slurs and an assortment of “misogynistic, anti-feminist, fatphobic, homophobic, transphobic statements.” However the furore around Neil Young’s decision to pull his back catalogue from Spotify in response to Rogan’s vaccine misinformation is what lit the blue touchpaper in January 2022.
So began the standard trial by social media. Trending topics, calls for cancellation, mainstream media opinion pieces, public figures taking sides, general hysteria – a fresh battlefront in the forever culture war.
Thinking I could add nuance and perspective to the debate 🤔 I tweeted my intent to cancel my Spotify account, the reasons for doing so, and a link to an article for further context.
Here we are, nearly two years later, and I’m overexplaining a 280-character message in a couple of thousand words. What a time to be alive.
My reason for returning to the subject is a recent episode of Offline, Jon Favreau’s weekly podcast about Internet culture. In it he interviews journalist Johnny Harris about his deep dive into the subject of Joe Rogan, analysing why he’s so popular and so divisive.
You can see Harris’s full video on his YouTube channel where he intersperses his argument with clips from an array of guests and Rogan soundbites. It’s an entertaining and informative watch, essentially boiling the Rogan phenomenon down to some key nuggets: he can’t be easily pigeonholed; he’s savvy and congenial; he’s producing content that clearly resonates with his huge fan base. On the down side he occasionally features guests and espouses views which are completely and utterly reprehensible. Quid pro quo?
If I was to offer one critique – and I would level this at other profile pieces on Rogan I’ve read – it’s that there’s too much teeing up of the ‘positive’ attributes of Rogan and not enough undiluted and targeted focus on the unacceptable stuff. So even though the core message is a critical and cautionary one, it still suffers a bit from bothsidesism. This interview with Media Matters’ Alex Paterson is more pointed in its criticism.
I personally couldn’t give a toss if he supported and interviewed Bernie Sanders, or occasionally calls out and exposes falsehoods, or has praised Barack Obama. By hosting the likes of Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes and Milo Yiannopoulos (too unpalatable even for Breitbart FFS) he legitimises them in a way that would never be acceptable in a regulated media environment, or even some of the more conscientious social platforms.
Skin in the game
And the word platform is a problem here. Like many of the dominant technology companies of our era, Spotify identifies itself as a platform for others to publish their content on, rather as a publisher in its own right – the standard get out clause for not having to make editorial judgement calls or police your contributors. See also: practically all social networks.
It’s a curious world where a company can pay $200 million for something, but not have a standpoint on what that something says or does.
At the time of ending my subscription in January 2022 I had been a Spotify premium subscriber for 13 years (early adopter, yo), which equates to around a £2,000 total payment for their services.
So while I’m sure there are commentators who would write my flounce off as a classic example of cancel culture or, ugh, virtue signalling, I would argue back that it’s a simple case of letting the free market decide – if a product no longer reflects my values, then I’m not going to pay for it.
Spotify: not(ify) very nice
The noise around Joe Rogan may have faded into the background (and depressingly his show is more popular than ever) but there are plenty other reasons why Spotify may leave a bad aftertaste.
I don’t want to be all Grinchy and ruin the seasonal joy of sharing your annual Spotify Wrapped – a feature I have very much enjoyed in the past. But maybe peruse the links below, ponder things for a while, and remember that other streaming services are available.
💰 Paying musicians and artists
There is lots of controversy about how little streaming services pay artists in general, however Spotify in particular has been criticised for its opaque practices and low comparative rate per stream.
"… one streaming calculator predicts that it would take more than 280,000 streams to make $1,000 on Spotify… By comparison, it would take about half of the number of streams to make the same amount on Apple Music. On Napster, musicians need less than 60,000 streams to make $1,000.”
Spotify’s co-founder Daniel Ek’s investment company has poured €100 million into a corporation seeking to build an [checks notes] AI operating system for war.
Don’t worry though, they only sell it to the good guys.
🎙️ Vastly overinvesting in podcasting, with predictable conequences
Spotify’s entrance into the podcasting market was seismic, spaffing spending a reported $1 billion to secure its footing in what was then a burgeoning market. As well as Rogan, it invested heavily in Hollywood, political and royal names, which it turns out haven’t proved hugely popular. The business model seems vague (at best) and the net result is innovative players like Gimlet have been gutted and hundreds of employees have lost their jobs.
👂Audio quality is worse than its competitors
Spotify HiFi was due to launch in 2021, but still hasn’t, whereas others have had lossless and spatial audio for ages. And it’ll probably cost you more when/if it does eventually appear.
👋 Thanks for reading
If you’d like to subscribe to Nothing earth-shattering you can do so entering your email address into this wee box: