"But why? People have the choice to listen to Joe Rogan, or not to listen. Spotify is not ubiquitous like network television or AM radio. It’s a subscription service; you have to download the app, sign up, pay money, etc. Why should Rogan be forced to limit the opinions expressed by his guests? Why does everyone have to 'deplatform' anyone, regardless of their expertise or credentials, if they express any disagreement with the government’s plan-of-the-moment?"
What you're calling "deplatforming" is what others call "freedom of association". There was never ANY question whether Spotify would kick Rogan off their platform - they paid far too much to buy his exclusivity and Rogan's show is the keystone of their entire podcasting business[1]:
"One ad buyer, who also requested anonymity to speak freely about rates, says Spotify upped prices for its acquired and licensed shows. CPMs, or the cost per thousand listeners, on those programs are up three times as much, they say. A host-read ad that lived forever on Joe Rogan’s show used to cost tens of thousands of dollars previous to him going exclusive to Spotify. Next year, to get any ads on Rogan, the minimum spend is $1 million, they say, at a CPM upward of $60."
In addition to the $1MM minimum spend, I've also read elsewhere that to get an ad on Rogan's show, the buyer must also purchase ads on other Spotify-exclusive shows. (Can't find the link at the moment, but will post if I find it.) Spotify "deplatforming" Rogan's as likely as Sirius XM kicking Howard Stern off the air for saying something offensive.
None of this is secret and I'm sure Young and the other musicians recognized this. However, they also have the right to request that their music not also be on that service and to not be associated (even indirectly) with Rogan's platform. What you're comparing to totalitarian states seems to be to me how things SHOULD work. Rogan is free to keep saying what he's saying, and Neil Young (et. al) isn't being forced to be associated with it. Would the alternative world where Young would be prohibited from removing his catalog from Spotify be superior in some way? It's not like there isn't a shortage of other avenues for Young to peddle his tunes.
"At the end of the day Friday, Jan. 28, shares of Spotify were down about 12% from where they closed last week, according to data from Nasdaq, against a broader index that was flat over the same period. The hashtags #DeleteSpotify and #CancelSpotify also gained traction on social media, with many websites offering step-by-step instructions for users to remove the app from their devices."
In the bear market we're in right now (Jan. is set to be the worst month for stocks since March 2020), I'd be VERY careful assigning any causal agency to Young and friends when it comes to agency to depress Spotify's stock price. There are much bigger things going on in the market now, and it's not unreasonable to believe that Spotify may have dropped just as much in the absence of the controversy. (I'm seeing wilder swings on my rocket stocks on NO news.) The thing to look out for will be changes in subscriber numbers as opposed to Twitter hash tags.
That's the thing I don't get: I recall various conservatives stating that people should vote with their dollars - but then when people do so, and try to get others to do so that's somehow a problem. Isn't this exactly what they want to have happen?
Not at all the same thing. Demanding a service like Spotify cancel a show for having guests they don’t agree with is fine, it’s personal choice “it’s him or me!” though childish. Calling that show “disinformation” and questioning the motives of the host or impugning Spotify for providing the show is advocating censorship. It’s like when Amazon stops selling a book that’s been in print 70 years because it somehow suddenly became evil. Boycotts sometimes work but this isn’t a boycott. It’s flexing social capital that punches above its weight. Money is just the pain point.
Neil's "Him or me" was hilarious. I heard that and thought "Bye Neil!". He has/had a platform: if he wants to use it to highlight this, then that's his choice.
It's not a matter of "suddenly being evil": changing tastes/views on what is deemed acceptable occur over time (sometimes more quickly and sometimes over decades), and if that leads a retailer to no longer sell a 70-year old book then it's a nothing-burger. That is still the choice of a retailer to make, and the choice of people to band together to push them to make if that's what they choose to do.
Social capital matters and affects companies' bottom-lines all the time (see the Dixie Chicks in the early aughts). So what if people band together to use their social capital? That's exactly what's supposed to happen: people deciding to associate themselves freely in regards to X cause/effort/etc.... I just don't get why it is only OK for an individual to vote with their dollars, but not OK to implore others to do so as well.
"But why? People have the choice to listen to Joe Rogan, or not to listen. Spotify is not ubiquitous like network television or AM radio. It’s a subscription service; you have to download the app, sign up, pay money, etc. Why should Rogan be forced to limit the opinions expressed by his guests? Why does everyone have to 'deplatform' anyone, regardless of their expertise or credentials, if they express any disagreement with the government’s plan-of-the-moment?"
What you're calling "deplatforming" is what others call "freedom of association". There was never ANY question whether Spotify would kick Rogan off their platform - they paid far too much to buy his exclusivity and Rogan's show is the keystone of their entire podcasting business[1]:
"One ad buyer, who also requested anonymity to speak freely about rates, says Spotify upped prices for its acquired and licensed shows. CPMs, or the cost per thousand listeners, on those programs are up three times as much, they say. A host-read ad that lived forever on Joe Rogan’s show used to cost tens of thousands of dollars previous to him going exclusive to Spotify. Next year, to get any ads on Rogan, the minimum spend is $1 million, they say, at a CPM upward of $60."
In addition to the $1MM minimum spend, I've also read elsewhere that to get an ad on Rogan's show, the buyer must also purchase ads on other Spotify-exclusive shows. (Can't find the link at the moment, but will post if I find it.) Spotify "deplatforming" Rogan's as likely as Sirius XM kicking Howard Stern off the air for saying something offensive.
None of this is secret and I'm sure Young and the other musicians recognized this. However, they also have the right to request that their music not also be on that service and to not be associated (even indirectly) with Rogan's platform. What you're comparing to totalitarian states seems to be to me how things SHOULD work. Rogan is free to keep saying what he's saying, and Neil Young (et. al) isn't being forced to be associated with it. Would the alternative world where Young would be prohibited from removing his catalog from Spotify be superior in some way? It's not like there isn't a shortage of other avenues for Young to peddle his tunes.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/14/22832670/podcast-ads-direct-response-brands-industry-hot-pod
Also, from your "financial pain" link:
"At the end of the day Friday, Jan. 28, shares of Spotify were down about 12% from where they closed last week, according to data from Nasdaq, against a broader index that was flat over the same period. The hashtags #DeleteSpotify and #CancelSpotify also gained traction on social media, with many websites offering step-by-step instructions for users to remove the app from their devices."
In the bear market we're in right now (Jan. is set to be the worst month for stocks since March 2020), I'd be VERY careful assigning any causal agency to Young and friends when it comes to agency to depress Spotify's stock price. There are much bigger things going on in the market now, and it's not unreasonable to believe that Spotify may have dropped just as much in the absence of the controversy. (I'm seeing wilder swings on my rocket stocks on NO news.) The thing to look out for will be changes in subscriber numbers as opposed to Twitter hash tags.
That's the thing I don't get: I recall various conservatives stating that people should vote with their dollars - but then when people do so, and try to get others to do so that's somehow a problem. Isn't this exactly what they want to have happen?
Not at all the same thing. Demanding a service like Spotify cancel a show for having guests they don’t agree with is fine, it’s personal choice “it’s him or me!” though childish. Calling that show “disinformation” and questioning the motives of the host or impugning Spotify for providing the show is advocating censorship. It’s like when Amazon stops selling a book that’s been in print 70 years because it somehow suddenly became evil. Boycotts sometimes work but this isn’t a boycott. It’s flexing social capital that punches above its weight. Money is just the pain point.
Neil's "Him or me" was hilarious. I heard that and thought "Bye Neil!". He has/had a platform: if he wants to use it to highlight this, then that's his choice.
It's not a matter of "suddenly being evil": changing tastes/views on what is deemed acceptable occur over time (sometimes more quickly and sometimes over decades), and if that leads a retailer to no longer sell a 70-year old book then it's a nothing-burger. That is still the choice of a retailer to make, and the choice of people to band together to push them to make if that's what they choose to do.
Social capital matters and affects companies' bottom-lines all the time (see the Dixie Chicks in the early aughts). So what if people band together to use their social capital? That's exactly what's supposed to happen: people deciding to associate themselves freely in regards to X cause/effort/etc.... I just don't get why it is only OK for an individual to vote with their dollars, but not OK to implore others to do so as well.
This is a good thread on the issues with Rogan/live interviews: https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1488146690536263680