Spotify is a streaming service, and corporations should not pretend to be more than what they are.
Charlie is absolutely correct that Spotify’s staff needs to toughen up or find a new job if they can’t handle working for a company that carries Joe Rogan’s podcast.
I just want to highlight Spotify CEO Daniel Ek’s note to staff. He opens by saying, “There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you.” Aside from the fact that opening a letter that’s hundreds of words long by saying “there are no words I can say” is objectively funny, and aside from Charlie’s point that nobody is actually “impacted” by the podcast, Ek is demonstrating he doesn’t understand his job.
If Ek actually believes that this “controversy” (I’ll explain the scare quotes in a moment) is harming his employees, why is he continuing to subject them to it? He’s the CEO of Spotify. Think of an example of a company’s decisions actually harming its employees, e.g., exposing them to dangerous chemicals or having them work in structurally unsafe buildings. The buck stops with the CEO, and he or she is held accountable for keeping the company’s employees safe.
Of course, nobody actually believes this episode is analogous to dangerous chemicals or unsafe buildings. Ek doesn’t either, because if he did, he’d be obligated to do something about it. His note makes clear that he does not want to kick Rogan off of Spotify.
But he can’t clearly articulate why. On the one hand, he writes that “we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content on his show” and that “[Rogan] chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify.” On the other hand, he writes that “it’s critical thinking and open debate that power real and necessary progress” and writes of “having an open platform as a core value of the company.” So which is it? Did Rogan need to apologize for his speech and have it removed, or is Spotify committed to open debate and free speech on its service?
In keeping with the confusion, despite maintaining that Rogan has apologized and Spotify has addressed the situation, Ek promises further penance in the form of “$100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups.” Why? Looking at the most popular artists on Spotify right now, artists from historically marginalized groups seem to be doing fine on the service.
But if we really are to believe that Rogan is a racist, would having more content from minority artists make that okay? If Spotify spends $100 million on racism (Rogan’s contract has been reported to be worth $100 million) and $100 million on anti-racism, is that supposed to balance out somehow? Perhaps Spotify wanted to make this $100 million investment regardless, but it seems like Ek is trying to appease the mob in a way that doesn’t even make sense.
Ek writes that Spotify’s mission is “unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators.” It seems that having The Joe Rogan Experience, the most-listened-to podcast in the world, as a Spotify exclusive is perfectly in line with that mission. But earlier in the letter, Ek writes that some of Rogan’s comments “do not represent the values of this company.” Exactly which values and exactly which comments, he does not say.
Ek’s fundamental mistake was in calling this spat over Rogan a “controversy” to begin with. It is not a controversy. It is completely contrived, and it will be gone in a week. Rogan’s podcast has always been freewheeling, and Rogan meanders and says dumb things from time to time. That was known when Spotify signed its contract with him. It’s Rogan’s main draw as a performer.
Spotify should want popular performers to be available for streaming because — follow this next part closely — Spotify is a streaming service. It is not the moral compass of the world, and it should push back on anyone who would make that its role. Corporations should not pretend to be more than what they are.
So as not to just be critical, I took a crack at writing a better note that Ek could have sent instead. Here’s my draft:
Spotify Team,
I want you to hear directly from me exactly what our company’s stance is concerning The Joe Rogan Experience. Spotify’s mission is unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That means people will be able to listen to a wide variety of views on Spotify, and neither you nor I will agree with all of them. In 2020, we signed Joe Rogan to a multi-year contract to make his podcast a Spotify exclusive. We are proud to have Rogan’s podcast, the most-listened-to in the world, on Spotify. No part of that agreement says we endorse Rogan’s speech or that Rogan speaks on behalf of Spotify. Let me be clear: We do not, and he does not. Rogan is not a Spotify employee, and he retains complete creative control over his show. Spotify will continue to license Rogan and many other content creators in the coming years. Decisions on which content to make available to our customers will be made by Spotify, not by social-media mobs or activist pressure.
Thank you for all your hard work that has propelled Spotify to be the top streaming service for hundreds of millions of customers around the world. We wouldn’t be where we are today without you, and we will press on in our goal to be the world’s best streaming service.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ek
Founder, CEO, and Chairman
Spotify Technology S.A.