I don't listen to his show, but as a general podcast fan this is sad. This isn't the first podcast to move away from having a free and open feed of the show, but it is certainly the biggest and it opens the doors for a lot more exclusivity deals in the future.
Agreed. I don't think people appreciate how unique podcasting is as a distribution medium in that it has lasted so long as a completely open ecosystem. Nobody needs anyone's permission to write a podcasting app or launch a new podcast.
Sad to see that start to change, but I'm also kind of optimistic for one reason: there's just so damned much audio content out there that it is people's attention, not audio content, that is scarce. I don't think platforms have the upper hand in audio content the way that, say, Netflix does. I think that's why platforms like Luminary haven't really taken off.
Agreed; that's what keeps me hopeful here too. Looking at my podcast player, I don't think there's any single podcast that I would download a new app for, if they tried this. So hopefully at least for the type of podcasts I listen to, this wouldn't be a winning move.
I agree, too. I've seen several podcasts move to exclusive apps and I've not followed any of them there.
With such a low entry barrier, there's so much content available that exclusive deals don't seem to have much influence, no podcast is "must have". Not available? I'll just play the next one on the list. Many will remain open and free. Fortunately, podcasts can financially sustain themselves under these conditions, it wasn't a forced move.
Re permission, that's not quite true. His show is on YouTube, and his shows are allowed on there only at their pleasure. Censorship there is not unheard of, and though I've watched only a couple, his shows seem like something that could set them off.
It feels like this became the life-cycle of Internet.
The same thing happened with decentralized websites and blogs.then everyone got attracted by the managed platforms and now the web is more centralized than ever.
>...it has lasted so long as a completely open ecosystem
It's the platforms that have contributed to the podcast boom of recent years, not the "open ecosystem". Anyone can start a website and upload recorded audio, which may be the reason nobody uses RSS seriously anymore because "curated" content is the new norm.
The JRE podcast has been around for ages, and it built up an audience on YouTube because that has has been the dominating media platform for more than a decade. Now Spotify is investing heavily in big names like Gimlet and now JRE, which will help it become the next dominating platform for this decade.
Value exists on both sides of the equation. Spotify wants people on their platform and will pay handsomly for an exclusive deal. Joe instantly gets prominent placement inside every Spotify installation on the earth, rock solid distribution and a partner to help market his content.
He has rock solid distribution between YT and RSS. Anyone who has heard of podcasts has heard of JRE, it doesn’t need marketing. Joe’s reach is going to take a big hit from exclusivity.
Spotify is clearly paying him enough that none of this matters. It’s the correct trade to make if he thinks JRE has passed peak growth and it’s time to focus on monetization.
Isn't this the case because the Spotify podcast player... is a podcast player? It reads RSS feed like any other player, so it has "all" podcasts in a non-exclusive manner. This is exactly what people are lamenting in this thread
> To me it illustrates that there is a lot of value in Spotify as a delivery mechanism and that the existing channels are not working.
Spotify is pouring money into attracting exclusive talent in order become more sticky to consumers and to build a moat against alternatives. They want to erode other platforms (including the open web) so that they become the unichannel.
This is not a sign of existing channels not working. This is taking land from natives and taxing it. It's being done by a powerful player that doesn't want freedom of choice, so long as the only option is their own.
This is not good for anyone but Spotify and Joe Rogan's net worth.
Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips which occasionally show up). I prefer JRE's video format instead of audio. Think of Elon smoking weed on video vs on audio - very different.
Seems like Spotify might be adding video later in the year but until that happens, we don't know what we will be getting.
The main problem is Spotify isn't a podcast app. I don't listen to music like I do podcast, and I don't want my queue there because music would mix in, and it can easily reset.
Also, most "real" podcast app have better playback options. I want to be able to see chapters, and skip silence, but forcing to use Spotify for an open format is bad for everyone. Podcasts are great because they are open, and give you choices in playback apps.
This is exactly how I feel. I like having separate apps for separate types of content. If I reach the point of having to listen to my podcasts on Spotify, I'm going to start paying someone else for music instead.
I have a Spotify subscription but I still won't listen to podcasts on Spotify. If Spotify hosted the audio and offered an RSS feed this wouldn't be as bad.
This is sad because it is a harbinger of a future in which podcasting is like most other modern media. It is currently almost completely open. This openness flows in all directions. Anyone can start a podcast. Anyone can listen to a podcast. People can use any device or any piece of software to listen. Everything is up the the individuals involved and most of it is completely free. This is the future that people dreamed of for TV in the early days of cord cutting, but we are now in the era in which there are over a dozen legitimate TV streaming services and everyone seems to subscribe to multiple different ones. I don't want to have 8 separate podcast apps to listen to my favorite shows.
And for the record, this has nothing to do with compensation for content creators. I want everyone to get paid. I personally am probably in the top 0.1% of podcast consumers and spend roughly $50 per month directly supporting podcasts. There are numerous other revenue models for successful podcasts. Joe Rogan wasn't exactly poor before this exclusivity deal.
In addition to what's already been said, this is a loss for privacy. Spotify gathers information about you and sells it to whoever they want. An RSS feed simply does not allow anywhere near that level of privacy invasion. If a podcast app pulls that crap, I can always switch to another or make my own.
I would have to ask more questions. Specifically about following the money.
As a contracted podcaster on a paid platform, does that mean his management and production team spend less time on trying to court advertising dollars? Does it mean fewer conflicts of interest? Does that mean less of (well I hardly ever listen to him, but for argument's sake) my information is sold?
Some of that could probably be figured out now. Some of it we will only know after Spotify has experienced financial distress a few times.
JRE stopped live streaming his shows a year or more ago and they were on YouTube which I wouldn't consider open. They would complain pretty regularly about being demonetized because they played a short clip that Joe or a guest was commenting on.
Seems like this deal gives them more ability to have fewer restrictions imo
my heart sank when I learned Reply All was beginning to offer exclusive (or maybe just early publish) content to Spotify. It was tempered by the fact that the hosts actually addressed this and committed to not being exclusive to their platform. But when I read this news today I knew that the era of podcasts as an open publishing channel via RSS are done. In 5 more years a lot of people will probably have to measure the worth of content on one platform vs. another as they do with Hulu or Netflix today.
The silver lining would be the ability to avoid ads as a premium subscriber, and not have to pay Google for the privilege.
I've stumbled on a bunch of good quality podcasts following freemium model, where they share a part of the content exclusively with their patrons. I'm guessing it earns them more money than ads.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I wonder if any of their higher-profile hosts will jump ship if that happens. I'll quit listening out of principle, but also because I feel like I have an alternative in Radiotopia. If Gimlet really were the only ones putting out high-production content, I'd be pretty despondent right now. As it stands, I'm angry, but I feel like I at least have an escape plan.
True, but on the other hand allowing podcasters to make significantly more money will increase supply and you will have more podcasts to choose from with higher quality.
Consider what would happen to the quality of books if copyright couldn't be applied them: every book would have a 'free and open feed' on the internet, but overall I don't think readers would benefit.
I’m be been listening to podcasts daily since probably at least 2007. I feel the same way. I have plenty of memories of filling up my iPod shuffle with pods and taking them wherever I wanted. I’ve got nothing against Spotify in general, but I’ve quit listening to a number of podcasts that went exclusive solely out of principle.
you make the right point. A lot of people see this as youtube censorship, but the podcast was also available in its purest form: through a RSS decentralized feed.
Now it moves to a walled garden with content unavailable to the outside world.
reply