Spotify and Archewell

[Chilledchablis1]

Statement issued by Archewell raising concerns about Spotify . If H and M decide to jump ship ( before - possibly- being pushed) there will be a lot of money to repay . Interesting .

Rubicscubicle - you haven’t been reading the newspapers. The registration of a network of new publishing /production / promotion companies on the Sussex’s behalf in the tax haven state of Delaware in the last few weeks was widely reported in a range of newspapers. I think therefore it amounts to more than idle speculation and can be used as yet another sign that it’s so as I say rather than as I do for those two. Family rights for women! (As long as I don’t have to pay taxes to cover benefits)! Lower your carbon footprint with ethical travel! (But ignore my private jet use)

You are on a forum, if you waffle some nonsense that is contradicting what is taking place, of course people will challenge you.

As I had linked on here, they did not jump on a bandwagon, they talked before everyone else. And as has been said several times, Spotify just advertised for more staff to do their content, it makes no sense for you to assume that means they are jumping ship. And since Spotify put out a statement as soon as H&M officially commented, then Spotify does care.

Gosh, why does it sting so much for some people that Harry and Meghan are successful.

Gosh, why does it sting so much for some people that Harry and Meghan are successful.

I just can't see that they are I am afraid

As I had linked on here, they did not jump on a bandwagon, they talked before everyone else.

Nonsense. Plenty of people were expressing concern about JR before they piped up.

And as has been said several times, Spotify just advertised for more staff to do their content, it makes no sense for you to assume that means they are jumping ship

This is true, it in the other hand, they may not be keen to stay if they are going to lose control of their narrative by having Spotify staff input. 🤷‍♀️

@rubicscubicle Tax avoidance is a pretty shameful whoever it is. But the issue specific to this couple is that before even earning the big bucks they are looking at ways to reduce the amount of tax they pay whilst at the same time, for example, lobbying senators to have US government provide paid family leave. Anything like that requires people to pay their fair share of taxes into the government coffers. What they seem to be doing is championing a cause whilst circumnavigating having to make a fair contribution to it (unlike most ordinary working US folk).

@smilesy

I think it’s more than speculation rubics. Their lawyer has registered the companies in their name according to state filings. Peca holds the publishing rights to “The Bench”. Meghan’s business manger also appears in the filings.

The original article, as credited, was cobbled together by the fail. Who have no actual link to MM, except for her manager and lawyer. Who all happen to have several clients anyway. It's a bit like saying Shillings has registered companies here and there, and saying they belong to H&M because it kinda sounds like Archie or someone or something sentimental to H&M.

It talks about a link to where they went on honeymoon, freckles etc. Peca could well publish different books now or in the future - still not seeing the link. The only link that is hers is the Frim Fram thing for The Tig - still even then it still is her manager's company.

Still don't see what was being proved about anything here, nothing new or irregular. The only 'gotcha' is that we know what your manager does.

@LondonWolf

As I had linked on here, they did not jump on a bandwagon, they talked before everyone else.

Nonsense. Plenty of people were expressing concern about JR before they piped up.

Who threatened to quit Spotify last year?

@smilesy

And as has been said several times, Spotify just advertised for more staff to do their content, it makes no sense for you to assume that means they are jumping ship

This is true, it in the other hand, they may not be keen to stay if they are going to lose control of their narrative by having Spotify staff input. 🤷‍♀️

But as I said, Spotify production arm did the last podcast anyway. So not really losing control suddenly.

Still don't see what was being proved about anything here, nothing new or irregular

I didn’t say it was irregular, merely that it seems they have done this. You keep insisting that they haven’t. They haven’t denied it and given that they filings exist, it would seem that they have indeed formed these companies.

[quote StormzyinaTCup]@rubicscubicle Tax avoidance is a pretty shameful whoever it is. But the issue specific to this couple is that before even earning the big bucks they are looking at ways to reduce the amount of tax they pay whilst at the same time, for example, lobbying senators to have US government provide paid family leave. Anything like that requires people to pay their fair share of taxes into the government coffers. What they seem to be doing is championing a cause whilst circumnavigating having to make a fair contribution to it (unlike most ordinary working US folk).[/quote]
Tax avoidance is illegal.

The tax they pay is in the US, not the Cayman islands. The US are the ones who have this system for companies, why would they set it up and not stop it if they don't agree with it or find it unfair.

As I said, from the looks of it, they are using the money to pay for the charities of their choosing anyway. Since this is about a non-profit company, they are not putting the money in their pocket - which I believe they are not, there are so many who would like to bring them down, and would definitely snitch if they were.

@smilesy

Still don't see what was being proved about anything here, nothing new or irregular

I didn’t say it was irregular, merely that it seems they have done this. You keep insisting that they haven’t. They haven’t denied it and given that they filings exist, it would seem that they have indeed formed these companies.

There is no proof that they have either.

But as I said, what about it.

Who threatened to quit Spotify last year?

Where does it say this on your links? And when last year, given that we are only one month into the new year?

And even if they did, it's still a very convenient get out clause for them after they've failed entirely to live up to expectations! They last released one half hour of content over a year ago as you very well know

Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is legal but immoral.

I suspect that the Sussexes will move away from philanthropy and be more like influencers because they can end the money vs principles argument if they set themselves as people who earn money to pay the bills.

@LondonWolf

Who threatened to quit Spotify last year?

Where does it say this on your links? And when last year, given that we are only one month into the new year?

And even if they did, it's still a very convenient get out clause for them after they've failed entirely to live up to expectations! They last released one half hour of content over a year ago as you very well know

I am saying last year, as I had linked, H&M did not jump on the wagon as you put it, they were talking last year. At that time, I do not know anyone else protesting to leave Spotify.

How have they failed.

All it's showing us is that they have the clout to work as and when they want to their own schedule, while commanding lots of money.

Tax avoidance is legal but immoral.

Oh, you mean like moving your dosh to the Cayman Islands ?

All it's showing us is that they have the clout to work as and when they want to their own schedule, while commanding lots of money.

I would hazard a guess that’s not how Spotify see it . They are running a business not a charity that you can dabble in as and when you have the time or inclination.

How have they failed.
All it's showing us is that they have the clout to work as and when they want to their own schedule, while commanding lots of money.

Or that they use their "clout" to lean on organisations into putting up with behaviour - failing to provide agreed content for example - they'd never accept from others who are less known or less likely to have a big public tantrum.

I am saying last year, as I had linked, H&M did not jump on the wagon as you put it, they were talking last year.

As were many others who were whining all over Twitter but who, again, don't have as much notoriety as M&H.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this I am afraid.

@StormzyinaTCup

All it's showing us is that they have the clout to work as and when they want to their own schedule, while commanding lots of money.

I would hazard a guess that’s not how Spotify see it . They are running a business not a charity that you can dabble in as and when you have the time or inclination.

It is exactly how business and marketing works actually.

You have influential people you pay a lot of money to use the association of their name. They don't have to do much, their name attached to your brand is enough. It happens all the time.

If Spotify did not see it that way, they would be long gone. They obviously see it that way.

@AtillatheHun

Do you have any links? Regarding Spotify and ai Weapons? Thanks

Do you have any links? Regarding Spotify and ai Weapons? Thanks

I was interested by this too and I found the article below. To be fair, it is the CEO who has invested his money in the AI company, but some artists have pointed our that the money has come from their music

www.nme.com/news/music/artists-criticise-spotify-ceo-daniel-eks-investment-in-ai-defence-tech-3107864

There are several articles on it @MmeSosostris.
www.fastcompany.com/90704310/spotify-boycott-daniel-ek-investment-defense

The boycott never took off much, because it's actually an anti-terrorism strategy that was flogged to the UK, France and Germany. In a nutshell they piece together thermal imaging, video feeds etc. for attacks.

The main issue was that the artists were unhappy that Spotify pay them so little, and invested so much into this project.
They do have a choice to move their music, but I suspect the truth is that ultimately Spotify towers over all other audio broadcasters, so they are making more money from them, than other smaller streaming sites - who have to pay more to get the artists.

It is exactly how business and marketing works actually.

You have influential people you pay a lot of money to use the association of their name. They don't have to do much, their name attached to your brand is enough. It happens all the time.

If Spotify did not see it that way, they would be long gone. They obviously see it that way.

What your describing is a sponsorship deal where they are paid to promote the company. That is not what their contract is .
They are being paid a lot of money to come up with material/content to increase Spotify's audience figures and the company's place in the streaming market. Spotify are not seeing the much hoped for increase in audience figures because the couple have not produced anything in nearly a year. In business terms I think that is defined as not a good return on investment (to date).

I'm not surprised with the rumour that Spotify are taking on a more hands on role from now on.

It does not just work with sponsorship.
Would you call an actress with their face on a perfume a sponsorship. This works in a similar way, there also lots of other ways too. You could argue that Rogan is being paid for content as he has to produce it daily.

Once again, Spotify are not more hands on 'from now on', considering they produced the first podcast.

Would you call an actress with their face on a perfume a sponsorship.

Yes, I would if it wasn’t their own perfume or they had no input into the creation of it.

What you have described upthread and also above is a sponsorship/advertising contract.

MM and PH have signed neither a sponsorship contract nor an advertising contract with Spotify. They have signed a contract estimated to be $18m which requires them to come up with a ‘product’ of quality that will appeal to a wide audience thus increase the company’s streaming figures. That hasn’t yet happened.

It may be that the deal was for an annual podcast
with the assistance of Gimlet as and when required.

Alternatively, it could be that Gimlet was used to help them get their initial podcast off the ground and then they would be left to their own devices to produce from there on in, however, not seeing much forthcoming Gimlet are having to step in again.

All speculation of course.