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 .

you are right speculation.

Have you seen the contract ? how do you know what kind of contract it is.

Based on Spotify not having fired them, or made any complaints, but now seems to be taking on board what they say, we can assume they have not breached their contract.

We can assume otherwise, when we are told otherwise.

For your Gimlet example is quite random.
A bit like you are at work, and say, ooohhhh, what if someone just broke into my house just now. it's not making much sense.

Spotify are not seeing the much hoped for increase in audience figures because the couple have not produced anything in nearly a year

Doesn't this beg the question of why nothing's been produced in that time? Even with Covid various types of production have continued, and I'd have thought the company would expect something by now

Have you seen the contract ? how do you know what kind of contract it is

No, that's why I said it was speculation.

For your Gimlet example is quite random.
A bit like you are at work, and say, ooohhhh, what if someone just broke into my house just now. it's not making much sense.

Not sure what you mean with this paragraph^^

Doesn't this beg the question of why nothing's been produced in that time? Even with Covid various types of production have continued, and I'd have thought the company would expect something by now

Yes, especially when the couple have found time to appear on 'The Ellen Show', have conducted a visit to New York to meet with members of the UN (which may or may not be used for Netflix) and an appearance at the VaxLive event. If I was the Spotify CEO I'd be starting to ask questions.

[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]
I never even thought of that. Taxes in the US are generally low as it is. It amazes me how greedy rich people in the US can be about this issue.

The contract is likely to be a pretty standard production agreement- they commit to making x programmes for y money over a set period. The money will be made available in stages to cover production costs. It’s how eg Chris evans’ radio show works or Graham Norton’s tv show. The fact it’s a podcast is irrelevant- the bulk of the money will be production cost and they aren’t producing. At a guess, they’re delivered content or concepts that are wide of the intended mark so Spotify have sent in back up to get what they want. The back up will be paid out of the production costs and therefore out of the Sussex money. You don’t give nine figure sums to rank amateurs without good safety mechanisms.

You don’t give nine figure sums to rank amateurs without good safety mechanisms

That makes perfect sense, except I can't quite see H&M appreciating being thought of as rank amateurs at anything
Hard, too, to avoid the thought that any deductions could result in yet more lawsuits

As for US financial structures, there's also the point that their charitable foundations are required to give much less to the causes than in the UK - I think 10% has been mentioned? - which is quite a temptation for any self proclaimed "philanthropist" who fancies making $$$ for themselves while putting a fancy gloss on it

Maybe they have produced stuff but its not up to standard or not suitable and was rejected. . Id say that was more likely. More fools Spotify for taking them on just because they're royal.

@Viviennemary

Maybe they have produced stuff but its not up to standard or not suitable and was rejected. . Id say that was more likely. More fools Spotify for taking them on just because they're royal.

Maybe that did not happen.

What standards are not suitable about interviewing people. Spotify has a lot different podcasts, they can stick anything under any category, so your wishful thinking is very unlikely.

@AtillatheHun

The contract is likely to be a pretty standard production agreement- they commit to making x programmes for y money over a set period. The money will be made available in stages to cover production costs. It’s how eg Chris evans’ radio show works or Graham Norton’s tv show. The fact it’s a podcast is irrelevant- the bulk of the money will be production cost and they aren’t producing. At a guess, they’re delivered content or concepts that are wide of the intended mark so Spotify have sent in back up to get what they want. The back up will be paid out of the production costs and therefore out of the Sussex money. You don’t give nine figure sums to rank amateurs without good safety mechanisms.

The examples you give are for regular slot presenters. As in presenting being their regular every day job. I would not expect such a standard contract for someone like for example Taylor Swift - who has singing, concerts and other things going on. Or even Obama who has a host of other projects going on. Did he not get millions in his Spotify deal and Renegades did not have many episodes, though he now turned it into a book I believe. Showing the flexibility of the platform, which some people cannot get their heads around.

Once more, Spotify did not take anything back, they are still using the same production arm they used for their first podcast. As for safety measures, you could argue that using their own production Spotify has done just that.

How much do you suppose production costs are for an interview over the airwaves. You could even do a zoom call.

@Viviennemary

Maybe they have produced stuff but its not up to standard or not suitable and was rejected. . Id say that was more likely. More fools Spotify for taking them on just because they're royal.

Hasn't thought of that but could be.

@Viviennemary

Maybe they have produced stuff but its not up to standard or not suitable and was rejected. . Id say that was more likely. More fools Spotify for taking them on just because they're royal.

Maybe. Having a child in 2021 may have changed their plans for their podcast content and timetable for delivery.

I expect that there's events that trigger payment. So x payable after first episode, y payable after episode 3 etc Had 2021 content not been teased then people wouldn't assume that there were issues.

Netflix were hiring for people to manage Pearl so we'll be seeing that project in the future.

@Viviennemary

Maybe they have produced stuff but its not up to standard or not suitable and was rejected. . Id say that was more likely. More fools Spotify for taking them on just because they're royal.

Maybe Harry worked on his book instead so the podcasts are delayed for later this year as he'll be in entertainment news again ?

Rubics - Taylor swift has a record deal, does separate touring deals with different people, a music publishing deal. She does not produce her own shows or content but engages excellent third party professionals who know how to help her get the best out of her music. And no, it’s not different with a Spotify podcast contract and Graham Norton’s So deal. Graham Norton hires an entire company of professionals around him to help make his programmes and deliver them. That’s what Spotify expect from anyone they commission whether it’s joe rogan or a pair of Californian grifters. Graham Norton is not hired by itv as a presenter. ITV hire So to deliver a series of programmes to them, and So hire Graham as presenter plus his team of brilliant bookers, writers and researchers plus technical staff etc etc. Spotify have hired archewell audio to fldeliver a series of programmes to them. And they’re not being delivered or they’re not being delivered at broadcastable quality so they’ve sent their own people in because those hired by archewell are not doing the job, either because they’re incapable of doing so (they’re all professionals so I doubt it) or because the instructions they’re getting from the top of archewell aren’t good enough.
And production costs for podcasts are not a free zoom call. There should be research, editorial control, guests, writers, access to professional quality audio to make high res recordings. You are talking out of your sleeve on this one rubics; it’s nice you are so defensive of them but in this area you’re not aware of the facts

I am not aware of Taylor Swift having a podcast deal with Spotify, I understand her to have fans doing shows dedicated to her. I was saying as an example she would not have the same deal that Spotify (or Virgin in Norton's case) has.

The ITV example is a visual broadcast show, completely different to his podcast. His podcast is a bit like when you see LBT/ Talk radio etc., done at a radio station studio set up. You can take the equipment anywhere. eg. Dax Sherpard does his in some kind of loft/ barn office set up.

Editing and Reseach are the basic, basics of any podcast. They do not cost millions to do.

Even if H&M were told to do around 9 episodes in so many years, it would cost nothing near 2M to produce each podcast. So you sound like the one who is talking out your sleeve here, pretending most of the money is going on production.

Once again, you keep going back to saying Spotify are taking over, they not. It was announced they would do the production from the start.

H&M have remotely hosted summits, and been keynote speakers over the last 2yrs, so yes, they can zoom some of their material and brush them up on post-production.

As for them hosting, they are not amateurs, and have been on both sides of the microphone (yes Harry's interview of Barack could raise eyebrows, but it was meant to be lighthearted). MM herself has interviewed lots of well known celebrities including Heidi Klum, Princess Alia Al Senussi, Amy Rossum, Diana Aggron (both at the top of their game at the time what with Glee etc.) and other celebrities and they were happy with her.

If their last podcast is anything to go by, their genre will be paired down and low profile as they talk to everyday people and some celebrities about serious issues like MH etc. as per their causes.

This is speculation but maybe Harry and Meghan dont take kindly to suggests for improvements. Royals dont take kindly to being questioned . I think thats quite a problem for the whole set up of royalty. From small things to larger issues.

Royals dont take kindly to being questioned . I think thats quite a problem for the whole set up of royalty. From small things to larger issues

An insightful remark, Viviennemary. Coming from a background where flunkies can be relied on for breathless admiration and your funding's secure, it can't be easy to be plunged into a more commercial world where there's every chance of someone saying "well actually that was sh1t"

To give her her due at least Meghan's been a professional actress - though hardly a major star - but whether what they have to offer will continue to be enough to pay the bills is anyone's guess

To give her her due at least Meghan's been a professional actress

This is true, but it doesn’t mean that she can come up with content that will work, or effectively manage the production of a podcast. As pp have said, this is presumably why Spotify want to engage their own team with Archewell. Their presenting ability is not necessarily in question.

Good points and I’d also add with regards to RF (and also MM more recently) that both are quite good at trying to keep sufficient distance to be able place the fault/blame at someone else’s door. Both have come unstuck with this more recently.

I’ll also add top of the government tree into that as well.

@smilesy

To give her her due at least Meghan's been a professional actress

This is true, but it doesn’t mean that she can come up with content that will work, or effectively manage the production of a podcast. As pp have said, this is presumably why Spotify want to engage their own team with Archewell. Their presenting ability is not necessarily in question.

Meghan came up with her own content for The Tig and she oversaw the production of it - she would have used a team for the technical aspects ofcourse.

As someone else has said, others have teams to deal with production already. Some will come with their own, otherwise, Spotify suppliers it, as they did with H&M who did not have a proper production team when signing with Spotify. (So far, the few team members who have been published seem to be the link between Spotify and Archewell at management level, rather than a full technical team). Presumably, that is what Spotify have got their team in to begin with.

Meghan comes from a background of being an employee with no breathless admiration, so no idea what those other posters are on about.

Agree with you both, smilesy and Stormzy. However my impression is that both H&M rather like to consider themselves experts in each shiny new thing they adopt, and whether those doing the paying feel the same way is open to question

A case in point is that I'm not aware of either ever having said what Anne did about her involvement with Save the Children. I may not have the words exactly right, but the gist was that "I spent the first few years listening and learning before getting more actively involved", and another thing she certainly did say was "It's not about ME"

Being able to act isnt the same as presenting or producing. I remember years ago when I used to watch This Morning Judy Finnigan saying I cant act. I'm hopeless at it. This stuck in my mind.

My take is that they have gone in over their heads and a lot is expected for the massive sums they are being paid. I do have a bit of sympathy. Two very young chidren a very large house and grounds to run. Even if not doing it themselves it wont be like being royal when absolutely everything is taken care of down to the minutest detail by a great army of flunkies.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Agree with you both, smilesy and Stormzy. However my impression is that both H&M rather like to consider themselves experts in each shiny new thing they adopt, and whether those doing the paying feel the same way is open to question

A case in point is that I'm not aware of either ever having said what Anne did about her involvement with Save the Children. I may not have the words exactly right, but the gist was that "I spent the first few years listening and learning before getting more actively involved", and another thing she certainly did say was "It's not about ME"

And what has Anne ever said about their involvement in project? Why should they talk about her.

She said something along the lines of spending a decade observing. Who the hell does that. You would be fired from your job on just 3 months of observation without an input.

You always come on here, pretending you are an objective observer of H&M, but you are not. You talk about baseless impressions, that are purely based on tabloid smears and even when presented with evidence you say the opposite.

@Viviennemary

Being able to act isnt the same as presenting or producing. I remember years ago when I used to watch This Morning Judy Finnigan saying I cant act. I'm hopeless at it. This stuck in my mind.

My take is that they have gone in over their heads and a lot is expected for the massive sums they are being paid. I do have a bit of sympathy. Two very young chidren a very large house and grounds to run. Even if not doing it themselves it wont be like being royal when absolutely everything is taken care of down to the minutest detail by a great army of flunkies.

Strange, aren't you one of those people that agreed that MM worked as a royal for a short time, but now you are classing her as being surrounded by flunkies?

Also, she did do lots of interviews, I screenshot some of them.

@rubicscubicle And what has Anne ever said about their involvement in project? Why should they talk about her.

Anne wasn't talking about them - she was talking about herself. Basically saying that she spent a long time listening and learning before jumping in with her thoughts. Sensible attitude, and certainly worked for her.

The only comment I recall Anne making about Meghan specifically was something off the cuff, along the lines of 'she does have rather a lot of opinions'. I don't think anyone would disagree with her on that!