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 .

I was responding to the poster who stated :

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 wonder if 'flunkeys' are 'working people' and whether or not they speak in cliche-ridden sentences.

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

Thank you, aj, and you're right; I'd forgotten the bit about it being the thoughts/opinions she was reticent about until she'd listened and learned (wish I could find it, but of course it's been snowballed by more recent stuff)

As most know there's not a lot I admire about the RF, but I did respect that

@ Puzzledandpissedoff

Is this what you mean?
“Speaking earlier this year to Vanity Fair for a cover story about her 70th birthday, Anne said: “It took me probably 10 years before I really felt confident enough to contribute to Save the Children’s public debates because you needed to understand how it works on the ground and that needed a very wide coverage. So, my early trips were really important.”

I take my hat off to your detective skills, @Chilledchablis1 - that's exactly the one I meant!!

Notice in particular that she obviously went on visits, therefore raising the charity's profile, but used them to learn rather than blast on - something other RF members would do well to copy (and not just H&M)

@Puzzledandpissedoff. your posts are conflicting, was she talking about them or not?

Also, you say H&M should copy not to 'blast on' . What on earth are you talking about here.

@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"

Has there been a bit of misunderstanding here? My understanding of Puzzled's words is like this, 'A case in point is that I'm not aware of either (H or M) ever having said (about their own projects) what Anne did (say) about her involvement with Save the Children.

Spotify was the first thing they signed deal with , perhaps they were not convinced about doing podcasts < Do people actually pay to listen to them>? But it was better than nothing.

If I was the Spotify CEO I'd be starting to ask questions.

As you are not wouldn't you assume that the CEO knows what he is doing and has access to more information than guesses and assumptions. Really if the CEO of Spotify is not asking questions then why are MN.

Really if the CEO of Spotify is not asking questions then why are MN.

Well they'd hardly publish it if they were would they?

As you are not wouldn't you assume that the CEO knows what he is doing and has access to more information than guesses and assumptions. Really if the CEO of Spotify is not asking questions then why are MN.

Well, that would depend on what was promised at the time of signing and if that has been delivered. If it was one podcast a year then obviously CEO has no problem and everything is hunky dory.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable though for people to query, on MN or anywhere else, the cost v output to date.

This was the head of Global Affairs at Spotify in March 21 speaking about poor payment to music artists:

Horacio Gutierrez, Head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer for Spotify, was questioned by MPs on Tuesday as part of an inquiry into streaming economics by the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport select committee……..

While defending the merit of Harry and Markle's deal, Gutierrez told MPs over video chat: "There is a market for certain talent because they command a certain amount of consumption."

"The product is valued on how many users it can attract, how many streams it will attract, which in turn determines how many advertisers are willing to advertise on the podcast," he added.

Gutierrez likened Markle and Harry's podcast to high-production TV shows such as "House of Cards" and "Game of Thrones," which attract users to video streaming services and cable networks where they can then discover productions with smaller budgets.

So Spotify are expecting (or have been promised) a podcast series which is going to have the equivalent popularity, audience pulling power and advertising revenue of Game of Thrones😮 - no pressure there then!

That certainly doesn’t fit with 35minutes initially and nothing for a year. It looks like it’s a case of either over promising or a huge communication failure.

@LondonWolf

Really if the CEO of Spotify is not asking questions then why are MN.

Well they'd hardly publish it if they were would they?

I think the usual media groups would have got hold of it by now then added some.

I see PH was waffling on the other day in his role as Chief Impact Officer . The most awful drivel. He’s just embarrassing.

That certainly doesn’t fit with 35minutes initially and nothing for a year. It looks like it’s a case of either over promising or a huge communication failure.

Didn’t they ask for real stories a while back on their site?
Maybe they’ve tried to produce a content they were happy with but couldn’t deliver or perhaps Spotify didn’t see any potential with it, did their one podcast a success ?

I see PH was waffling on the other day in his role as Chief Impact Officer

I had to look that up since I didn't even know what a "Chief Impact Officer" is, and having read all the word salad I'm still none the wiser

Its just a made up title to make him sound important.

That's how it appeared to me too, DaisyChains, but I didn't want to assume which is why I went looking for some info

Trouble is it's all fluff and word salad, full of buzz phrases but little grit or real focus ...

Chief impact Officer. What exactly is he having an impact on. Does anyone know. Or is it a joke.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I see PH was waffling on the other day in his role as Chief Impact Officer

I had to look that up since I didn't even know what a "Chief Impact Officer" is, and having read all the word salad I'm still none the wiser

A glorified influencer.

Both he and Meghan seem to like using as many words as they can in a sentence, to the point that the meaning is completely obscured.

Maybe they have a competition going on between them - who can get the most words in a sentence doesn't have to make dinner that evening!

Chief Impact Officer = salesman
He's trying to drum up business. I didn't watch it all, but in the bit I saw, he sounded superficial and unprepared. Embarrassing. But, I guess, at least he's bringing some money in.

Chief Impact Officer = salesman
He's trying to drum up business. I didn't watch it all, but in the bit I saw, he sounded superficial and unprepared. Embarrassing. But, I guess, at least he's bringing some money in
To be fair it’s not just Harry who says fluffy words like that , it’s everyone now, specially those who want to stay relevant, and it’s always in the lines of "I’m heading towards a burnout and I turned to look within myself" and now I’m better". How does it help those who are truly struggling?

@DaisyChains3

Both he and Meghan seem to like using as many words as they can in a sentence, to the point that the meaning is completely obscured.

I think Meghan probably writes Harry's sentences for him. To put it politely, he wasn't previously known as a wordsmith.

@Ponyo001

That Archewell name is so shite, sounds like a brand of night storage heater from 1965.

☺️