Pulling in big audiences is not the same as making big money in the podcast world. Archetypes was frequently the number one podcast in its category but it's a podcast and it's only on Spotify.
Podcasts and other ways to make money from social media is an interest of mine so I read about it all the time. This is a good article from The Verge about Spotify and their podcast strategy and the mistakes they've made. It includes some discussion about the H&M deal but is mostly about Spotify (and podcasting), in general:
What is Spotify doing with podcasts, exactly? The company is entering the “next phase” of its podcast strategy — but will it learn from its mistakes?
www.theverge.com
Some excerpts:
And about H&M's deal in particular
And other deals that didn't pan out:
IOW, the H&M deal isn't the only deal that didn't pan out for either party.
Criticism from the industry:
A lot of stuff about the Rogan deal including this:
To sum up: Spotify threw money at all sorts of people (and continues to as they just signed a deal with Trevor Noah) but the terms of the contracts were sometimes vague, they required exclusivity that limited the audience of the podcasts, they didn't support or market the podcasts properly, and mostly these deals haven't panned out for either them or the podcasters.
Rogan still makes them money (presumably) but that deal is not going to save them especially if he decides to take his ball and go home.
Nowhere in the various analysis I've read about what is going on at Spotify does it say that Archetypes was a bad podcast that couldn't keep an audience, btw. OTOH, the Verge article (and others) points out that when Obama & Springsteen did a podcast, it put people to sleep.

And apparently, H&M aren't the only artists who didn't produce. Ava DuVernay didn't deliver
even a single episode under her contract.
This is not to say that H&M aren't grifters or that their other ideas for podcasts were good and would also have had good audiences. It's just that they are part of a pattern with Spotify and their parting ways says as much about Spotify as it does about them.
I am way more interested in what becomes of their Netflix deal since Netflix seems to know what it is doing when it comes to original content. One would hope the contract was better designed and Netflix knew more about what they were going to get from it. Or that they didn't have to pay if nothing got produced. Signing artists to make content and then not getting that content happens in other entertainment industries like movies and music so I presume that companies have clauses for this and contingency plans and it factors into their deals.