The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

Tesla

Whippet Good
Messages
3,405
Companies always shell out big bucks for celebrities. I think the collapse of the Spotify deal is more on Spotify than on Meghan and Harry.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,522
Do you mean like awards for public service, advocacy, volunteering, and so on? It may not be the same for all royal families. But I think the British royal family declines those awards, or at least there's an informal norm that they shouldn't be nominated. Within the British honours system there are titles and awards that the royals can give to each other, like Princess Anne being given the title of Princess Royal by her mother the Queen.
Yes, I mean all these. I understand that the role of the royal families is to establish awards and present them. But, probably, they would also like to have some kind of official recognition of their work.

Companies always shell out big bucks for celebrities. I think the collapse of the Spotify deal is more on Spotify than on Meghan and Harry.
This can affect their marketing value.
In my opinion, it is obvious that they can only sell well what is connected with scandals in the royal family. If they have ambitions to monetize some other content, then now it will be very difficult for them to do it.
 

Tesla

Whippet Good
Messages
3,405
This can affect their marketing value.
I don't so think in this case. I mean, $20 million for a podcast is ridiculous no matter what. Their marketability is going to depend more on how well their other projects do. I really don't blame them for taking the $20 million from Spotify, if Spotify was willing to pay. This is all on Spotify.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,522
But Megan's podcast was one of the top-rated for Spotify and was about empowering women, not about the royal family at all.
Top ranking does not guarantee the desired profit. And I'm not just talking about the financial part. Megan's podcast is a niche product that has gone unnoticed around the world. I'm not sure Sprotify was planning to pay $20 million for that kind of result.
In this case, I am not discussing the quality of the content.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,522
I don't so think in this case. I mean, $20 million for a podcast is ridiculous no matter what. Their marketability is going to depend more on how well their other projects do. I really don't blame them for taking the $20 million from Spotify, if Spotify was willing to pay. This is all on Spotify.
If Harry's book had been released as a podcast, it would have been worth paying $20 million for it.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,829
But Megan's podcast was one of the top-rated for Spotify and was about empowering women, not about the royal family at all.

But how many listeners are fans of hers who would tune into her describing how to fix a toilet? Or how many were interested in the celebrities she interviewed? We can't assume that everyone who tuned in was interested in hearing about empowering women.

Also, maybe this is out there, but did she maintain her numbers? Is it possible the first few had higher numbers and then she couldn't sustain it? Entirely possible given that news reports have cited that there weren't a lot of them - hard to sustain interest when there are long periods without new content.

I'm with those who wish they'd actually do something instead of just talking about doing something. I'm surprised not to hear much more about the Invictus Games - that seemed to be the one thing where Harry was really having an impact.
 

kwanfan1818

RIP D-10
Messages
37,720
Unless the contract says otherwise, Spotify can cancel anything they want for whatever reason they want, and whether their expectations were reasonable isn't relevant, similar to valuations of most of the dot.bomb companies, some of whom were doing fine, but not fine enough, according to their funders, who got to decide.

ETA: Next Invictus games are scheduled for February 2025 in Vancouver.
 

miffy

Bad Brit
Staff member
Messages
12,042
Unless the contract says otherwise, Spotify can cancel anything they want for whatever reason they want, and whether their expectations were reasonable isn't relevant, similar to valuations of most of the dot.bomb companies, some of whom were doing fine, but not fine enough, according to their funders, who got to decide.

ETA: Next Invictus games are scheduled for February 2025 in Vancouver.
We haven’t had this year’s yet, it is in September in Germany. There was a documentary made for Netflix, Heart of Invictus, but allegedly the footage wasn’t really about who it was supposed to be about and Netflix weren’t happy, so it didn’t air. :shuffle: It apparently may still be re-edited and aired around September.
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
35,867
This is a very limited observation, i.e. based on my own experiences, but podcasts need to be released regularly to build an audience, no matter how famous the host and/or guests are.

They also have to be professionally produced and have enough new content each time to keep people coming back. That takes a lot of behind-the-scenes work and planning. There are so many podcasts out there right now that the "two people talk into their laptop about [subject]" format probably isn't going to make much of an impact. I'm not saying that Meghan's podcast was like that, just pointing out that the expectations for podcasts are rising, and that meeting those expectations might require a lot more work to be a successful podcaster than it did before.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
58,551
Top ranking does not guarantee the desired profit.
I haven't read a single article saying her podcast was unprofitable. It reached a wide audience.

Also, maybe this is out there, but did she maintain her numbers?
Yes.

I'm not saying that Meghan's podcast was like that
It wasn't.

I know it's hard for some people to believe but she created a good podcast that people were interested in. Even the Spotify exec that bitched about H&M didn't say her podcast was crap and didn't make Spotify money. He said that Spotify expected more content from them including multiple podcasts and more episodes of each podcast.

I can totally see this as they signed deals with Spotify and Netflix and were doing other things (including having babies) and a quality podcast, not just one or two people talking off the cuff, takes time and energy. Maybe they should have hired people to create other content and just executive-produced it so they could do more. But given what is going on with Spotify right now, I'm not sure even that would have been enough. They overspent on multiple podcasts from many sources and it looks like someone noticed and tightened the belt.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,522
I haven't read a single article saying her podcast was unprofitable. It reached a wide audience.
That is why I said about the desired profit. And I wasn't just talking about money.
It's hard for me to say exactly what the company wanted. My guess is that they wanted to get interesting content that would engage the audience and also bring media attention to the platform and that would be free publicity. And, perhaps, the whole result did not meet their expectations. It's like you're going to the Olympics for a gold medal and you get silver. The result is good, but not when only gold was expected of you.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,759
I don't so think in this case. I mean, $20 million for a podcast is ridiculous no matter what. Their marketability is going to depend more on how well their other projects do. I really don't blame them for taking the $20 million from Spotify, if Spotify was willing to pay. This is all on Spotify.
They didn't get $20mill all at once. Since they were cancelled they only got part of that. idk how much total.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,234
I googled it and Spotify apparently pays artists between $0.003 - $0.005 per stream. So they are notoriously tight in terms of paying musicians for their music.

I guess though if you want to listen to say Ed Sheeran, there are many ways you can do it. I think Spotify was trying to pay big money to podcasters for exclusive access to material - like you had to join Spotify to listen (and stay subscribed and keep paying membership).

But I think to retain membership of an audience, an exclusive podcaster would need to have constant release schedule - it’s not like many people listen to a podcast more than once (unlike music).
 
Last edited:

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,619
Meghan’s podcast started out at number one but it actually dropped to number 22 overall and was continuing to drop.

I think the issue is productivity to. She only did twelve episodes. She was given a lot of money more than more productive people.

He was complaining about trying to give Harry ideas

Apparently she also didn’t try with the lesser known guests
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,522
Part of my job is content selection. It often surprises me what kind of content people are willing to watch. And it's always a risk.
Meghan's podcast could have been a hit, it had potential. Perhaps something was not worked out, or perhaps the podcast simply was not so interesting to the public. Like I said, it's always a risk.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,234
So there is news about what Harry’s ideas for his own podcast (which never eventuated) would be.

Honestly if Harry had proceeded to interview Trump, Putin and Mark Zuckerberg etc (particularly to humanise them by discussing their childhood trauma) it probably would have been a smash hit because it would have been crazy controversial. (There’s a reason Joe Rogan is such a popular podcaster). But I guess from a diplomatic perspective a lot of people would be pleased it didnt happen.


“Harry spoke with multiple producers and production houses, these people said, to discuss possible shows. Along the way, Harry listened to various ideas from others but mostly stuck by his own — including one about childhood trauma. The concept: Harry would interview a procession of controversial guests, such as Vladimir Putin, Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump, about their early formative years and how those experiences resulted in the adults they are today.

Harry also had an idea, the people said, for a show centered on fatherhood. Another one would have tackled major societal conversations episode by episode, ranging from climate change to religion. For the latter, Harry hoped to have Pope Francis on as a guest.”
 
Last edited:

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,234
If Harry had proceeded with the podcast he might have ended up with a very different fanbase to the one he started with.

To interview such characters and build enough rapport to keep the conversation flowing and interesting without appearing as their cheerleaders would take a certain skill. Louis Theroux could probably manage it, but he is a very skilled and experienced journalist and interviewer.

I also don’t know where it would logically lead. Particularly given that Harry is big on attributing a lot of his enduring adulthood issues to his childhood.

Putin has talked about the effect the death of his brother during the siege of Leningrad had on his family and there have been connections made between that and why he believes needs to ‘de-nazify’ Ukraine. Okay that’s childhood trauma but sure as heck doesn’t justify what Putin has become.

Does Harry then conclude that bad things happen but people have to move on and take responsibility for their adult choices? Does that apply to him too?
 
Last edited:

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
35,867
AFAIK most of the information about Trump's childhood traumas - overbearing dad, emotionally distant mom, being sent to boarding school because he was aggressive towards classmates in a "regular" school, etc - has been revealed by reporters and other commentators writing about Trump, not by Trump himself. Trump probably never discusses it, or lies about it if it does, because it would make him look weak. I seriously doubt that a relatively inexperienced interviewer, whether it's Harry or not, would be able to get a decent interview out of Trump about this topic.

ETA: re qualifications to run a podcast, yes, anyone with a microphone, a laptop, and an Internet connection can do it. But successful podcasts that last and that build an audience IME are run by people with experience in media/broadcasting, who know how to write an interesting script, can conduct interviews that are listenable, and can deliver it at least semi-professionally. Being able to edit audio is also a big plus.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,234
AFAIK most of the information about Trump's childhood traumas - overbearing dad, emotionally distant mom, being sent to boarding school because he was aggressive towards classmates in a "regular" school, etc - has been revealed by reporters and other commentators writing about Trump, not by Trump himself. Trump probably never discusses it, or lies about it if it does, because it would make him look weak. I seriously doubt that a relatively inexperienced interviewer, whether it's Harry or not, would be able to get a decent interview out of Trump about this topic.

I agree - probably even if he was able to secure the interviews, political characters would likely only speak on the topic if it took the form of useful propaganda or political manipulation.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
58,551
ETA: re qualifications to run a podcast, yes, anyone with a microphone, a laptop, and an Internet connection can do it. But successful podcasts that last and that build an audience IME are run by people with experience in media/broadcasting, who know how to write an interesting script, can conduct interviews that are listenable, and can deliver it at least semi-professionally. Being able to edit audio is also a big plus.
There are plenty of podcasts that are very listenable put out by people who don't have experience in media/broadcasting Being able to write a good script and/or being able to banter with a co-host, being a good interviewer, etc. are enough IME.

Meghan's podcast could have been a hit,
You mean, like it was? :lol:


The Duchess of Sussex has claimed the No. 1 podcast position on Spotify’s charts in six markets worldwide, including the U.S. and U.K.

And, for the time being, Meghan Markle’s “Archetypes” is currently more popular than “The Joe Rogan Experience,” which in the U.S. is consistently the most-listened-to podcast on Spotify.
 

MsZem

I see the sea
Messages
18,495
So there is news about what Harry’s ideas for his own podcast (which never eventuated) would be.
Did it not occur to him that he could have done something related to The Invictus Games and military service? There are so many interesting stories there, and it fits with his personal brand.
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
35,867
Did it not occur to him that he could have done something related to The Invictus Games and military service? There are so many interesting stories there, and it fits with his personal brand.

That would have been excellent. And something that would allow lots of new stories over time, and publicize the Games as well.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,234
Maybe he’s just not that keen on podcasting?

I wonder if Harry’s attentions were solely on his book as that was the project that he had a vested interest in seeing through.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information