Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said words when asked about the Duke & Duchess of Sussex

In June, someone at Spotify leaked the news to the Wall Street Journal: Spotify was “parting ways” with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. What could have been a simple “podcasting industry fluctuations” story became something else entirely, with Spotify executive Bill Simmons calling Harry and Meghan “f–king grifters,” and Spotify sources lining up to talk sh-t about the Sussexes in the trade papers. To make matters worse, Harry and Meghan treated the Spotify mess as if it was some British-media firestorm which they could just ignore – they barely pushed back and they seemed unprepared for how to deal with the situation on a communications level. Months later, the Sussexes have not signed with any new streamer (like Audible) and it’s not even clear that Meghan wants to continue podcasting, and she’s definitely abandoning Archetypes. Well, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek was asked about what happened this week:

The chief executive of Spotify has suggested that Harry and Meghan’s £18million podcast deal collapsed because it failed to make consumers happy after the Sussexes made just 12 podcasts in two-and-a-half years.

Daniel Ek, who was making a rare media appearance almost four months after it was announced that the Archetypes podcast would not be renewed for a second season, admitted that some of Spotify’s innovative ideas have not gone to plan. Meghan’s multi-million-pound Spotify deal was axed in June following a ‘mutual’ decision between the streaming giant and Archewell Audio – the Duchess and Prince Harry’s company. Sources close to the multi-million pound deal – which was signed by the couple in 2020 – said it was was dropped after the pair did not produce enough content to warrant the full payout.

Shedding new light on the decision not to renew Harry and Meghan’s deal, Spotify boss Ek told the BBC: ‘We thought new innovation was needed to happen here. We thought we can come in and offer a great experience that both makes consumers very happy and allows new creators new avenues.’

He added: ‘And the truth of the matter is some of it has worked, some of it hasn’t. We’re learning from those and we are moving on and we wish all of the ones we didn’t renew with the best of success they can have going forward.’

Ek was speaking to the BBC’s Zoe Kleinman who had questioned him on whether 12 podcasts across two-and-a-half years from the Sussexes was worth £18million. She said his response had been ‘very diplomatic’.

[From The Daily Mail]

This is what should have come out of Spotify four months ago – they threw hundreds of millions of dollars at celebrities and then the business model changed and needed some adjustments. There was a podcasting bubble and it burst, that was always the real story. So why did Spotify and their executives go on the attack against the Sussexes? Was it because Harry and Meghan were easy targets, and a convenient distraction for the larger mismanagement within Spotify? “The Sussexes are grifters” is a sexier story than “Spotify executives didn’t have the foresight to realize that their business model was unsustainable.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Spotify.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

67 Responses to “Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said words when asked about the Duke & Duchess of Sussex”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. equality says:

    Why is it always about H&M though? Nobody points out that the Obamas had a big contract for not much output. And I’m sure there were more. What he needs to just point out is that most of their listeners don’t want quality content or Rogan wouldn’t be there.

    • Wannabefarmer says:

      Didnt kim kardashian also have a big money deal and produced little or nothing? I think the point being made is right, H&M should have responded to this publicly the same way they were attacked publicly. You can ignore the rags b/c everyone knows they are rags but this is messing with your business name.

    • kirk says:

      “Why is it always about H&M though?”
      Because Britmedia always has to smear Sussexes. The bigger story here is that Spotify CEO admitted they overextended and overinvested in podcasting, esp with celebrities. Britmedia always has a smear goal in mind with the Sussexes and that’s their prime angle. Notice when Ek told BBC Zoe Kleinman the big story, her translation of it was that it was “very diplomatic” because H&M weren’t sufficiently smeared.

    • Lana says:

      I really didn’t like her podcast, I don’t think podcasting is an area either of them have much talent for

      • equality says:

        Enough people liked it that it hit number 1 and won an award. LOL at the idea that only your opinion shows they have no talent in the area. Conceited much?

      • Chante Hudson says:

        And that’s your opinion , however
        Her Podcast was amazing and insightful , targeting the topics that keep women and girls behind but to say she has no talent is just BS when myself and millions would disagree 😒that’s not the 2 awards she won

  2. aquarius64 says:

    Clean up in aisle 4. This clown had a talking to, especially after Meghan was seen in the bozx with the CEO of Netflix and his wife.

  3. Amy Bee says:

    I’ve always maintained that the highly emotional response from Spotify was because they were upset that Harry and Meghan decided to leave not because they were let go. Elk’s non answer proves that.

    • Ginger says:

      I agree. And how Spotify handled the whole Joe Rogan thing ( by doing nothing) probably made H&M question how good Spotify really was. I’m glad they left them.

    • Satish More says:

      Amy Bee

      That actually makes perfect sense. I think you’re absolutely correct.

  4. Well the truth comes out. Spotify didn’t plan for a bubble to burst. They went too big with lots of podcasts and low and behold the bubble burst so let’s blame the Sussexes because everyone else likes to 💩 on them. It’s good we are hearing the truth but unfortunately it’s too late because now people like to call them grifters you see it all over twitter. I wish for karma to find bill Simmons and hit him with the bus.

    • windyriver says:

      They didn’t just go big with contracts for major names, they also spent big money on acquiring production companies. One of them was Gimlet, which partnered with Archewell Audio on Meghan’s Archetypes. Spotify paid over $200 million just for Gimlet a few years back. From a letter posted on Twitter in October 2022 (pretty sure it was by Gimlet employees but can’t check at this point) some ugly things went on behind the scenes between Spotify and the podcast companies, people being fired without warning, etc. This was around the time Dawn Ostroff left, and Spotify announced it was laying off hundreds of people.

      If this is true, and people H&M worked with at Gimlet were affected, it would’ve been another red flag for H&M about the advisability of sticking with Spotify. I agree with @Amy Bee and @Ginger above; it was H&M’s choice to leave Spotify, not the other way around, and that’s why Bill Simmons opened his big mouth.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        ++Agree with all of this. Is this the October 2022 document you’re referencing?

      • windyriver says:

        Can’t read the whole thing because it needs a subscription, and it’s not the document that I recall was posted on Twitter, which I believe was a letter, but from what I can see behind the moving block on the site, this is a discussion of what I’m referring to, because I see Parcast mentioned. I was trying to remember the second company that letter referred to, and it was Parcast. (I kept thinking Parler, but I knew that was wrong!)

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        If you hit continue reading, it should allow the article to be read. Here are some pieces from it.

        “We were told that Spotify loved what we were doing; nothing would change. We would have more resources at our disposal to tell the stories we were already telling. Management kept saying that this was going to be amazing for everyone.”.
        “Things were a bit different behind the scenes. For example, Gimlet had to get the hosts to sign new contracts so that Spotify could be sure that they wouldn’t walk out the door. From what I heard, the hosts were given two days to sign. Gimlet management told them that if they didn’t sign their contracts — or if they made any changes at all — it would jeopardize everything. They were basically forced.”.
        “At first, the Spotify people said they were open to our ideas, but that really didn’t turn out to be true. It very quickly went from brainstorming all the new, creative things we wanted to do to this new reality where we had to get permission from Spotify every time we had an idea.”.
        “Then we started getting requests from on high — it would be like, we want to increase the number of Spotify listeners on your show, so we need you to make some bonus content, okay?

        It had a huge impact on our production. It was obvious that they didn’t really understand how making podcasts worked or what our relationship with our audience was like at all.”.
        “Those requests escalated and eventually they made pretty much all the shows go exclusive, which Gimlet management had promised would never happen. That’s when I really knew we had a problem. “.
        “I would estimate that five to ten percent of the people who came to Spotify from Gimlet are still engaged, at least from a work standpoint. They’re the ones who have been able to navigate the politics, get on the right teams, get promotions. But the vast majority of people are just vesting their stock and figuring out the next thing to do.”.

      • windyriver says:

        @Agreatreckoning – thanks for posting that. Yes, that’s the gist of what I remember, particularly the line, which they “had promised would never happen.”

        Curious what is meant by the statement about making all the shows go exclusive. Would that have impacted H&M in future? Thought I remember people saying here that the Sussexes owned the rights to Archetypes and could take it to another platform. Was something about that going to change, and could that be another reason for them leaving?

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        There was one site I found back then that it was the Sussexes’ decision to part ways. Not finding it now. A tech/podcast site.

        The Sussexes dealt with enough sh*tshow operations. That they chose to exit stage left with Spotify isn’t shocking considering one of Spotify’s big backers/management funds is Murdoch affiliated.

  5. Jais says:

    So the Sussexes we’re used as scapegoats for poor management at Spotify. Wouldn’t that make Spotify the actual grifters then, using strategies normally employed by the racist tabloid press and RF? Covering up their own ineptitudes by abusing the couple as a distraction. Harry and Meghan were likely very happy to leave that company.

  6. Fifty-50 says:

    I also think that spotify execs thought it would get some kind of dishy podcast about “Behind the Scenes of Buckingham Palace” or “the Real Life Story of an American Princess” or even “The Duchess of Sussex Fashion Hour” and weren’t happy to discover Meghan wanted to make content about women’s issues. The spotify deal came (somewhat) soon after H&M left the RF, right? They must have thought they were giving H&M a platform to do a tell-all and trash the RF—like a juicier, serialized version of the Oprah interview.

    • North of Boston says:

      ^ this

      They wanted trash gossip content, like an audio / royal take on WWHL, which would fit more with their Joe Rogan- friendly vibe.

      The Sussexes are not going to be generating that kind of content, no way, no how.

      • windyriver says:

        That sounds about right. Simmons said at the time, “I gotta get drunk one night and tell the story of the Zoom I had with Harry, trying to help him with a podcast idea. It’s one of my best stories.”

        My bet is Simmons was pissed he couldn’t show off by scoring the RF gossip podcast he wanted Harry to do. It’s not clear if that’s what Ek was also expecting. Can’t imagine H&M not being clear when the Spotify contract was initially negotiated about what they wanted to do. And yes, H&M got both Netflix and Spotify fairly early on after leaving, fall/late fall of 2020 I believe. At that point, the podcast industry still seemed to be booming. A year or two later, though, financial reality started setting in.

        Speaking of which, Joe Rogan’s $200 million contract was also done in 2020, while the podcast future looked rosy. I wonder if Spotify regrets laying out that much money, even for him, and if doing so ultimately meant cutting back in other areas.

    • Cate says:

      If Spotify couldn’t take 30 seconds to say “so, we’re thinking a behind the scenes tell-all would be great” and find out what the reaction from M&H was, they deserve to get poor return on their investment!

  7. MY3CENTS says:

    I hope Meghan continues with podcasts. I really liked Archetypes, she has a great voice and I liked her choice of guests.

    • Southern Fried says:

      Same. I’d also like her to add more on a couple subjects she covered.

    • BeanieBean says:

      She has a great voice! Oh, I’d love it if she turned her career toward audiobooks!

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        She really does have a great voice. D*mn, I would be interested in audio books if she was reading them. Harry too. They both give good voice.

  8. Becks1 says:

    “We’re learning from those and we are moving on and we wish all of the ones we didn’t renew with the best of success they can have going forward.’”

    That should have always been the response from Spotify. They tried something new with their business model, and it didn’t always work across the board and they are moving on and the people they partnered with are moving on. That’s business, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

    I will add though that I do think the Sussexes’ podcast “worked” – Archetypes was a huge success and won awards and had big names on it – but clearly Spotify wanted quantity over quality, which is their choice I guess.

    • Amy Bee says:

      If the podcast was so successful Spotify would have wanted them to stay regardless the output. I think Meghan and Harry decided to leave for greener pastures hence Bill Simmons’ outburst and the leaks to WSJ.

      • Becks1 says:

        That could be, it would explain the “jilted lover” tone of Simmons’ response etc.

      • Amy Bee says:

        There was definitely a how dare you leave me vibe that Spotify gave off. Leaking the departure to the WSJ, a Murdoch paper, is a choice.

    • Nic919 says:

      Spotify should have shut down Bill Simmons going off like a dumped girlfriend and have the CEO say this months ago. It’s not a way to attract talent when someone goes off like this.

      Even tech reporters like Kara Swisher were saying that Spotify over promised and didn’t have a sustainable model across the board. It was never just and Harry and Meghan thing.

  9. Mary Pester says:

    Someone at Spotify has had a talking to, because we haven’t heard a peep from him since his lunatic ranting, Spotify should have come out sooner and talked about it, especially the fact that Megan’s contract wasn’t the only one not going forward, but they were cowards and didn’t! But, Harry and Megan need to start calling this sort of hypocrisy out, shine a light on bullsht as it happens!!
    Final completely off topic, I was doing my usual pacing the floor all night as pain wouldn’t let me sleep, when I had a sudden thought, Where is camzilla, and why the deafening silence from that corner??

    • goofpuff says:

      I agree. I don’t know why they are either getting advice not to push back on Spotify or ignoring it. This isn’t the British Media. Since Meghan is signed with an excellent agency, I hope that that agency takes care of this issue.

      • Taytanish says:

        But there’s not always that big push back from a lot of big powerful people, not just the Sussexes. Even when these powerful people get personally attacked, they always let their personal character speak for them. When have the Obama’s ever pushed back against any crap put out against them? When has Oprah, the Clintons, Tyler Pery, Beyonce, Jay-Z etc etc, the list goes on and on? Only Donald Trump and his kids do that kind of loud belligerent pushback. But a lot many other people with substance just let fools be fools!! Nobody can control social media. Even if the Sussexes had pushed back, they still would have been attacked!! Notice how Simmons and the other guy that trashed the Sussexes ended up looking stupid themselves while the Sussexes that said nothing still stand tall with their heads held up high!!!! Speach is silver but silence is gold.

  10. seaflower says:

    I think Spotify were also unprepared for a lot of their talent to object to the Joe Rogan controversy as well. I know Brene Brown stopped producing her parcasts for a while there and then backed right out of podcasting altogether a few months before new about Meghan’s podcast came out.

    • tamsin says:

      Didn’t Archewell also have some issue with some of the anti-vax content coming out of the Rogan podcast? I was under the impression they delayed their podcast because of it.

  11. MsIam says:

    Its funny there has not been another peep from that big mouthed assh*le Bill Simmons since his initial tantrum. I believe Spotify lawyers got a letter from the Sussexes lawyers and now it’s all “we wish you well”. I’m not closing the books on Meghan doing another podcast either, just because it won’t be called Archetypes.

  12. Lala11_7 says:

    So…Spotify throwing $150M @ POS Joe Rogan wasn’t a good financial model? I KNOW Meghan told them she was doing a MONTHLY broadcast which is what she did…A LOT of their high profiled folks left after that Rogan mess…But it’s EASIER to amplify the Meghan negative bullshit & burn down relationships 🤬

  13. katherine says:

    I still don’t understand how Archetypes was not considered a massive success when it’s won awards, was the no. 1 streaming podcast for every week it came out, and featured high-quality, researched content with insightful big name celebrities. I guess if it was marketed as a limited series from the beginning. Is Spotify purely about quantity and not quality?

    • Amy Bee says:

      It wasn’t a limited series.

      • Kingston says:

        It WAS a limited series.

      • Satish More says:

        Amy Bee

        I’m curious as to why you think Archetypes was not successful? I recall it being the #1 podcast all over the world, even pushing Joe Rogan off the #1 spot…..? If that is not SOME measure of success, what is? Plus it won awards, too!
        Isn’t it possible that Spotify DID want Meghan to continue her podcast there, due to its great success, but that it was purely the Sussexes decision to leave?
        At the same time, I can absolutely believe that Spotify overextended itself with the numerous other big names it signed, who, despite those big names, never seemed to generate a fraction of the publicity that Meghan did

    • MoxyLady007 says:

      I think some individuals at Spotify did not want podcasts about anything of substance coming from the Sussexes.

      I mean – if you look at their lives, they have engaged with leaders at every level on so many incredibly important topics. They could have done SO MUCH.

      I think it’s clear that the Sussex’s ideas weren’t seen as salacious enough or controversial enough to bring in big audiences and so Spotify shot down almost all of them. And basically wanted another Joe Rogan type.

      Meghan’s podcast came out and proved Spotify wrong but by then the Sussexes had seen Spotify for what it was and for what they wanted from them.

      Spotify wanted the Sussexes to act like
      the RR and dish shit on their families. The Sussexes were never going to do that. Frankly I’m amazed they even green lit Archetypes.

      • Satish More says:

        Moxy lady

        I can absolutely believe that Spotify wanted more juicy, royal related content. However, because Archetypes was SO successful without it, I think they would have settled for different content as long as it was successful, which it was!

  14. Catherine says:

    If has become clear that Spotify used the Sussexes to cover their bad business model. They were right not to respond because then the story would have become about their reaction. As it is the more legitimate business media has been talking about the over 300 million spotify gave to rogan and simmons. Those are the costs they have not been able to recoup. The Sussexes were right not to respond. Then the story would have been about their reaction. The legitimate business media is asking questions about Spotify’s business model not the Sussexes.

  15. girl_ninja says:

    There was a podcasting bubble and it burst, that was always the real story. So why did Spotify and their executives go on the attack against the Sussexes?

    • girl_ninja says:

      Rest of comment…

      I think that they liked hanging the Sussexes out to dry and using their loser attack dog Bill Simmons to try and undermine Harry and Meghan was something to hide behind for a bit. I don’t f!ck with Spotify anymore since Duchess Meghan Archetypes is no longer.

  16. Lili says:

    I do wonder what they expected their podcast to look like , Harry and Meghan at the kitchen table analysing British tabloids? They came with an intellectual curated podcast which was great, I personally would love to see more of those types of pod casts, I loved the first series of serial, Malcolm gladwell has a yearly themed podcast with about 8 to 12 episodes per season. I should go check what this season is about. The only other pod cast I listen to is Marc maron who just interviews Celebs and comedians and his show is quite grown up compared to Joe rogan

  17. Gem says:

    I don’t know what them pushing back would achieve. That media generated shit storm didn’t really damage their brand. We all know it, they know it so why should they comment on things that don’t affect them. There’s media projection vs reality. September has shown us how out of proportion and overblown the Sussex brand is dunso propaganda has been. They took a few hits, mostly Spotify tried to hide their miserable podcast business failure as a whole by letting media put their energy and focus on Sussex’s and the Sussex’s quietly let it be water under the bridge while retaining their grace. A lot of business decisions at the beginning was because they needed money immediately. I don’t see Meghan podcasting again. She is also been in the industry long enough that she knows you’ve got to leave behind things that didn’t work and move forward to reinvent yourself. I believe they are looking forward. They probably learnt a few lessons on how to navigate the industry and moved on.

  18. QuiteContrary says:

    I loved “Archetypes.” It was thoughtful, well-researched and nuanced — all the qualities that are anathema to Joe Rogan and his ilk.

  19. Nicole says:

    I think it’s been established that H&M communications team isn’t the best. They make statements when one wasn’t warranted and they stay quiet when they’re being slaughtered. I don’t know who told them it was a good idea for them to handle their own communications/PR it’s lacking and worse they have no social media presence their website leaves much to be desired. As for Archtypes, it’s over it gave what it was to give and that’s it. Of course UK is going to hang on whatever they can cause the others bore them to death and give them nothing. But let’s take note the year is almost over and the most we’ve seen of Meghan is at the Invictus Games but as far as any projects it’s been nada. H came out with a book, a documentary, charity trips, hell even lawsuits. Is WME still hired orrrr? 🧐

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Nicole, actually their communications handled this correctly. The people in the business know exactly what happened with Spotify, an those are the people H&M will be/are working with. The fact that this CEO is now coming out and telling the truth is because there was no more room for the company to put up a smoke screen. The truth is there for anyone to see.

      H&M’s communications team does a good job of not playing to the peanut gallery or bm. I suspect there was a letter from H&M’s attorneys that went to Spotify that shut them up.

      We don’t know what their contracts say or what they are working on. Why are people always up in their faces about stuff they know nothing about? You sound like the bm crying in their beer because they don’t get enough content to generate more hate.

    • MsIam says:

      Feel better now that you’ve had your rant? Meghan wears a 10 year old poncho and gets how much publicity from it? She was at Invictus for a week and got how many spreads from that? Pretty good for someone you claim has a poor communications team. As for projects, Meghan is on nobody’s schedule but her own. We know she is producing a movie so that sounds like a “project” to me. But if you want more visibility, go keep track of the Kardashians, they always seem to be up to something.

    • Gem says:

      After 3 years, if you think push back was going to change things than you really are in dream world. The USA news cycle moved on fast from them. UK will never move on. Harry, Meghan will be 99, playing with their great grandkids and you will hear old, almost dying, crusty royal experts talking about what went wrong with Spotify. Case in point, Governor Newsom picked Senate position candidate fast and yet, UK along with Page 6, NYPost, TMZ still ran stories about Meghan’s senate career post the announcement. Their communication team handles most things well. They don’t and shouldn’t be wasting time on UK talking points. They did brief people about divorce rumors being false….and those stories still ran till Invictus. There is no point in any statements being put out. They will write whatever regardless.

    • tamsin says:

      I don’t think it’s been established that H&M communication isn’t the best- I think there have been different views about how they should respond. Obviously it seems that Harry has been bringing home most of the the bacon during the last two years. Harry and Meghan pronounced themselves a team- not two solitudes spinning their own income streams. Meghan did an award-winning podcast. Unfortunately her momentum was slowed by the death of the Queen. There has been a writers and an actors strike for the last four months. Meghan had a miscarriage and delivered Lili who just turned two. It is clear that neither Harry nor Meghan are idlers, and they are not prone to announcing projects until they are ready to launch. From the way some people go on, the Sussexes should be releasing a something new and major every few weeks. Everyone wants to see Harry and Meghan because they love and support them and eager to see their work, or hate them and eager for something new to trash. People are even mad at them for not having social media. We should just stop and realize that the Sussexes are not just something to consume, and that’s what fans and haters are sometimes guilty of.

  20. B says:

    Like the rota and the royal family Bill Simmons lost his shit because Harry and Meghan were moving on to greener pastures and Meghan is the golden goose. Her podcast dethroned Joe Rogan. It was number 1 in countries Spotify was trying to expand to and brought in so many new subscribers that it was listed in their quarterly report.

    I rarely disagree with Kaiser but I think the Sussexes handled this as they should. An executive got pissed and flew off at the mouth. He was incredibly unprofessional and it was dealt with behind the scenes as it should be. As you can see from their subsequent successes his words had not impact. Also barring trash family members publicly smearing them and that necessitating a public response the Sussexes don’t let their business; personal or profession play out in public. They handle it quietly behind the scenes.

    Once the strike is over then we will be able to gauge if they’ve signed with another podcasting platform. They purchased the screen rights to a romantic novel and didn’t announce it, the author did. Its very clear they are abiding by SAG-AFTRA strike rules of no promotion for projects in the pipeline. The rules of the strike apply would apply to any announcements about a new season of Archetypes and Meet Me by the Lake.

    • tamsin says:

      The Spotify executive was so unprofessional in his behaviour that he most certainly did not do anything positive for the image of Spotify. Coupled with the various other issues the company has had, such as other high profile people leaving and musicians withdrawing their work, most would conclude that the remarks were nothing more than sour grapes. The reputation and dignity of the Sussexes and Archewell are above responding to such garbage. Their continued success speaks louder than any press release refuting an asshole’s rantings.

    • Magdalena says:

      I agree with you. The Sussexes did the best thing by ignoring that man. They rose above it and so he and Spotify are the ones who ended up looking grossly unprofessional. Others in the industry got a close look at how the smears against H+M worked in real time. And the story became about Spotify’s undignified behaviour, rather than the Sussexes’ response had they given one.

      I’m fairly certain that they (especially Harry!) would have been keeping notes re who was eager to swallow and help spread the lies. Sometimes it is best to say nothing and allow your enemies to reveal themselves.

  21. Is that so? says:

    “ Ek was speaking to the BBC’s Zoe Kleinman who had questioned him on whether 12 podcasts across two-and-a-half years from the Sussexes was worth £18million. She said his response had been ‘very diplomatic’.”

    I would’ve loved for Kleinman’s diplomatic response to have been included, so that I could parse it for myself. Being that this is British media, I can only assume his answer was not negative enough to be included. Anything less than an evisceration of the Sussexes is unlikely to appear in British media. After all the sitting in Monarch tends to exercise his right to censor whatever doesn’t fit his “master” narrative. Master doing double duty here.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That’s what this is: ‘Spotify boss Ek told the BBC: ‘We thought new innovation was needed to happen here. We thought we can come in and offer a great experience that both makes consumers very happy and allows new creators new avenues.’

      He added: ‘And the truth of the matter is some of it has worked, some of it hasn’t. We’re learning from those and we are moving on and we wish all of the ones we didn’t renew with the best of success they can have going forward.’

      That’s his diplomatic response to the question.

  22. Emmitt says:

    Spotify gave the Sussexes millions of dollars with the expectation they would trash the royal family in their podcast or at least spill information like they did in the Oprah interview. But Spotify did not expressly say that’s what they wanted or expecteed because if they did, the Sussexes would not have agreed to the deal.

    Harry presented them with ideas which they dismissed because that’s not what they really wanted from Harry. It was ok because Spotify thought Meghan and her friends would sit around the podcast spilling tea and trashing the royal family. That did not happen but Archtypes was well received so Spotify was satisfied.

    Then the Netflix special and SPARE came out spilling the details Spotify thought they were paying the Sussexes to spill. THAT is the real reason why Spotify is pissed at the Sussexes and calling them grifters: because Spotify ordered X thinking they would really get Y but got X and the Sussexes delivered Y to Netflix and Penguin Random House instead.

    • Lulu says:

      You hit the nail on the head. 💯

    • honeychild says:

      Sounds right to me. And, I will also add, to put out the amount of content needed to satisfy that deal, podcasting would have to become their full-time job when they have the foundation and Invictus. It was never going to be that for them. But yeah, Spotify was mostly paying for royal family dirt and H&M were saving that for more lucrative and less time-consuming deals. I don’t blame them.

    • bisynaptic says:


    • Lady Digby says:

      Totally agree, this makes perfect sense. In retrospect I think H&M should have passed on this one, but what’s done is done, let’s move on.

  23. sammi says:

    This is purely run by The British Media to counteract the image of Do Little Duchess Kate and work shy Willy. The Sussexes and their advisors are taking the route of no comment as any comment will fuel the news coverage.