This is an archived page from 2019. Find out more
We reported over the weekend that Spotify is in discussions to purchase Gimlet for $200 million. Gimlet is not commenting on the potential deal but the podcasting industry is.
We reached out to several industry experts. Here’s what they had to say about this potential deal and what it means for the podcasting industry.
Rob Greenlee is the Vice President of Podcaster Relations at Voxnest: “I think this deal signals Spotify’s intentions around original video series content more than just as a podcast content deal, though it is an important new ad revenue stream. Gimlet has paved a path to Hollywood using original podcast stories that have been used to drive increased revenue potential from video, of which Spotify wants to be involved in, to compete with Amazon Prime Video and Netflix on higher subscription revenue, upon which this $230 million dollar valuation of Gimlet is based. The key question is will these Gimlet podcasts be distributed externally or just behind the Spotify subscription paywall, because if they are not external can we really call those shows ‘podcasts’”?
Dave Jackson from The School of Podcasting: This would give Spotify a huge reason to promote podcasts (which I am told they do in larger cities like New York with billboards for the Joe Biden Podcast). That’s a good thing. The one thing we need more of in podcasting is listeners. With Stitcher having exclusive shows – and I’m assuming these would be exclusive – podcasting would lose the ability to have everything in your ONE favorite app. That’s sad. I consume video on my television using an Amazon Fire TV box. (I have to remember where I was watching a movie (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or HBO Go). Is that a hassle? Yes. Do I put up with it? Yes. Why? Because of word of mouth. I had enough people tell me about The Handmaid’s Tale (Hulu), Game of Thrones (HBO), and House of Cards (Netflix) that I eventually purchased those services. So if they ‘wall off’ these shows (and why wouldn’t they?) it will be inconvenient for the audience, but good for promoting audio content. It won’t personally affect me as I only listened to Start Up and quit listening halfway through season two. I wish Alex and the team at Gimlet all the best.”
Libsyn VP of Podcaster Relations Rob Walch: “There will be endless debate on if Gimlet was worth $200 million. That, however, should not be the focus, but rather the key takeaway on this deal (if it happens) is that Spotify has a much bigger incentive to not just promote the podcasts from Gimlet, but by proxy podcasting, overall. From that perspective this should be good news for podcasters and podcasting. Plus, if you are fan of Gimlet content, maybe this means less commercials you have to endure going forward”
Blubrry CEO Todd Cochrane: “This will be a major move by Spotify if the acquisition happens. The question I would have is would their content then become exclusive to Spotify. If so, this would amplify fragmentation of content. I cannot imagine them taking that tact, but one never knows.”
Podcast Strategist Evo Terra: “I’m excited to see how much disruption Spotify can do with this investment. Because they play the ‘mobile listening experience’ game better than anyone. No one has been able to figure out how to make playlists or social sharing work at-scale with podcasts. And we don’t know how that will change the game.”
Gimlet was founded in 2014 and claims its slate of podcasts are downloaded over 7 million times every month, with listeners from nearly 190 countries. Gimlet is behind hit series like StartUp, Reply All, and Homecoming. We have reached out to several of our contacts at Gimlet and are waiting to hear back.
Comments:
I don’t think Gimlet was ever conceived to be a long-term podcasting company. It’s a media company decorated by podcasts, and that’s how the venture capitalists who funded it saw the opportunity, jump on a trendy thing, funnel millions into it, and then cash out when the return is high enough. The people who started it may have been excited by podcasting, but their investors just wanted to get a good return selling a media company that had “podcasting” associated with it.