The annual figures are decent, but the dominant topic for Spotify remains the Causa Joe Rogan.

It is not possible to estimate how many subscribers have quit in the course of the debate initiated by Neil Young about the star podcaster.

After Young's retirement, music stars such as Joni Mitchell, Nils Lofgren and Graham Nash have followed his example.

Bitter for Spotify, after all, one of the core promises of a streaming service is to have as much on offer as possible.

However, these artists will only be missing to a limited extent among the rather young user base.

But even if it were to stay with a few departures and layoffs were limited: The case is by no means settled with the introduction of the warnings on podcasts related to the pandemic, which are known from social media.

Rogan trouble won't be the last

The reason is Spotify's "audio first" strategy, in which its own content plays an important part.

That's the only reason why Rogan, who had previously caused controversy, was tied exclusively to his own platform for a lot of money.

Spotify has invested hundreds of millions in further exclusive contracts and acquisitions for podcast distribution and marketing in recent years.

So far, this has paid off in increasing advertising revenue and in the influx of users.

But offering your own content involves a different responsibility than just marketing someone else's work.

Rogan's trouble won't be the last of its kind.

The strategy means a balancing act for Spotify anyway.

Because the core business is still music, and the catalogs of the competitors are largely the same.

The trend towards well-funded exclusive releases – fueled by Apple about six years ago – only lasted for a short time and has not yet reappeared on a larger scale.

While streaming is the driving force behind the music industry's resurgence, it's not a big-margin business for the services.

Around two thirds of the income goes to the rights holders of the pieces of music.

Here's a key reason for Spotify's expensive bet on non-music content.

How musicians can use debate

The situation is made more difficult by the powerful competition.

Neither Apple nor Amazon nor Google have to make sure that their services are in the black.

According to the analysis company Midia Research, YouTube, number four among Western services, is currently recording the highest growth rates.

For Apple and Amazon, music services are just a part of their ecosystem.

This was shown most recently when both companies announced that they would from now on be offering hi-fi sound quality for the standard price of EUR 9.99, which has remained the same for years.

A surcharge was customary in the market to date.

Spotify presumably wanted to pocket this with their own offer.

It has not yet started after the competition, and Spotify is also cautious when it comes to price increases.

Of course, the Swedish service can still score with the status of market leader.

Spotify is the best platform for artists to make their works accessible to as many listeners as possible.

Of course, the fact that only a few can live off their streaming income alone is not just a Spotify problem.

It is in the nature of things and affects all services.

Streaming is a mass business, lucrative for artists with millions of hits a month or music companies with their huge catalogues.

In addition, musicians do not receive any money directly from the services, but from labels, publishers or distributors.

How much is ultimately left for the artists depends largely on the respective contract.

The basic logic of streaming can hardly be changed

Critics naturally want to take advantage of the current pressure.

Spotify's ad-supported free offering continues to be a thorn in some's side.

They are only too happy to point to the $100 million for Rogan.

In principle, Spotify could of course distribute more than around two-thirds of the income.

But all services will do their best not to have to do this.

Improvements such as a user-based billing model instead of distribution from a pot would also be welcome.

But they don't change the basic logic of streaming.

For artists and their partners, the real advantage of the hour is to draw fans even more attention to direct offers - be it fan articles, sound carriers or their own digital subscriptions.

Most people won’t want to do without the parallel (and cheap) luxury of a streaming service with millions of titles permanently available.

Whether this is called Spotify is another matter.