Has Joe Budden Built More Leverage—or More Resentment?

DJ Akademiks recently made an argument about Joe Budden’s podcast that caught my attention: Joe may be adding more co-hosts because he doesn’t want to give any individual co-host the same leverage Rory and Mal once had.

The thinking is understandable.

When Rory and Mal left, the podcast experienced a period of uncertainty. Joe had to reorganize the show, find new personalities and rebuild the chemistry. From that perspective, having multiple people around could make the business less dependent on any one person.

But I think there is another side to this.

Adding more co-hosts may create more leverage for Joe, but it could also create conditions where resentment develops among the people working with him.

Rory and Mal Absolutely Helped Build the Podcast

I can’t speak for Rory and Mal individually, but I can understand why there could have been a feeling that they played a major role in building what the Joe Budden Podcast eventually became.

Did they help the podcast?

Absolutely.

Anyone who watched those episodes understands that.

At the same time, I think they were sometimes at their best when they weren’t thinking so much about being “podcasters.” They were simply talking.

Once people become highly self-aware of the podcasting process, everything can change.

“I’m not going to say that.”

“I’m not going to talk about that person.”

“I probably shouldn’t say this.”

That can take something away from the natural chemistry that made people interested in the first place.

And if you reach the point where you don’t want to talk about certain people or subjects, maybe you need your own platform where you can decide what you want to discuss.

Joe’s Biggest Problem May Be Decision-Making

Where I disagree with Akademiks’ argument is the idea that adding more co-hosts necessarily gives Joe more leverage.

I think it can also create another problem.

Joe has previously been in situations where his position within the business became significantly more powerful. His executive role at Patreon and the company’s equity arrangement, for example, reflected a different level of business leverage than that of the people appearing alongside him.

There was also the decision to turn down Spotify.

The bigger issue isn’t necessarily whether those decisions were right or wrong. It’s that Joe has historically been in a position where he could make major decisions based on his own judgment.

And that’s understandable to a degree.

No matter how successful the podcast became, Joe was always going to have a different level of leverage because he was the central name associated with it.

He could afford to say, “No, I don’t want that deal.”

Everyone else didn’t necessarily have that same luxury.

That’s an important distinction when you’re building a business with multiple people.

The Business Should Have Been More Business-Like

Looking back at the Rory and Mal situation, I think there was a better way to handle the business side.

There should have been lawyers.

Separate managers.

Accountants.

Business representatives.

People whose job was to look at the numbers and make sure everyone understood exactly what was happening.

Instead of having conversations that essentially came down to, “I need you to show me something,” the business should have had systems in place that made the information clear to everyone.

And even if the numbers had been shown, that wouldn’t necessarily mean everyone would have agreed with what they saw.

That’s where having independent business people involved becomes important.

The goal shouldn’t simply be for everyone to trust the person running the business.

The goal should be to build a structure where everyone can independently understand the business.

But Rory and Mal Also Had an Opportunity

At the same time, I think Rory and Mal had an opportunity to create more value outside of simply appearing on the podcast twice a week.

From a business-building perspective, if you’re concerned about how much you’re contributing to a company, one way to demonstrate your value is to create more.

Build another show.

Develop another property.

Create something that generates revenue.

Create something that makes the business more dependent on your individual contribution.

That’s how leverage can be built.

Simply being present twice a week isn’t necessarily the same thing as creating additional business value.

That doesn’t mean Rory and Mal didn’t contribute significant value to the podcast. It means there are different ways an individual can increase their leverage within a growing media business.

And that’s part of what makes the current situation interesting.

More People Doesn’t Automatically Mean More Leverage

This brings me back to Akademiks’ argument.

Yes, if Joe has multiple co-hosts, he doesn’t have to worry as much about one person leaving.

But there is another potential consequence.

The more people you bring into a successful business, the more people can look at the business and ask:

“How much money is being generated, and how much of it am I receiving?”

If the business is publicly discussed as being worth tens of millions of dollars, the people working inside that business are naturally going to notice those numbers.

They may start comparing what they’re earning with what they believe the business is generating.

And that can create resentment.

I’m not saying that’s definitely happening with every current member of the podcast.

I’m saying that’s a natural business dynamic that can develop when people work closely with a highly successful person and have different levels of ownership, compensation and decision-making power.

The Revolving Door of Co-Hosts

I also think the future of the show could potentially become more revolving.

Instead of having one permanent group of people, you could have different personalities coming in for specific conversations.

Someone might come in for 20 minutes to discuss one subject.

Another person might be brought in because they’re particularly knowledgeable about something happening in entertainment.

Then Joe can look at the numbers.

How many people watched when this person appeared?

How long did they stay?

How much engagement did the episode receive?

That creates a completely different relationship between the host and the co-host.

And if that’s the direction the show is moving, then having a large permanent cast may not actually create the kind of leverage people assume it does.

Quantity Doesn’t Equal Quality

This is where I think the podcast has another potential problem.

Quantity does not equal quality.

Adding more people to a conversation doesn’t automatically make the conversation better.

If six or seven people are talking over one another, it doesn’t matter how expensive the cameras are.

It doesn’t matter how clear the audio is.

It doesn’t matter how much money was spent on production.

If I’m paying for an episode and people are constantly talking over each other, I’m missing information.

It’s like watching a movie where every actor talks over another actor’s dialogue.

You wouldn’t say, “Well, at least the picture quality is amazing.”

The production quality can’t fix a communication problem.

Maybe the Show Needs More Preparation

I also think the podcast could benefit from more preparation.

Hire producers who can provide a cheat sheet.

Give the hosts the dates.

Give them the important developments.

Give them the background.

Tell them what happened, when it happened and why it matters.

That doesn’t mean the show has to become overly scripted.

You can preserve the loose, conversational feeling while still making sure everybody understands what they’re talking about.

There’s a difference between being spontaneous and being unprepared.

Preparation doesn’t have to eliminate personality.

Sometimes it gives personality more room to shine because everyone understands the subject they’re discussing.

What Do the Listeners Actually Want?

I think another important question is what the audience is actually asking for.

From the comments and conversations surrounding the podcast, one recurring desire seems to be seeing Joe interview people who are relevant right now.

Not necessarily people who were famous decades ago.

Not simply reunions with people from another era.

People who are currently active, currently influential and currently part of the cultural conversation.

And I think Joe can get those people.

The issue is that Joe has previously expressed the idea that he only wants to interview people when he personally feels like interviewing them.

That’s a legitimate creative choice.

But there’s a difference between making a creative decision and giving the audience exactly what they’re asking for.

A content business has to balance both.

Maybe the answer is 80/20.

Do 80% of what Joe wants to do.

Use the other 20% to experiment with what the audience has been asking for.

That way, the audience doesn’t completely dictate the show, but they’re not completely ignored either.

When the Audience Becomes the Executive Producer

There’s another interesting dynamic happening.

Once audiences become heavily involved in criticizing every episode, every co-host and every decision, they can almost become an unofficial executive producer.

“This person is better.”

“That person needs to leave.”

“Bring this person back.”

“Interview this person.”

“Stop doing this.”

The audience starts grading the show like it’s an album.

But that doesn’t necessarily create leverage for the co-hosts.

In fact, it can create a situation where everyone becomes more replaceable.

If the audience believes one person is better than another, the business owner can simply change the lineup.

That’s why I don’t necessarily see having more co-hosts as automatically creating leverage for those co-hosts.

It could actually make individual personalities easier to replace if the business is structured around the show rather than around a particular ensemble.

What Happened to the People Who Had the Most Individual Identity?

This is another part I find interesting.

There have been personalities associated with the podcast who brought something distinct to the room.

They were informed, willing to push back and prepared to challenge other people on the podcast.

To me, those qualities are valuable.

If someone is willing to disagree, bring information and challenge the room, that’s a different type of contribution than simply being another person sitting at the table.

And when those personalities don’t remain around, I think it’s worth asking what the show is actually looking for from its co-hosts.

Is the goal to find people who complement Joe?

People who challenge Joe?

People who generate viral moments?

People who can carry conversations when Joe isn’t driving them?

Those are different skill sets.

The Real Question

So maybe the question isn’t whether Joe has more leverage because he has more co-hosts.

Maybe the real question is:

What kind of business does Joe want the podcast to become?

A permanent ensemble?

A revolving cast?

A personality-driven show with Joe at the center?

A media company with multiple individual personalities?

Those are very different businesses.

And each requires a different structure.

The podcast’s success has always been connected to personalities, chemistry and conversation. But once the business grows, the same things that made the show successful can also become sources of conflict.

More people can create more content.

More people can also create more opinions, more expectations and more potential friction.

And ultimately, more people sitting at the table doesn’t automatically make the table more valuable.

Sometimes the strongest business isn’t the one with the most people.

It’s the one where everyone at the table clearly understands their role, their value, their compensation and what they’re responsible for creating.