Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Zach
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in 2008/09/27/pandora-7084/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
@ M.Sputtering -
I hope that was sarcasm I was reading. If not, allow me to retort:
Explain to me how it's fair that Pandora pays 70% of its revenue in royalties to SoundExchange, while satellite radio pays ~9.5% and terrestrial radio pays nothing. Oh, and may I point out that some other outfits pay more? More as in 300-1200% of their revenue? Boosting the royalty payment from .0008 cents a song from .0017 cents a song - and that's retroactive to '06, I believe the year was - is going to hurt a site like Pandora which plays a lot of songs every day. So paltry isn't the word I'd use.
The fact is, internet radio is a new industry. It hasn't had a chance to get as established as terrestrial, and Pandora tried going all-subscription once (like satellite), which failed. Pandora isn't the only site that stands to be hurt by this, but it's probably the biggest. So the fact that we're hearing from them, well, it doesn't mean there aren't others behind them. (I guess I forgot to mention that the RIAA and SoundExchange support the bill. Yes, the same SoundExchange that was asking for more royalties. So they're not the only ones asking for this bill.)
Your argument reminds me a lot of an argument the head of SoundExchange made. Pandora is great, he said, but they need more ads. That's blaming the victim. The fact is, it's not their fault.
I hope that was sarcasm I was reading. If not, allow me to retort:
Explain to me how it's fair that Pandora pays 70% of its revenue in royalties to SoundExchange, while satellite radio pays ~9.5% and terrestrial radio pays nothing. Oh, and may I point out that some other outfits pay more? More as in 300-1200% of their revenue? Boosting the royalty payment from .0008 cents a song from .0017 cents a song - and that's retroactive to '06, I believe the year was - is going to hurt a site like Pandora which plays a lot of songs every day. So paltry isn't the word I'd use.
The fact is, internet radio is a new industry. It hasn't had a chance to get as established as terrestrial, and Pandora tried going all-subscription once (like satellite), which failed. Pandora isn't the only site that stands to be hurt by this, but it's probably the biggest. So the fact that we're hearing from them, well, it doesn't mean there aren't others behind them. (I guess I forgot to mention that the RIAA and SoundExchange support the bill. Yes, the same SoundExchange that was asking for more royalties. So they're not the only ones asking for this bill.)
Your argument reminds me a lot of an argument the head of SoundExchange made. Pandora is great, he said, but they need more ads. That's blaming the victim. The fact is, it's not their fault.
1 reply
Paul Glazowski
Agreed, Zach. The fees are not paltry. And one might argue that Pandora should try to make more money from advertising to offset costs, but to flip it around and ensure that it pays less than half of revenue for royalties would require an immensely larger number of advertisements. Pandora plans to include more and perhaps even present some mid-stream (every 10 songs or so, for example), but it just wouldn't be enough. They would also have to increase listenership drastically, but that would only require that the company pay more royalties. It's pretty much inescapable, unless something magical occurs.
9 months ago
in 2008/09/27/pandora-7084/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
I really hope this passes. I know this isn't the kind of thing that most people will vote on - "You voted to kill Pandora! I like the pro-life guy better now!" - but it's an issue of fairness.
I'd call my rep, but I live in DC, so she can't do anything.
I'd call my rep, but I live in DC, so she can't do anything.
1 reply
Paul Glazowski
Is your DC comment one with sarcasm involved, heh? I can't tell whether it is or not. :-)
