If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Pandora begins long march toward failure and irrelevance, limits free mobile listening to 40 hours per month   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 66
    More: Interesting, Tim Westergren, royalty rate, cost overruns  
•       •       •

2012 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Feb 2013 at 7:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 01:56:30 AM
"After a close look at our overall listening, a 40-hour-per-month mobile listening limit allows us to manage these escalating costs with minimal listener disruption."  ... or listen for free on a desktop

In other words, we want to take the Hulu+ Approach and are going to blame our costs even though there is advertising on both the website and the app, we know people like to stream from their devices.


www.nationofblue.com
 
2013-02-28 02:13:30 AM
You think competitors will eat those increased costs of operation? Want to buy a bridge?
 
2013-02-28 02:13:53 AM
So... Spotify then?
 
2013-02-28 03:58:27 AM
It's shocking that a company would limit how much free stuff they're willing to give away.

How can they expect to run on such a business model?
 
2013-02-28 04:08:04 AM

kmmontandon: It's shocking that a company would limit how much free stuff they're willing to give away.

How can they expect to run on such a business model?


What, they took the ads out?
 
2013-02-28 05:32:41 AM

Gig103: "After a close look at our overall listening, a 40-hour-per-month mobile listening limit allows us to manage these escalating costs with minimal listener disruption."  ... or listen for free on a desktop

In other words, we want to take the Hulu+ Approach and are going to blame our costs even though there is advertising on both the website and the app, we know people like to stream from their devices.


[www.nationofblue.com image 299x156]


I just want to note, that for the record, internet radio services are discriminated in US copyright laws with regards to royalties compared to their terrestrial radio counterparts. Terrestrial radio stations and other similar services only pay around 10-15% of their revenue for licensing fees. Streaming internet radio are required to pay 55%. This has left most streaming radio services utterly unable to generate a profit even though they are able increase their subscriber base.

This is why Pandora is doing this. They are left with no other choice. You're sounding awfully uninformed to judge them like this.
 
2013-02-28 06:54:44 AM

Summoner101: So... Spotify then?


That's where I'm headed. The hubby already pays for the premium service and I've played around with it. It's so much better than Pandora.
 
2013-02-28 07:56:30 AM
It's not their fault we have outdated laws that lets terrestrial radio play songs for free AND makes tons of money with advertising, while satellite and internet radio have to pay money for every song they play. The only way they can make up that money is to pass it on to consumers. Don't look for Congress to even the playing field. The music and terrestrial radio industries have them in their back pockets.
 
2013-02-28 08:07:17 AM
radio doesn't play music for free ASCAP and BMI charge a lot of money it's a huge cost really.
 
2013-02-28 08:20:19 AM
Didn't they used to do this? Then they stopped and started playing audio ads between every 3 or 5 songs?
 
2013-02-28 08:35:24 AM
FTA:  Mobile listeners who exceed the new limit can subscribe for 99 cents for the remainder of the month, subscribe for $3.99 a month to Pandora One or listen for free on a desktop, the company said.

Oh the horror of .99 ¢ for a small section of listeners.

The royalty rates they're expected to pay are too high, but that doesn't mean the business shouldn't exist. There's a bill before Congress about the royalties, but in our do-nothing Congress, I expect no vote on it.
 
2013-02-28 08:35:45 AM

mikey15: radio doesn't play music for free ASCAP and BMI charge a lot of money it's a huge cost really.


OK I worded that wrong, they pay those fees, but not others that satellite and internet radio have to pay:

From the SiriusXM page:

Why does SiriusXM Radio pay music royalties?
Music royalty rights were established by Congress and are the product of the Copyright Act. Unlike terrestrial radio, SiriusXM is required to pay copyright music royalties to recording artists, musicians and recording labels that hold copyrights in sound recordings (the actual recording of a work). Like terrestrial radio, SiriusXM must also pay music publishers who hold copyrights in musical compositions (or the lyrics and music) through their collective organizations such as ASCAP and BMI.

Who benefits from the U.S. Music Royalty Fee?
The U.S. Music Royalty Fee funds existing and anticipated royalty payments to the music industry, which includes writers and artists.

How much is the U.S. Music Royalty Fee?
The fee is currently $1.81 on our base $14.49/month Select subscription package and $1.25/month for plans that are eligible for a multiple radio discount. The fee may change in the future and your fee may vary depending upon the Package and Plan term you choose. For the complete list of packages impacted by the U.S. Music Royalty Fees effective February 1, 2013,

This sh*t is passed along to me now. Like me paying $14.49 a month isn't already a pain in the ass.
 
2013-02-28 08:39:14 AM
Grooveshark.
 
2013-02-28 08:40:47 AM
People who pay $5 a month for fark are complaining about 99 cents? This is what the internet has come to?
 
2013-02-28 08:45:35 AM

Bontesla: Summoner101: So... Spotify then?

That's where I'm headed. The hubby already pays for the premium service and I've played around with it. It's so much better than Pandora.


I got a login for Spotify a while back, but never really toyed with it.  Does it give you 'recommendations' like Pandora used to?  (IE, I like Song A, B, C, and it plays D, E, F as well?).
 
2013-02-28 08:45:48 AM
Sooo, shoutcast then
 
2013-02-28 08:47:51 AM
You could always.. y'know.. subscribe and support them.

Or just b*tch about only getting 40 hours of free entertainment.  Either way.
 
2013-02-28 08:50:55 AM
I never got any ads using the Win7 desktop widget/gadget.

Not allowed to stream at the New job.
 
2013-02-28 08:51:29 AM
By the way, because I support Pandora, I am a paying Pandora One subscriber and I think if you've got $36 dollars to spare (for the year) you should definitely give it a try.

/It's way cheaper than my last bar bill.
 
2013-02-28 08:54:53 AM
First off, 40 hours a month is plenty for most people. Second, the full year subscription is $36 up front. That's a decent night out. No ads, no interruptions for a whole year, totally worth it.
 
2013-02-28 08:56:18 AM
Pandora's annual fee is super cheap, like $3 a month. I've been a music pirate since Napster, but jeez, even I will pay $3 a month for streaming music in the gym, car and home, for me and my wife.

Pandora and Spotify are very different. Spotify is very good for playing entire albums, Pandora is very good for playing shuffled radio.

If you use Pandora, you should go ahead and enter 100 artist or genre radio stations, even if there is only a subtle difference between some of them; then just set it on 'shuffle' and let it run with a huge variety. True it makes some of the transitions between songs awkward (playing Bob Wills after Clash etc.)  but it's not that hard to hit the FF to the next song within a couple of beats.

My only complaint with Pandora is it's tendency to play live versions of songs over studio. Maybe the rights are cheaper.
 
2013-02-28 08:59:22 AM
Begins subby?  Pandora has sucked from day 1.
 
2013-02-28 09:05:02 AM
Stranded On The Planet Dumbass:
My only complaint with Pandora is it's tendency to play live versions of songs over studio. Maybe the rights are cheaper.

More likely there are just more live versions available than there are studio versions.  I've noticed that Pandora will sometimes play a song, and then a few songs later play the same song from a different album or the live performance of the same song.  They apparently don't do a great job of flagging semi-dupes.
 
2013-02-28 09:09:05 AM
Christ Almighty, people, if you're listening to a full work weeks worth of Pandora, plus some, then just spring for the subscription. I think it might be worth it for you.
 
2013-02-28 09:09:19 AM
Meh, I've always used Slacker. It has a much better stand-up comedy channel anyhow.
 
2013-02-28 09:14:51 AM

the_geek: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass:
My only complaint with Pandora is it's tendency to play live versions of songs over studio. Maybe the rights are cheaper.

More likely there are just more live versions available than there are studio versions.  I've noticed that Pandora will sometimes play a song, and then a few songs later play the same song from a different album or the live performance of the same song.  They apparently don't do a great job of flagging semi-dupes.


There are all kinds of rules about that. They can't play another song from the same album within X minutes of Y songs of the first one, or else they go to jail for longer than if they raped 1000 people.
 
2013-02-28 09:15:49 AM
How about this:

Since music and art are the least important aspects of society, we pass a law that musicians and artists have to be paid less than teachers, police, military and firefighters.

Sound good?
 
2013-02-28 09:16:40 AM
For those of you pointing out that ever-escalating label royalties (I refuse to call them just 'royalties' when so little, if any of it actually goes to artists) are leaving Pandora with little choice but to pull shenanigans like this:  you're right.

That's the point, of course.  First, leave them no choice but to resort to the kind of things that will drive away subscribers.  Then leave them no choice but to shut down.  More money for the labels, period.  At least, that's how they think.  Keep strangling those golden geese for their shiny tears, guys.  The eggs just don't come fast enough for some people...
 
2013-02-28 09:38:18 AM
$36/year doesn't really break the bank, guys.  You pay more to read a free website.
 
2013-02-28 09:58:25 AM
Pretty sure all those Bieber fans will find another source.

www.mainstreetmallonline.com
 
2013-02-28 11:10:31 AM

Bontesla: Summoner101: So... Spotify then?

That's where I'm headed. The hubby already pays for the premium service and I've played around with it. It's so much better than Pandora.


I love my Spotify account.  We have apps for our phones, laptops, Roku, and tablets.  $10 a month and as long as we don't use more than one device at once, we're set.  Totally worth the price.
 
2013-02-28 11:13:33 AM
i thought they had the 40 hour limit for a while or was it just on computer usage? if upset about that you reach your 40 hr limit before month end, just make another free account.
 
2013-02-28 11:25:40 AM

TheOtherGuy: For those of you pointing out that ever-escalating label royalties (I refuse to call them just 'royalties' when so little, if any of it actually goes to artists) are leaving Pandora with little choice but to pull shenanigans like this:  you're right.

That's the point, of course.  First, leave them no choice but to resort to the kind of things that will drive away subscribers.  Then leave them no choice but to shut down.  More money for the labels, period.  At least, that's how they think.  Keep strangling those golden geese for their shiny tears, guys.  The eggs just don't come fast enough for some people...


You pretty much nailed it.  The funny thing is music piracy declined 12% from 2011 to 2012 precisely because of licensed music streaming services like Spotify and Pandora.

So of course in the big labels infinite wisdom, we got to price those into extinction, which will then drive everyone back into piracy.    They still can't give up the ghost that the days buttraping people for $19 a CD album are long, long, long gone.
 
2013-02-28 11:31:15 AM

Summoner101: So... Spotify then?


Sure, if that's your preference.  Just know it's just a matter of time before Spotify also raises their membership prices and/or restricts service,  considering they suffered about $60 million in net losses last year.
 
2013-02-28 11:37:06 AM

Summoner101: So... Spotify then?


investorplace.com
 
2013-02-28 11:50:06 AM
As a non-paying mooching Pandora member, this seems reasonable. I listen to it a lot, but don't think I've ever listened to 40 hours worth. I used to use Slacker, but I didn't find the selection that great.

Also, I almost NEVER get an ad or interruption when streaming from my phone...maybe it's because I have it blocked to "phone home" my location, etc., but I can listen it for 4 hours straight and not hear a single ad.
 
2013-02-28 12:24:20 PM

RexTalionis: You're sounding awfully uninformed to judge them like this.


The part I object to is that only mobile devices are being limited. If the commission is so high as to be unsustainable, why is it still free on the desktop?
 
2013-02-28 12:28:43 PM

Gig103: RexTalionis: You're sounding awfully uninformed to judge them like this.

The part I object to is that only mobile devices are being limited. If the commission is so high as to be unsustainable, why is it still free on the desktop?


from what i gathered in the article, they make more money for the ads that go on the desktop than they make for ads that hit mobile devices.
 
2013-02-28 12:39:20 PM

RexTalionis: Terrestrial radio stations and other similar services only pay around 10-15% of their revenue for licensing fees. Streaming internet radio are required to pay 55%. This has left most streaming radio services utterly unable to generate a profit even though they are able increase their subscriber base.


this kind of talk always confuses me.  if I pay 95% of my profits, I'm still making a profit.  so, you make X and you must pay 95% of X.  still puts you in the black by 5%.  might be a shiatty business model, but then you hope you can increase volume so 5% means something.

oh yeah, none of this applies if pandora is public.  public shareholders could give a fark about a successful business model, they just want a higher profit margin than last quarter, because they will dump the stock in 3 months anyways.  strange how public corporations these days have forgotten a major reason for incorporation: to keep management power with the officers, not the investors.
 
kab
2013-02-28 12:47:44 PM

Kyro: You could always.. y'know.. subscribe and support them.

Or just b*tch about only getting 40 hours of free entertainment.  Either way.


This is a nation of entitled listeners who are convinced that music should be transmitted to their earbuds without them ever having to spend a nickel.   So don't expect the biatching to stop

And seeing the absolute pittance that artists make from pandora / spotify etc, ... if they go away, nothing of value will be lost anyhow.
 
2013-02-28 12:59:00 PM
I stopped using the service after the annoying ad gimick. There are way too many competitors to go to as alternatives.
 
2013-02-28 01:41:19 PM
Why do people listen to any service at all when youtube exists? Mobile, laptop, tablet, etc. It works on all of them. You search and choose what you want, done.
As far as my understanding goes, Pandora also only lets you skip a certain amount of times?? wtf is that??
 
2013-02-28 01:42:22 PM

the_geek: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass:
My only complaint with Pandora is it's tendency to play live versions of songs over studio. Maybe the rights are cheaper.

More likely there are just more live versions available than there are studio versions.  I've noticed that Pandora will sometimes play a song, and then a few songs later play the same song from a different album or the live performance of the same song.  They apparently don't do a great job of flagging semi-dupes.


Again, by putting in the limit of 100 different artist stations, I get very few repeats on shuffle. I even expand it further by adding additional bands on the 'add variety option.
 
2013-02-28 01:50:08 PM
Started with pandora
Moved to Grooveshark
Now with Spotify

My complaint with Spotify is the ads for hip hop when I'm listening to something like Johnny Cash with a little Jimi Hendrix in the mix.  WTF?  Do they not target their ads or are they just incompetent?

/nothing trumps piracy
 
2013-02-28 02:03:02 PM
I use Pand

sure haven't: Why do people listen to any service at all when youtube exists? Mobile, laptop, tablet, etc. It works on all of them. You search and choose what you want, done. As far as my understanding goes, Pandora also only lets you skip a certain amount of times?? wtf is that??


I use Pandora so I don't have to think and I'm not subject to the limits of my memory. Like, I can fire it up for the hour I'm at the gym or driving the car, or have guests over and it plays a variety of music that stays interesting and fresh. I don't have to fiddle with it and I get artist within my selected genre's that I may not know or may have forgotten.

My Pandora list is Blues heavy but I also have band stations in Zydeco, Punk, Western Swing, Prog, Surf, Rockabilly, Power Chord, Novelty, Bakersfield, Soul, British Invasion, Austin Bands,  Afro-beat and Electronic (etc). I've been adjusting the ratio's to get the variation where I want it.

Fer instance, I had Malford Milligan, Storyville and David Grissom  on the list of 100, but i was getting a little too much of it. So I made Storyville the station and added Malford and David as variety. Now that "sound" is 1/100 of my playlist instead of 3/100.
 
2013-02-28 02:14:15 PM

kab: And seeing the absolute pittance that artists make from pandora / spotify etc, ... if they go away, nothing of value will be lost anyhow.


Considering that Pandora forked over 50% of all their revenues ($120 million in Q4 2013)  to purely royalties, seems like the problem is the artists have negotiated a shiatty deal for their themselves and someone else is getting filthy rich on their digital rights.

michiganleftblog.com

Same as it ever was.
 
kab
2013-02-28 02:28:10 PM

InmanRoshi: Considering that Pandora forked over 50% of all their revenues ($120 million in Q4 2013) to purely royalties, seems like the problem is the artists have negotiated a shiatty deal for their themselves and someone else is getting filthy rich on their digital rights.


Implying that that all acts on Pandora etc are signed to labels.
 
2013-02-28 03:05:14 PM

kab: InmanRoshi: Considering that Pandora forked over 50% of all their revenues ($120 million in Q4 2013) to purely royalties, seems like the problem is the artists have negotiated a shiatty deal for their themselves and someone else is getting filthy rich on their digital rights.

Implying that that all acts on Pandora etc are signed to labels.


You're right.   If there is no demand to listen to your music, Pandora isn't going to pay you very much.   Nor is any other business model.
 
2013-02-28 03:34:17 PM
I pay for the premium Pandora. It's like $30 a yea ... not that expensive. Plus, its opened me up to a lot of artists I normally would have never listened too. And it's great for parties. Set your music tastes and let it run all night.
 
2013-02-28 03:39:49 PM
Fark 'em....I listen to Pandora (free) pretty much every day from 6AM to 3PM...and I love it, but if they limit me, I'll find another free service (cuz there WILL be another one)....
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report