« Marketing YouTube's Greatest Hit: Psy's Gangnam Style Music Video | Main | 5 Kickstarter Killers Your Band Should Avoid Like the Plague »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Jeff - I value the ferocity with which you defend artists, and I feel we both have our hearts in the same place, but there are at least two things about this article and argument that are disingenuous.

Saying, "they need their company to become more profitable" about a company that is not profitable is misleading. You never mention in your entire article that no company, including Pandora, has yet to turn a profit under these compulsory licenses. This is not a situation where a company is thriving and looking to increase margins, as your article implies. Zero companies have been able to make these fees work, and it's silly to assume that it's because they aren't selling their ads for enough.

The second thing that gets left out of these arguments is what a fair rate truly is and why you think the unsustainable one Pandora pays is the right one. I don't see artists up in arms that Sirius is ripping off artists, and they pay considerably less. Why is it so evil for Pandora to lobby for the same rate that other companies in the space pay?

More importantly, what is the justification for the rate being what it is? Why not make it 6 dollars per stream? Is that more artist friendly? Sure. It's completely unreasonable, but it's a "wage increase" for artists, so let's lobby for that.

We can all recognize that $6 per stream is ridiculous. I would argue that the rates Pandora pays are also ridiculous. Other than thinking artists should earn more money in general, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the rate being what it is.


"More importantly, what is the justification for the rate being what it is?"

Isn't there a government funded rate-setting board that gathered lots of information from the various stakeholders and then set the rate at a place they deemed fair and appropriate?

Didn't this organization hear arguments from those same stakeholders the last time they met and adjusted the rates going forward?

What would be your suggestion to improve this process?

It seems to me that Pandora signed up voluntarily (by going into this business, and then selling the business to the public) to have their rates set by this entity. They had a chance to express their point of view, then the board set the rates. But Pandora didn't like where the board set them, so they are going over their helmet to congress and asking it to dissolve the exact board that congress setup to make decisions about these rates.


My primary suggestion for improving the process is that the rate be based on a percentage of revenue just like all other rates in the space. Saying that Pandora ought to pay a total of 40% for the music that their business relies on sounds pretty reasonable. Maybe even 50%.

Picking a per-stream number based on a historical willing buyer willing seller standard that doesn't take into account what the actual value of the material is, or that this is a new industry, doesn't make any sense. If that rate-setting organization picked $6 per stream, should we just assume they're smart people who know what's best across the industry? Isn't it reasonable to reassess the rates every few years based on the outcome of the previous rates?

We're in year X of absolutely no company being able to build a sustainable business on the current rates. Why is it unreasonable or evil to ask for a reassessment based on this fact?


So now Jeff is promoting Ascap, and everyone else is the enemy.
I seem to remember Ascap being the enemy when he was at Tunecore.


Time for a streaming service that demands exclusivity for a set royalty rate. The new iTunes streaming would be an ideal platform. They would have the clout to enforce their exclusive agreements with their artists. Hopefully Apple/iTunes consider such a model.I would be more than happy to enter into an agreement with Apple/iTunes streaming. I miss Steve Jobs.

jeff price


With all due respect, its not the artist's responsibility or burden to make other companies that use their music profitable. If Pandora's model does not work, then it just does not work. There are other companies that have come up with new models that do work. For example, Apple uses iTunes, iTunes Match and (soon) its new streaming radio service to drive hardware and software sales while reducing customer churn. Amazon uses it to get people to create Amazon accounts and buy other things that are not music. Best Buy lost money on CD sales by selling them more cheaply than they bought them to lure customers into their stores to buy other things. And there are more examples...

It's not "evil" (as you state) for Pandora to want to pay a rate that is lower that another company gets, what can be construed as "evil" is Pandora lobbying and suing to get the government to coerce the artist to do so.

The way to get the artist to buy in to what you create is by making it a must have of great value. Im not going to pretend its easy to truly create something of value, its not. Its damn hard. But that's what they have to do.

Look, if I'm at home and write and record a song, that's my song, my property. The idea that the government can force its way into my home and force me to have to license my property and/or dictate the price for it is wrong. Its my song, not yours, and if I want to charge you $6 for a stream, that's my right just as its your right to not use my music.

Mark Doyon

The internet radio broadcasters exist because of content, period -- they are simply distributors. So it's in their interest to devalue content, to make it more affordable to license, use, and sell:



Streaming sites should all be forced to pay the going royalty rate that radio stations have to pay.The $0.0001 for a stream is an complete joke & an insult to the artists.

They should respect the artists & pay them a proper rate after all if it wasn't for the artist they wouldn't be in business.


All of this "will somebody think of the artists" rhetoric is great on the surface (who doesn't want to root for the little guys?) but there are some serious holes in the logic of this post.

For example, if...

1. the government sets the royalty rates
2. Pandora wants to change the royalty rates
3. the government is the entity that has the power to change the royalty rates

...then why WOULDN'T Pandora try to lobby the government to change the rates?

In the comments you (Jeff) said:

"The idea that the government can force its way into my home and force me to have to license my property and/or dictate the price for it is wrong."

Didn't they already do that when they set the rates in the first place? Haven't they been doing that for decades for other forms of radio?

I'm as turned off by all this legislative nonsense as the next guy, but if it's to be avoided, the way royalties are determined would have to fundamentally change, and organizations like ASCAP and BMI would have to be willing participants in that evolution.


Okay, well, seems to me you're most concerned about the way copyrights work in general, yet painting Pandora out to be the bad guy for working within a system you don't like. It's like protesting a particular fighter in the UFC because you don't like cage fighting.


I agree with the premise of this statement, that even though Pandora is a public company, it has not turn a profit in its existence, and the same can be said for Spotify, Rdio etc. But Pandora's approach is flawed. Pandora uses other copyrighted under the compulsory statute of the Copyright act, which allows them to use this work without seeking permission from the copyright owners. For the master, Pandora pays upwards of 70% of its gross revenues to Soundexchange, and for publishers, I am not sure what the exact rate is. So, I believe, for this right, Pandora should pay the majority of their revenues to copyright holders. Pandora, instead of arguing for a decrease in rates, should gather the music industry and lobby for increased rates for satellite and terrestrial radio, and requiring terrestrial radio to pay a public performance right to master owner and artists musicians. This would be internet radio fairness, not the other way around.


I agree that it might be more artist-friendly if Pandora were lobbying alongside creators to bring other broadcasters' rates up while bringing their rates down, so that all companies pay a strong percentage of their revenue for the use of music. But unless the labels are going to get behind a rate decrease for Pandora in exchange for a rate increase from others, Pandora doesn't have that option. Without it, their only recourse is to lobby for them to be treated like everyone else, which is what they're doing.


I understand why Pandora is lobbying Congress, but from what I read recently in Billboard, most of the ire was directed towards NAB, and their unwillingness to pay a performance royalty for terrestrial radio to artists and master owners. This is were the will of the artistic community is going, and if an entrepreneur decides to start a music service based exploiting music content under the compulsory statute, it's a business model that is unsustainable. There are options, and Pandora could choose a different model, to do what Spotify has done, and negotiate directly with rights holders, or go a different approach. There's plenty of musical content that is not owned by the major publishers and labels, and with the emergence of authors being able to recapture rights, Pandora, or any other music start up could build a viable business exploiting true newly discovered content.


That is accurate in theory but not practical. The bulk of Pandora's listeners are there to hear mainstream music with some discovery mixed in. In addition to the operational burden it would impose to acquire licenses directly with thousands of small rights holders, it still wouldn't make up for the millions of Coldplay streams they serve up every month. They will have to get reduced rates on mainstream content if they are to survive, and once they have, they have even less incentive to play emerging music at a higher royalty rate, or greater operational cost to acquire the content. So, yes, they could do what you're suggesting, but it would take a long time, a lot of money, would be a huge shift in their product offering, and still wouldn't address the content most sought after by their audience. Long story short, what is best for the industry is for them to have a sustainable rate that lets them play what they want to while paying an equitable fee to a wide variety of artists.


Really, I don't agree with your premise, that the bulk of Pandora's listeners are there to listen to music they can hear on terrestrial radio, youtube, or on some peer to peer file sharing network. They are there because Pandora is a legal option as opposed to pirating music, so I don't believe Pandora has to utilize the music of majors labels and publishers to have a viable business. Just look at the history of youtube. The platform was created to share videos, and now more people go to Youtube for music, than they listen to Pandora. I believe if you build it, they will come. The license itself can be located in the user agreement, which eliminates the need for the service to seek out anyone...let them come. Of course there is marketing, but Pandora spends money to market their service currently. As it stands, if the Internet Radio Fairness Act as written fails, what is Pandora's option. They either go out of business, or come up with a new model, and now they are a publicly traded company (which I believe was a mistake to go public), their founders and executive management team can't put all their eggs in the "I hope Congress passes the Internet Fairness basket," Pandora has to have another strategy if their lobbying efforts fail.


Great article and no matter what side of the debate - there is no doubt so many facets of the music industry needs to change.

We are building an equitable and sustainable platform and community for the betterment of this industry and I would love if you could check it out. Support the cause if possible, and share with others. Thanks so much.



with all due respect, the % of revenue model would mean that I could decide not to monetize at all and give the artists 40% of nothing. We already have that - its called Pirate Bay.

The % of revenue model puts zero risk on the company and shifts it all to the artist. The artist is left asking "ok, I get 40%, but its 40% of whatever you can sell, and I get no say in how you develop, price, or market your product."

Sounds like you want all the artists to essentially become business partners with any company that wants to be there partner, yet the artist gets no say in the business with whom they are partnering.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources