Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

theunderstatement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#51

Post by shortformblog »

From the original post: "I am also paid a seperate royalty for being the performer of the song. It’s higher but also what I would regard as unsustainable. I’ll post that later this week."

Footnote from this post: "He does clarify in the footnotes that $16.89 is only for 40% of the songwriting and there is a separate performance royalty, but certainly the headline & coverage could leave many with the impression that $16.89 was everything."

I'm not defending Lowery—he clearly wrote that post in an effort to draw negative attention to Pandora's practices—but he stated that the documents he threw online were outlining songwriting revenue—he made that delineation in the very first line of the post.

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#54

Post by awa »

chiph wrote: post #50
jcampbell1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the most recent 10Q. Revenue was $125M ($105 Ads / $20 Subscriber). Expenses: $82M Content, $10M hosting, $7M Prod Dev., $40M Marketing/Sales, $14M All Other. Net Result: $28M loss.

I wonder how much of that marketing costs are from their own interstitial ads between songs? I would think the cost to them is $0, but I wouldn't be surprised if they valued it at market rates. Perhaps to keep the IRS happy.

If they show a expenditure of $40M in MArketing for pandora ads, they are probably adding that $40M to their revenue

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#55

Post by encoderer »

aston wrote: post #49

If I told you there was an e-commerce company without a profitable year in over a decade of existence despite federally-mandated price ceilings placed on their suppliers, you'd be incredulous. If I then added that the same company was lobbying in Washington to get the price ceiling lowered, the pitchforks would be out. But then mention it's a company selling music, and people shrug, "Oh, well music should be free any…

But then you told them that the suppliers used a cartel model to prevent true competition in the marketplace......

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#56

Post by jcampbell1 »

chiph wrote: post #50
jcampbell1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the most recent 10Q. Revenue was $125M ($105 Ads / $20 Subscriber). Expenses: $82M Content, $10M hosting, $7M Prod Dev., $40M Marketing/Sales, $14M All Other. Net Result: $28M loss.

I wonder how much of that marketing costs are from their own interstitial ads between songs? I would think the cost to them is $0, but I wouldn't be surprised if they valued it at market rates. Perhaps to keep the IRS happy.

> I wonder how much of that marketing costs are from their own interstitial ads between songs?

Zero.

Marketing and Sales is primarily the cost of selling advertisements, including all the required employees. Selling $100M worth of ads isn't easy, (unless you are google).

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#57

Post by 205guy »

What I think is missing from this whole discussion is the ability to make a living. Sure the industry is opaque to outsiders, and some of the established practices are weird (radio paying only songwriters, not performers), and now it's all being disrupted.

But forget about the numbers for one song. Let's say a guy like the OP of the other article works full time as a singer song-writer. He writes a few songs, performs some of them, has others (more popular artists) perform some of them, and maybe he plays a few gigs himself (either as a musician in someone's band, or good enough to do his own shows). Let's say he's median successful. One or two of his songs (either recorded by him or someone else) is close to charting. People are listening to it online and radios are playing it. Other songs are getting played but not getting the same traction. He works 50-60 hours a week on music, either writing, recording, or performing. What kind of living can he make?

a) 20K and lives off of another job? b) 40K and struggles to pay rent? c) 60K and can survive? d) 80K and considered successful? e) 100K and lives comfortably doing what he loves? f) More and can live in expensive parts of the country (NY-SF-LA)?

How was it in the old system of labels and DJs? How has it changed with Pandora and iTunes?

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#58

Post by winterchil »

chiph wrote: post #50
jcampbell1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the most recent 10Q. Revenue was $125M ($105 Ads / $20 Subscriber). Expenses: $82M Content, $10M hosting, $7M Prod Dev., $40M Marketing/Sales, $14M All Other. Net Result: $28M loss.

I wonder how much of that marketing costs are from their own interstitial ads between songs? I would think the cost to them is $0, but I wouldn't be surprised if they valued it at market rates. Perhaps to keep the IRS happy.

This would absolutely not make the IRS happy.

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#59

Post by mikegioia »

205guy wrote: post #57

What I think is missing from this whole discussion is the ability to make a living. Sure the industry is opaque to outsiders, and some of the established practices are weird (radio paying only songwriters, not performers), and now it's all being disrupted. But forget about the numbers for one song. Let's say a guy like the OP of the other article works full time as a singer song-writer. He writes a few songs, perform…

I would say (d). A friend of mine was on a plane next to someone (I think in Deerhunter) and she was talking to him about his salary oddly. I remember it being around 80k but he wasn't working 50-60 hours a week. I think someone at that level is closer to 25-40 hours.

Re: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays

#60

Post by winterchil »

whiddershins wrote: post #13
Afforess wrote: post #5

Its easy to complain about the low pandora royalties, but these artists are essentially trying to kill the golden goose. Pandora currently spends > 50% of revenue on royalties. Any increases would almost certainly lead to the end of the company. $0 is a lot less than $1,300 for 1 million plays.

Arguing that high royalties make it hard for Pandora to do business is just bullying and threatening. Obviously if sharing songs via violating copyright weren't an option, listeners would happily pay a little more for Pandora premium or endure a few more commercials. Instead, the public starts from the stance that music should basically be free, and artists are lucky to be paid anything at all. The purpose of statuto…

They make more from Pandora than they ever did from radio... and their music accesses a larger audience.
Post reply on HN