Pink Floyd on Pandora

The holy grail for the music industry right now is to create a cloud based subscription service locking consumers into a monthly payment that can be raised over time like the television cable model. The complexities come into play when the cash flow is carved up. Of course, the cable tv model is under pressure from the internet viewing model as technology continues to progress. I am encouraged by the resurrecting vinyl movement even though I own a ridiculous number of cd's. Music services are great in the car, but I still enjoy tangible assets with cool artwork, liner notes, and a full album of songs. Getting everyone associated with that production paid is the challenge.

What struck me in the Floyd-authored op-ed piece -- and what prompted me to post it here in the first place -- was the idea that Pandora, at least as the writers would have us believe, is attempting to snow the artists, saying one thing while hoping for another. If Pandora wants to change its royalty structure, it should be upfront about it.
There were plenty of stories back in the day about unscrupulous labels or "managers" or publishing companies (or whatever) getting someone who didn't know any better to sign onto an absolutely terrible deal. When I read this piece, it reminded me of those tales, making me wonder if this might be our era's version of same.
-- Howard

"What struck me in the Floyd-authored op-ed piece -- and what prompted me to post it here in the first place -- was the idea that Pandora, at least as the writers would have us believe, is attempting to snow the artists, saying one thing while hoping for another. If Pandora wants to change its royalty structure, it should be upfront about it."

I would agree with that. Its an op-ed piece though, so no assurance all the facts are related and assessed unbiasedly. I am not familiar with them so dunno. A cleverly disguised campaign for corporate advantage? Plenty of those that go around. Truth usually comes out in the end no matter what. We'll see....

Hodu - fair point.

I'ts likely that Pandora downplayed the negative impact of their proposal when they circulated their request for signatures on a petition. Companies tend to do that.
It's also clear that whatever case Pandora made in their request (i.e. that artists will ultimately benefit from the proposal) was downplayed in the USA Today piece. Indignant pronouncements tend to do that, too.

Again, I'm not defending Pandora here - I don't have enough information for that. I'm just pointing out that there are complexities here and the devil is so often in the details (which, of course, we lack!)

Marty

BTW - Full disclosure. I am a casual friend of the CEO of one of the major subscription music service companies. (It's not Pandora, but they're in the same boat as Pandora.) It's possible that my sympathies (and judgement) are colored by that relationship.

Wow, real interesting.
Yawn.....