Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Pandora’

Hey Alexa, Where’s My Money? Address Unknown Update Courtesy of Paperchain

July 17, 2017 1 comment

We get an update this week on the total “address unknown” mass NOIs filed with the Copyright Office for the royalty-free windfall loophole.  This time we have to thank our our friends at Paperchain in Sydney for doing the work of decompressing the massive numbers of unsearchable compressed files posted on the Copyright Office website.  As you can see, there’s been an increase of approximately 70% since January 2017.   (For background, see my article.)

As you can see, Amazon is still far and away the leader in this latest loophole designed to stiff songwriters, followed closely by Google.  However, Spotify is moving on up.  Spotify does get extra points for starting late in March 2017, but they are catching up fast filing over 5,000,000 as of last month.

To put this in context–the Copyright Office as recently as September 2015 posted these “address unknown” NOIs in a single searchable PDF.  However, the Copyright Office  apparently changed the practice abruptly in early 2016 once the Big Tech hammer came down.  Based on the last PDF I could find, the total number of “address unknown” NOIs filed with the copyright office from January 2010 to September 2015 was approximately 4,800.

NOI 2015 Era Date Detail

Compare that approximately 4,800 in five years to approximately 45 million in 18 months.

Notable in its absence:  Apple Music has not filed a single address unknown NOI.  Somehow Apple seems satisfied with their licensing practice based on an absence of a single NOI.

NOI Table
Licensee Paperchain 4/16-6/17
Total 45,856,225
Amazon Digital Services 23,977,548
Google, Inc. 10,386,238
Spotify 5,020,002
Microsoft 3,522,100
iHeart Communications 1,565,763
Pandora Media, Inc. 1,316,512
The Overflow.com Inc. 66,326

Big Tech’s Latest Artist Relations Debacle: Mass Filings of NOIs to Avoid Paying Statutory Royalties (Part 1) — Music Tech Solutions

September 29, 2016 Comments off

Google, Amazon and MRI are reportedly filing “millions” of NOIs with the Copyright Office after buying data out the back door of the Library of Congress–all to avoid paying statutory royalties.  This takes “carpet bombing NOIs” to a whole new level of hurt for songwriters, and forces the Copyright Office to be complicit in the wholesale rip off.

via Big Tech’s Latest Artist Relations Debacle: Mass Filings of NOIs to Avoid Paying Statutory Royalties (Part 1) — Music Tech Solutions

@hannajkarp: Will Pandora Be Allowed to Create A Spotify-Style Black Box for Songwriters AND Screw pre-72 Artists? — Artist Rights Watch

August 22, 2016 Comments off

 

Members of MIC Coalition That Lobbied DOJ for Changes to ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees

 

Songwriters are about to allow another digital service to launch with all the makings of another Spotify-style black box.  How will Pandora use the new Copyright Office NOI filing rules to screw songwriters and will foreign societies allow a US user to benefit from blanket licensing when it is not fully licensed in the US?

via @hannajkarp: Will Pandora Be Allowed to Create A Spotify-Style Black Box for Songwriters AND Screw pre-72 Artists? — Artist Rights Watch

daniel-ek-spotify-ceo-2012billoardspoof-2

The MTP Interview: David Lowery on the CRB Webcasting Rates

December 21, 2015 1 comment

This post is the second of a two part interview with Blake Morgan and David Lowery about the newly announced webcasting rates as determined by the Copyright Royalty Board.

MTP: How do you feel about the CRB decision in general as far as rates go?  

Well it’s a mixed bag.  Leans bad.  The rates went up marginally for Pandora, and that seems to be the lead in the press.  But it looks like rates went down for other webcasters.  You saw Pandora stock popped on the CRB news?   Sometimes markets tell you what no one dares say.  The markets are saying that this is good for webcasters and bad for artists.  Of course you won’t see that in the tech or music business press.  [Billboard posted one story on the wave of negative reactions at press time after David’s interview.]

MTP: Was this more of a victory for the Pandora/Clear Channel/Google MIC Coalition or for artists?

Definitely more of a victory for the MIC Coalition, and here is why:  The CRB allowed the Merlin-Pandora and WMG-IHeartRadio [Clear Channel] deals as evidence of free market deals.  I believe that at least the Merlin deal is illegal because it is payola.  IN CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL AIRPLAY value went from Merlin labels to Pandora [now an FCC broadcaster].   Possibly the WMG deal is the same.  I’m less familiar with that deal.  How can an illegal contract be the basis for CRB rates?  What happens if the FCC gets off its ass and rules that Merlin/Pandora deal illegal?  Does the CRB go back and reset rates? Uncharted territory here. Whats next? Multinational corporations contracting to bribe executives to get a lower per stream rate?  Would that be allowed as evidence?  I really think artists need to contest this with the Copyright Office. 

MTP: Do you feel compensated for the value lost from the last CRB when Pandora got the CRB rates cut substantially?  Do you think that the CRB had in mind restoring what was taken away in the last rate setting five years ago?

Well first we have to pretend that micro pennies are a form of compensation. Second the CRB has no business “taking” value from anyone.  They are supposed to be setting rates at market rates.  But, no,  they haven’t made up for the amount that they took from artists last time.  

MTP:  How about no rate increases in the out years other than indexing to the Consumer Price Index?  I saw someone online suggesting that indexing essentially froze the 2016 royalty rate and just adjusted for inflation so that artists essentially would be paid 2016 value for the next five years.

This makes me really mad. This is federally mandated wage stagnation.  Basically this says if there is any “upside” in the value of streaming music over the next 5 years performers won’t participate.  If you think of songwriters and performers as being the public, this is the classic federal scam:  socialized costs/privatized profits.  It’s stunning that people in Washington can’t see their policies create the income inequality they decry.

MTP:  The press seems to always refer to the fact that Pandora “hasn’t turned a profit” yet, and tries to create this impression that Pandora is an otherwise well run company with $1.1 billion in revenue, zero debt, government mandated below market vendors, SG&A over 40% that’s going on an acquisition binge for unrelated businesses with no regard for integration costs—that also can’t manage to “turn a profit”.  Does anything bother you about that press profile?

Welcome to Web bubble 2.0!  I would say I’m looking forward to the coming crash, but I have a feeling that our pension funds will get left holding the bag.   SG &A you mean the Selling, General and Administrative costs right [in Pandora’s income statement]?   This is where they hide obscene executive salaries.  Pandora has paid out over 1/2 billion dollars in executive stock compensation since going public.   Does anyone else find this insane?  No. If you read the press, and I mean The New York Times or Wall Street Journal all you ever hear is how much Pandora is supposedly paying to artists.   I can’t wait for the New York Times to report that GROCERY STORES PAY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THEIR GROSS REVENUES FOR GROCERIES!  Where is that headline?  When do we get to hear that sound bite on NPR? 

Seriously, we should offer a prize to MBA students.  Best plan for making Pandora a profitable company.   How many of those plans would start with that 40% SG&A.  

MTP:  How does this MIC Coalition rate from the CRB affect licensing for any streaming service that Pandora may want to launch out of the ashes of Rdio?

Well this doesn’t directly effect the on demand rates, but I’ve always maintained that the artificially low rates paid by services like Pandora, has allowed them to offer music free, which in turn allows the on-demand services to argue for free tiers.   It’s a race to the bottom. Let’s put it this way: This CRB ruling certainly doesn’t help us get better rates from on-demand services. 

The MTP Interview: Blake Morgan and David Lowery on the CRB Rates

December 17, 2015 1 comment

MTP had a chance to catch up to Blake Morgan and David Lowery for an interview about the CRB rates announced yesterday.  This is the first of the two posts with Blake Morgan, read David Lowery’s interview here.

MTP: How do you feel about the CRB decision in general as far as rates go?

While I’m happy the Copyright Royalty Board raised Pandora’s non-subscription royalty rate by 21%, I can’t celebrate fully. The fact that webcasting rates were cut by 25% makes this mostly a wash, and flies in the face of basic respect for music makers.

MTP:  Was this more of a victory for the Pandora/Google MIC Coalition or for artists?

Overall, Pandora is going to have to pay 15% more than they have been paying, so it’s certainly not a victory for Pandora/MIC. Artists are going to get more, so that’s a win. However, it could have been a slam-dunk victory for artists, and I feel this is more of a squeaker.

MTP: Do you feel compensated for the value lost from the last CRB when Pandora got the CRB rates cut substantially?  Do you think that the CRB had in mind restoring what was taken away the last time around?

It’s hard for me to climb inside their heads, but it does feel like the CRB decided to make a “some for them over here, and some for them over here” kind of decision. This is a significant cost increase for Pandora, but it’s still less then what we wanted––so it’s like the CRB tried to drive right down the middle. If they were trying to restore what’d been taken away last time, and that’s all, then that would be really disappointing to me.

MTP:  How about no rate increases in the out years other than indexing to the Consumer Price Index?  I saw someone online suggesting that essentially froze the 2016 royalty rate and just adjusted for inflation so that artists essentially would be paid 2016 value for the next five years.

Yeah, that’s a little how I feel. But, I hope it doesn’t matter because there’s such a strong possibility that Pandora won’t even be around in five years. At least if they continue to run their business the way they have been recently.

MTP:  The press seems to always refer to the fact that Pandora “hasn’t turned a profit” yet, and tries to create this impression that Pandora is an otherwise well run company with $1.1 billion in revenue, zero debt, government mandated below market vendors, SG&A over 40% that’s going on an acquisition binge for unrelated businesses with no regard for integration costs—that also can’t manage to “turn a profit”.  Does anything bother you about that press profile?

I have yet to meet a music maker who isn’t bothered by this. Far too many people have noticed that Pandora’s founder, Mr. Westergren, has bought and is building what’s being widely reported as a “massive” mansion, with 14 bathrooms. Not turning a profit? How full of shit do you have to be to need 14 bathrooms in your house, man.

MTP:  What’s the reaction in the #irespectmusic community to this latest move by the MIC Coalition?  Do the new CRB rates make getting a royalty for terrestrial more or less important?

Securing a terrestrial radio royalty for artists remains the singular issue in this fight for music makers’ rights and respect that everyone I talk to supports. They agree it’s embarrassing that we have to even talk about it, that it’s embarrassing for us as a nation to not have it, and it’s critical in winning. Simply put: it couldn’t be more important. It’s a century overdue, and it’s time to get this done for American music makers.

Useless Streaming Artist Data: You Know Where to Put the Thumb

December 14, 2015 1 comment

Pandora and Spotify (among others) have made a big deal out of providing “data” and “analytics” about streaming uses to artists–and particularly managers–about how the artist is performing on their respective services.  The “artist data” meme is also offered up as a value add to counter complaints of low royalties.  There is a real question of how useful this “artist data” is and a recent CNBC article calls into question just how accurate it really is in the first place.

Of course the most valuable piece of “artist data” that services could at least help the artist acquire–the fan’s email address–they won’t touch.  Obviously, I’m not suggesting that the service hand over the fan’s email address to the artist without the fan’s consent, so let’s not go down that rabbit hole, a favorite of the services trying to avoid this issue.

What I am suggesting is that the service provide the fan with an opportunity to sign up for the artist’s own email list.  This could be as simple as a link that would take the fan outside of the service momentarily to the artist’s email list sign up page.  That way I don’t believe there are any privacy law issues for the service as there would be if the service just handed over the email address.

I have raised this with senior executives at Apple and Spotify and it went nowhere.  The Spotify person rejected the idea outright because it would take the Spotify user (aka the artist’s fan) outside of Spotify.  Strange, because the fan would be offered a choice.  You know–the fan of the artist who most likely was driven to the service by the artist they are streaming.  (This would produce another interesting metric based on the number of email list sign ups by service, but I digress.)

Aside from whether the type of information being provided is even useful to artists, there’s another question of whether the “artist data” is even accurate in the first place.  And how would you even know.

CNBC did a little fact checking on streaming data provided by iHeart Radio analyzing the recent Grammy nominees.  This isn’t exactly the same as the “artist data” being hawked by streaming services, but it is perhaps a good proxy (since it’s hard for artists to see each others artist data results).

iHeartRadio (owned by Clear Channel) gave CNBC the “artist data” for the most popular tracks on Clear Channel’s massive streaming operations.  But CNBC discovered by using simple logic–aka sequential thought–that Clear Channel’s “artist data” was wrong.  Because CNBC concerned itself only with massive hits, data checking was relatively simple (which of course makes the Clear Channel screw ups look even more idiotic).

Keep in mind as you read this that if you’re an artist using the “artist data” for its recommended purpose–discovering nuances about the service’s listening audience–it will almost certainly be more difficult if you’re not Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift.

 

In a blog post based on the original (aka wrong) data, iHeartRadio said Ed Sheeran took home the honor of “most-thumbed up” track of 2015 with “Thinking Out Loud.” Taylor Swift’s three big songs relegated her to second, third, and eighth place. (Update: the original iHeartRadio blog post was taken down. The link above is a cached version.)

More impressive in the original data was that Drake’s “Hotline Bling” was the most-thumbed up track in 26 states in 2015. That would be amazing because the song only came out in July and didn’t really catch on until the colorful video was released in October. Here is exactly what the blog post said about Drake:

Although the track didn’t premiere until mid-2015, with the unforgettable music video coming out just weeks ago, the last-minute addition of Drake’s “Hotline Bling” surprised and delighted the ears of listeners across the country, leading it to become the No. 1 most thumbed song of 2015 across more than 20 states!

But this didn’t make sense to us. Sure Drake’s song was popular, but how could it be the top song in half of all states even though it was only hot at the very end of the year?

More weirdly: how could Drake’s song be No. 1 in half of the states but not appear anywhere in the top 10 songs nationally.

CNBC pointed this out to Clear Channel, who admitted their mistake and “corrected” their bad data.  Yet that “corrected” data was FUBAR also according to CNBC:

The new data included the actual number of “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” by state. Of note is that Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” is the “most thumbed up” track in only one state — Hawaii. We find it is extremely unlikely that his track was actually the top track in the nation overall. IHeartRadio has not yet responded with further clarifications about the rest of its data set. We can’t check that against its original report, but we’re hoping to find out soon.

Of course, the new data set only included raw “thumbed” numbers for the top track in each state, so it’s possible that “Thinking Out Loud” had enough second-ranked “thumbs” to overcome Taylor Swift’s “Style,” but that seems unlikely.

So the thumbs didn’t have it after all?  Clear Channel miscounted?  Hard to say because we are entirely dependent on Clear Channel to provide the data backing up their work product.  But we know there was some kind of screw up because CNBC had to provide a link to a cached copy of the original Clear Channel blog post with the bad data.  If there’s no agenda here, why would Clear Channel try to hide their mistake from artists?

But good work by CNBC–except for one thing.  They continued the streaming service meme that somehow talent buyers and concert promoters care about how many thumbs you get when deciding to book a gig.

[C]oncert planners and promoters depend on data like this to create touring routes.

No, no, a thousand times no.  Clearly CNBC have never met a talent buyer. This is just simply not true.

Nonetheless, this CNBC post is a great example of how unreliable this “artist data” can be and just how hard it is to verify.  So hard that it may well be simply misleading to ask artists to take a lower royalty rate for what is most likely some species of snake oil.

They can keep their thumbs.  I’ll just settle for asking the fan to sign up on the artist’s site, thank you very much.

 

We Got Trouble My Friends, Right Here in Music City: The Spotify Meltdown Tour Continues

October 9, 2014 2 comments

I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends.

John Lennon

The Spotify “artist relations” team continued their swing West last night with a stop in Nashville at City Winery where a songwriter can grab a burger and a glass of red for a mere 350,000 plays–including tip!  And don’t forget to take home a bottle of Tres Amigos, a disruptive little house blend of malbec, bonarda and cab for a modestly priced 400,000 plays.

Now here’s the problem–the Featured Artist Coalition spent a good deal of time putting together these meetings with the best of intentions.  Although I was not present (I live in a flyover state, and you know how that can be), it appears to me that Spotify seems to think that these three events in New York, Nashville and Los Angeles are opportunities to sell their company by repeating their talking points as opposed to listening to the frustrations of artists and songwriters with their company.  I’ve yet to hear a comment from anyone present indicating that Spotify has any interest at all in listening to their customers.

When Garth Brooks was at his peak the last time around, I remember a story about him that stuck.  Garth visited the sales teams at some of the biggest retailers along with his label sales executives to discuss the set up for one of his albums.  After they’d all visited for a bit, Garth asked the label execs to leave the room and he stayed with the retailer’s sales teams.  “Now tell me what you wouldn’t tell me if they were in the room,” he said (or so the story goes).

That, you see, is a business-savvy artist.  This isn’t for everyone, but if artists are interested in their business like Garth, this is exactly the kind of thing you should do.  And this is exactly what Spotify should be doing and it appears that this is what the Featured Artist Coalition thought that Spotify would be doing.  Tell me what you wouldn’t say if your label or publisher were in the room because you’d be intimidated.

But from all accounts, Spotify is doing the opposite.  Instead of listening to the artists and songwriters, it appears that they thought these meetings were held for Spotify to instruct the invited audience–all of whom have better things to do–on why the Koolaide just tastes so damned good.  And remember where that “Koolaide” expression comes from.

The Nashville meeting apparently involved many raised voices and frustrating arguments between those who drank the Koolaide and those who did not.  It’s important to understand that when someone is watching their livelihood slip away, telling them they just have to have faith in people whose own livelihood has more to do with venture capital and IPOs than selling music is not a good look.  This is not an underwriters’ road show to sell stock.  These are serious conversations with people who are going broke for reasons that are not their fault.  This kind of approach did not work with Millerism or the Hale Bopp comet watchers and it’s not working for Spotify.  (Millerism was a 19th Century American religious sect whose leader predicted the second coming of Jesus Christ on October 22, 1844.  “Thousands of followers, some of whom had given away all of their possessions, waited expectantly. When Jesus did not appear, the date became known as the Great Disappointment.”  Sound familiar?)

William Miller, founder of Millerism

And what it boils down to is this–Spotify offers a crappy deal to artists and songwriters.  Spotify will say that their deals are with labels and publishers and they can’t help what the artists end up with financially.  That’s true–but Spotify needs to care what those creators end up with because at the end of the day, that’s who their business is built on.  It’s not just Spotify, by the way, the same is true of all these online companies, Pandora being a case in point.

There’s a schizophrenic aspect to this business.  The deals are not with the artists and songwriters directly, but the business is dependent on those creators.  Let’s be clear–Spotify needs those creators.  The creators do not need Spotify.  Music is not fungible.  Bits are.  You offer a crappy deal and people will turn you down every chance they get.   Eventually someone will offer a better deal.  It’s called a market.

Case in point–Garth Brooks.  Lots of people think that the reason Garth didn’t go digital years ago was because he was some kind of Luddite.  I don’t know the answer to this, but I don’t think that was the reason.

I think Garth held back for two reasons.  First, because he could.  Not all artists and songwriters are in that position.

But I think that the main reason was because the deals sucked.  Simple, right?  Why do a deal that sucks?

And guess what–they still suck.  And that is the message that Spotify is getting from artists and songwriters in New York and in Nashville.  I suspect that they’ll get that same message in LA tomorrow.  I say bravo to the Featured Artist Coalition for putting this together so that Spotify is forced to listen even for a few hours.  We can’t blame FAC for a money hungry tech company with Google on their board hijacking a good idea and screwing it up.  It’s evidence of amazing arrogance that it took so long for Spotify to figure it out.  But guess what?  I’d love to be wrong, but I will bet right now that nothing is going to change at Spotify, Pandora or any of the other tech companies that should be paying close attention to what is happening in these Spotify meetings.

If they’d only listened, they would have heard that message long ago.  Creators have screamed it from the rooftops, and last night they were screaming it in Nashville.

%d bloggers like this: