The More Pandora Sells, the More It Loses

originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:

Pandora Media Inc.'s 18% stock drop Wednesday is a sobering reminder that fractions add up, a tenth of a cent might not sound like a lot of money, except when advertising sales don't keep pace.

Pandora projected slower revenue growth and red ink in the current quarter, triggering a 19% plunge in the shares of the Internet radio company.

Pandora's music royalty costs, typically paid in tenths of a cent, are skyrocketing. At the same time, the more people who listen to Pandora via mobile devices, such as on smartphones, tablets or through car dashboards, the less advertisers pay to reach those listeners, compared to the ones listening on desktop or laptop computers.

In other words, the more successful Pandora becomes, the more it loses. And those through-the-looking-glass economics of Internet radio set off the drop in Pandora shares.

Pandora's audience statistics would be the envy of many media companies: In the most recent quarter, it had 59.2 million active users who listened to nearly 3.6 billion hours of music. And they appear highly loyal: its giant 47% uptick in active users was outpaced by a 67% increase in the amount of music served, meaning more people are using the service to listen to more music than ever.

Yet because Pandora must pay record companies and music publishers for every one of those "listens," its "content acquisition" costs—the price it pays the owners of all that music—rose nearly 75%. At $65.7 million, those costs ate up nearly 55% of Pandora's revenue for the three months ended Oct. 31.

Pandora's ad revenue totaled $106.3 million in the quarter, up 61%. It also brought in $13.7 million in subscription fees from users who pay $3 a month to listen without ads.

They are in many ways a victim of their own success according to Triton Research LLC, which analyzes startup companies for investors. (The firm is unrelated to Triton Digital, which audits Pandora's usage.)

While the company's audience and related costs have ballooned, 77% of its listening hours now take place on mobile devices, which generate less ad-sales revenue for the company than laptop and desktop listening.

The company sold $21.56 worth of ads per 1,000 hours of mobile listening in the past year—a slight uptick but less than half what it made from the same amount of desktop listening. The company made $55.18 in ad sales per thousand hours of desktop listening in the same period.

According to Pandora's CFO, if a TV network had to pay the production house more for every viewer of 'Breaking Bad'—and they didn't have a real ad-sales force in place—they would hate it if they had a big audience.

After their fall Wednesday, Pandora shares now trade at $7.80, close to their 52-week lows. The stock debuted in June, 2011 at $16 per share.

The company is making efforts to turn the situation around. Pandora's advertising sales force is 75% larger than a year earlier.

Pandora's CEO said they've demonstrated in Q3 that in mobile we can grow revenue faster than listener hours. We think we can continue that trend and that is what defines our success.

But the big issue facing the company is the cost of the music it plays, which is dictated by a blanket agreement between online radio companies and record labels, represented by an arm of their lobbying group called SoundExchange.

Under that agreement, which lasts through 2015, the rate goes up gradually each year. The rate paid per song will rise to 0.14 cent in 2015 from 0.11 cent this year. The rate schedule was negotiated in 2009, when Pandora was not the behemoth it is today.

Pandora has aggressively lobbied Congress for a law that would significantly cut those royalties. The Internet Radio Fairness Act, as the proposed legislation is known, may be the company's only chance at robust profits, says Triton's chief research officer.

He feels that from a strategy perspective it's the best single thing they could do for their business, without that, if they run their business perfectly, they are a low-margin business.

Pandora argues it has been paying disproportionate fees to artists, and that the legislation would put it on an equal footing with rivals. It also says whatever artists lose in the short term will be made up for in the future, because more attractive royalty rates would create a boom in Internet radio.

The Internet Radio Fairness Act would establish the same criteria for setting Internet radio royalty rates that is now applied to satellite radio company Sirius XM Radio Inc., SIRI +1.08% which pays significantly less than Pandora and other webcasters.

Not surprisingly, many artists, who stand to have their royalties cut sharply, object to the legislation, especially as Internet radio promises to catch on.

Jonatha Brooke, a singer with several albums released both on major labels and independently, estimates that one million plays of her work on Pandora nets her a bit less than $500. If the legislation passes, she believes proceeds from the same number of plays could be less than $100.

She says that these streams are becoming more and more important. The idea of Pandora crying the blues and wanting an 85% cut in what they have to pay me is just galling.

Ms. Brooke's name appeared with hundreds of other artists in an ad in Billboard magazine last month, criticizing Pandora's efforts on behalf of the bill.

Pandora's CEO will pay about $250 million in royalties to SoundExchange this year. He declined to speculate on how that amount may change in the future should the Internet Radio Fairness Act pass.

Pandora's founder says he has been trying to make personal contact with musicians about the issue. His hope and belief is that after this wave of rhetoric and mercenary type of PR, there will be a discussion based on the facts.

Spotify is Making Money for Record Labels

Telegraph UK

Revealing for the first time today how the commercial relationship works between the streaming service and the record labels, Rob Wells, the senior vice-president Digital for Universal Music Group International, declared Spotify a very sustainable financial model which was paying out well to the record labels which it has entered into licensing deals with.

Mr Wells disclosed that Spotify is paying Universal Music Group a royalty per stream in only two of its territories: the UK and Spain.

In its other four territories: Sweden, Norway, Finland and France, Spotify pays the record labels from the money generated by subscriptions and advertising and not on a per stream basis.

“In all its territories bar two, Spotify pays the labels from a mixture of the money it generates from advertising revenues and subscriptions. That to me equates to a sustainable business model,” he said.

According to Mr Wells Spotify only needs to convert approximately 10 to 12 per cent of its user base in any one territory into having subscriptions in order to make enough money to pay the record labels in this way.

Mr Wells said it was “lagging behind” in the UK and Spain because of the extremely high quantity of people using the service for free – meaning it was a more difficult task to convert 10 per cent of a much larger number into subscribers. Spotify has recently re-turned on the ‘invite only’ mechanism in the UK to limit the amount of users on the site.

No official figures have been released to show how many people pay £9.99 a month to subscribe to Spotify’s premium service in the UK, which offers an advert free experience. However, it is still thought to be a low number.

Mr Wells also divulged that Spotify was Universal Music Group International’s (which covers all territories bar America, Canada and Mexico) fourth largest digital partner last year in terms of the amount of revenue it generated for the company. He would not make it known which companies were the top three highest earning digital partners but according to several music industry sources, Apple’s iTunes and Google’s YouTube are thought to feature in the top two.

Up until now, there has only been speculation as to how the financial arrangements work between Spotify and the labels. It was a badly kept secret since the music service launched that not only do the major music labels have equity in Spotify, but so do the major independent labels. However, there are still no details as to how those equity deals were reached – whether the labels invested money or agreed to waive certain royalty fees until the company were in a position to pay out revenues from subscription and advertising.

It has been predicted by senior figures in the music industry that if Spotify continues to keep growing at its same pace, it will be a really significant new revenue stream for the music industry by February 2010, as disclosed by The Telegraph last August.

Currently the largest digital income record labels receive in the UK is from the sale of tracks and albums via iTunes. However, Spotify has already taken over iTunes, in terms of revenue levels, in its native Sweden. Per Sundin, head of Universal Music Group in Sweden, told The Swedish Wire last year: “In five months from the launch Spotify became our largest digital source of income and so passed by iTunes.”

The service is expected to make its US debut in the first half of this year.

Spotify was unavailable for comment.

EMI Deals With Music Streamer Grooveshark

From Media Memo

Well look at that: EMI Music Group, which had been working on a licensing deal with music start-up Grooveshark but ended up suing it instead, now has a licensing deal with Grooveshark after all.

This one isn’t a total shock, as EMI and Grooveshark had supposedly been close to a deal prior to the lawsuit. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a label sued a Web company: See Warner Music Group (WMG) and Imeem, as well as Universal Music Group and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, among others.

No details on the deal from EMI or Florida-based Grooveshark, which offers free streaming music, a la MySpace Music, Imeem, Spotify and others. Unlike those services, though, Grooveshark doesn’t appear to have licensing deals with three of the big four labels and plays their music anyway. But with the exception of the EMI suit, it has remained unmolested. Interesting.



For the record, here’s the release:

Music streaming service Grooveshark signs deal with EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing Gainesville, FL–Today, digital music service Grooveshark.com announced it has entered into agreements with major label EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing that will give Grooveshark users access to content from EMI’s roster of current and legendary catalog artists and EMI Music Publishing’s songwriters. Grooveshark offers music fans the ability to stream songs for no fee from a vast catalog of music.

Fans can enjoy Grooveshark’s music without having to download client software or register. The basic service is free to fans and supported by visual advertising. Fans who opt for a $3 per month premium service can enjoy unlimited ad-free streaming music. The site was recently named the best way to listen to music on the web by Rolling Stone, and just surpassed one million registered users.

“EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing have collaborated with us to create a mutually sustainable deal which represents the future of digital music,” says Grooveshark CEO Sam Tarantino. “We will continue to deliver the best music service on the Internet to our users, and we will expand our capacity to strengthen fan-to-artist connections through our technology.”

“We think services like Grooveshark offer great music discovery options for fans,” said Mark Piibe, EMI Music’s Global Head of Digital Business Development. ”In turn, Grooveshark offers a new revenue stream for our artists and will help us learn more about how we can better connect different types of fans with artists.”