4 ms·
It's easy to not be profitable, though. Just pay large-enough salaries or invest in future growth what otherwise would've been profit.
by genwin 13y ago
It's easy to not be profitable, though. Just pay large-enough salaries or invest in future growth what otherwise would've been profit.
- noonespecial 13y agoIn 2011, Pandora paid over 50% of revenues in performance royalties. 50%. Of Revenues.
- genwin 13y agoThat's a much more telling stat.
- embolism 13y agoNot really - it just means they aren't very efficient at monetizing music. Why should artists subsidize a channel that devalues their art?
- genwin 13y agoThey shouldn't of course. The point being made was that Pandora isn't laughing all the way to the bank.
- embolism 13y agoThat's true. The basic problem does seem to be that people love music enough to have paid a reasonable amount for it in the past, but now have been conditioned to believe that it is cheaper than it really is.
- snowwrestler 13y agoI don't understand why that is a crazy number. Pandora exists 100% to distribute music...50% of revenues to musicians seems reasonable to me...maybe even low. Apple for example runs their stores at a slight profit while paying 70% of revenues to creators.