
Should Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, MOG et al even exist? - jamesbritt
http://www.pampelmoose.com/2011/09/should-pandora-spotify-rdio-mog-et-al-even-exist
======
Qz
I realize that this is only one person's experience, but his description of
what is 'wrong' with Pandora happens to be exactly why I like it so much. His
argument is that _"Pandora didn’t solve the real problem – the lack of a human
DJ"_ and yet this is exactly what Pandora does for me better than any other
music service I've tried - it picks out a playlist of amazing songs that I've
never heard of, but which 99% of the time I like. On top of this, I constantly
get compliments from my friends on how cool my music is, though it's hard for
me to take any credit -- all I do is press the thumbs up button in my Pandora
app. To me this is also a feature -- I don't have to spend hours scouring
music stores (real or virtual) for cool music, and then spend more hours
constructing the perfect playlists; Pandora does this all for me, better than
I ever could, in less time, and for free! (I actually pay for the ad-free
service).

My FM radio experience consisted primarily of Z100 in the mid-late 90's, so
maybe I never really got to experience a 'truly great DJ' in comparison to
whom Pandora would seem like a pale imitation, but the fact is that those DJ's
can only ever be the exception to the rule. However I do think he's right that
the other streaming music services have little to offer (notice how he leaves
Pandora out of that list), they have the basically the same music and
basically the same service offering. And they do precious little to actually
improve circumstances for the music artists themselves.

In contrast, I think Pandora probably does the most of any of these services
for the artists themselves, despite the author's argument that it's profit
model is primarily about advertising and branding. The key here is the
technology -- the Music Genome Project, which the author dismisses right at
the start, really does improve discoverability for musicians, as it analyzes
and recommends music (and hence artists) not based on whether the artists are
or are not subjectively cool-and-trendy (which, let's face it, is how the
mainstream music business works), but rather on the _actual qualities of the
music_ , and it can then compare that to an individual listener's historical
music preferences. If this were the primary mechanism of the music industry
(and on the merits, why should it not be?) I imagine it would really free
artists up to spend as much time as possible on making the coolest and most
awesome music they can come up with, and save them a whole lot of money on
things like PR, etc., which has little to do with music itself.

~~~
andrewflnr
I mostly agree. I don't understand how he got off saying "music genome project
notwithstanding", considering that it's the core of Pandora's function; that's
Pandora's big idea. It seems like he doesn't understand the point, and
dismisses it on that basis alone.

My own use case for something like Spotify or Rdio, which let you play songs
on demand, is largely the satisfaction of cravings or curiosity. Sometimes I'm
curious about an artist I hear on Pandora, or just want to hear some song
again. A DJ would only get in the way of that. If there's not substantive
difference between the options, fine, that just means they're competing on
price and execution details. Should we criticize grocery stores because they
all carry much the same kinds of food?

The point that still bothers me is the circumstances of the artists. I like to
think it could be solved or alleviated by technology and eliminating the
middlemen, but I'm not sure. If prices need to go up a little bit to be fair
to all of them, I would probably pay it. There will probably still be free
options for discoverability's sake anyway.

------
vbo
While I agree there's room for innovation of other, non-distribution aspects
of the music industry, it is precisely distribution that is most obviously
broken and thus prone to be tinkered with.

No DJs? Why, there's plenty, they just don't get typical "airtime" anymore.
Countless music blogs exist for every genre and niche, not to mention the
algorithmic streaming/recommendation services.

"Would you rather save the recording industry, the VC’s, the music technology
startup companies or the musicians that provide the means for both those
entities to actually exist?"

That's a loaded question, but its greatest fallacy is implying only one can
survive. VCs will back whoever they think will bring them a profit and by
their nature will seek disruption. Labels are supposed to be handling
marketing on behalf of the artists, but mostly exploit them. And tech startups
are at the mercy of the labels (and the market). I'd do without the labels and
keep the rest. And this might be the greatest opportunity in the industry: the
next gen label.

------
twidlit
I think the most promising kinds of music startups that are on the right track
in terms of 'saving' the music industry are the ones that are:

1\. Lowering the friction of building a fanbase for the musician

2\. Improving discoverability for the musician

3\. Helps musicians monetize their loyal fanbase

In short, the musicians are there customers. CD Baby, Myspace, Soundcloud,
Youtube all got it right.

Turntable, Pandora, etc. are going after the segment of the music industry
that needs the least help, mainly brands (thru advertisers), listeners and
music labels.

Serve the musicians, dominate the market. (all IMHO)

~~~
ethank
Here's the problem with "serving musicians"

1\. They are the highest-touch clients you can get.

2\. They don't want to pay money for anything. They want their managers to
pay. Their managers will gladly pay, but then go to the label for them to pay.
The labels gladly pay, but put it into recoupable expenses. By the time
reconciliation occurs, the manager has already gotten their 15% and points,
the artist got their royalty, and you as a service provider rarely get your
check in Net-30.

3\. Algorithms don't curate taste.

4\. It's very hard to bridge the chasm from "free" to "paid" when it comes to
a fan base. With the biggest bands in the world (talking multi-multi-
platinum), the conversion from a radio audience to CD audience to "upsells"
(i.e., fan clubs, mercy, tickets) was tiny.

Who's really driving the industry?

Live Nation, AEG, Q-Prime, the Collective, Frontline/Azoff, Red Light,
Montone....

If you want to build businesses around music, you need to build a business
around music. Serving artists is a sexy one for sure, but its a very, very
deep hole to dig.

------
dasil003
Some interesting discussion here, but I think it's too harsh on music
startups. "Big ideas" are not immediately apparent when they occur. Only in
retrospect—and with a touch of nostalgia—do they seem so towering and
impressive. Napster, iTunes, Pandora, Last.fm, Spotify and let's not forget
Internet radio have made a far bigger change in the ways music is distributed
and consumed in the last 13 years than anything that occurred in the preceding
50.

------
Woost
I'd like to see a study/some evidence that shows that Pandora has low ROI. For
the business I'm at now, it has just about the best ROI of any ad source.
(obviously I can't go into too much detail here)

As for DJs, did the author completely forget about 'older' streaming internet
radio? There are tons of stations that stream music, curated by live people.
If people truly wanted great DJs to pick out their music for them, why haven't
any online streaming stations taken off the way Pandora has? (or any of the
others)

Further, the author says modern rock music is bland etc. That reads more like
a criticism of modern rock music, and less like there's a lack of big ideas in
music. I'm not familiar enough with modern music in general to say anything on
it myself, but perhaps the 'rebellious youth' have moved on from rock?

~~~
nitrogen
_If people truly wanted great DJs to pick out their music for them, why
haven't any online streaming stations taken off the way Pandora has?_

Basically because of the changes made by CARP to webcasting royalties. At
least one stream I used to listen to almost 10 years ago had to shut down
because royalties were unaffordable for them.

------
ethank
It's worth noting that Dave Allen has major, indie and entrepreneurial
experience. He's the founding bassist of Gang of Four.

I really like this essay for the fact that the problems of the industry are
not solved by anything that exists at the intersection of VC money and label
money.

Lets put it this way: if every one of the four majors stopped signing acts,
fired their A&R staff and just focused on precision, AARRR pirate style
marketing of catalog, they'd last a lot longer than they will at the rate
they're going.

The problems of a diminishing business can't be solved by incrementally
improving what is already being done on the backs of money that just sustains
the hegemony. It will come with very real disruption.

I think that this will however offshoot out of the Pandora's, Spotify's,
Grooveshark's, MOG's, RDIO's, iTunes' and Amazon's of the world. I just don't
think we're there yet.

It's still too caught up on the song, file and data aspect of "play" rather
than a real adaptation to the changing role of music and music as a holistic
cultural experience rather than an artifact/entity.

Anyhooooo....

------
cageface
_Modern rock music is blandly conservative, which in and of itself appears to
me to reflect the timidity of modern youth and young adults_

I can't really agree with this at all. Maybe the big-label top 40 stuff is at
an all-time low, but I'm hearing more innovative and daring music coming from
young people today than I have in a long, long time. You have to be willing to
do a little work to find it though.

~~~
ethank
You do realize Gang of Four was pretty daring too.

------
paul9290
He mentioned the lack of ROI for advertisers on Pandora. Personally I listen
to Pandora in my car and just like FM radio I am forced to listen to audio
ads.

Most ads they play are focused on New York City, but give it some years
Pandora or a future/similar service will take over the local radio ad market.
If not fully over take, offer a better alternative.

~~~
sp332
Pandora One is pretty cheap and gets rid of the ads.

------
icebraining
_And yet they gave the video away for free to MTV, a company owned by the
conglomerate Viacom who honestly could afford to pay to license that content.
But no, free! To add salt to the wound MTV doesn’t pay performance royalties
to the artists either._

This doesn't make much sense to me. MTV isn't a music distribution service,
it's an advertising channel. They promote your music to millions of viewers
for free (well, to you - the viewers pay). You want them to _pay you_? That's
like expecting Google to pay you to show your ads.

If you don't want their services, that's fine.

~~~
evertonfuller
You do get paid if your song is played on TV in a live performance or video...
Don't know what you're on about...

------
rhizome
Some are not on top of the game as much as they might portray themselves. For
all he decries the lack of curatorial influence in online streaming sites from
DJ-type people, there's a glaring lack of mention of turntable.fm. How does
one miss this on the eve of the SF Music Tech Summit on Monday?!

~~~
earbitscom
Slacker is a better comparison for your question. Their playlists are created
by professional DJs with years of experience. The guy didn't say you can't
find playlists created by people, but seemed to hone in on the fact that those
people, for the most part, don't know that much about music. I don't think the
"DJs" in Turntable make a good argument that he's wrong.

~~~
rhizome
Even better, since Slacker didn't make the essay either.

~~~
ethank
Slacker didn't make it because Slacker is as close to a traditional radio
station as you can get. Their biz-dev SVP is an old school (but not old!)
college radio promo guy, who I worked with. They are old MusicMatch and Rio
guys that run it.

It's not sexy, it needs some work but its what it is and doing OK.

~~~
earbitscom
I guess to the point, it's not a big idea. It solves the pain the author
describes, but that's a pain that was previously solved, is still solved in
some places, and they just kept that solution the same.

