But, I will tell you this with my left hand placed on the bible, right hand in the air, Pandora has never said, never will say and definitely does not want or expect an 85% decrease in its performance royalty. What it has said, wants, expects or, better yet, hopes to secure is a more equitable structure. One where, theoretically, Pandora's rate comes down and, say, cable's and satellite's go up (and, ideally, broadcast radio pays something!). A structure that clears up the present unjust, outdated and glaring discrepancy.
I do agree with Sandoval's article to a certain extent. Pandora has a PR problem. It's something I have been writing about for several months. Sandoval should take note. Pandora must back off the larger piece of the pie argument and focus on shifting the discussion to a place where the emphasis is on what it can do for major label and independent artists.
Pandora can pay less and give artists more -- as Kafka recently put it -- if the music industry collaborates in a way that puts less emphasis on the ancient and myopic royalty system and more focus on using data to harness the marketing power of music in relation to everything from touring to advertising. Guys like Sandoval and Kafka are apparently tech reporters; they should understand this inside and out. Speak the language. It's shocking that they don't and even more disappointing that they focus their energy on conducting road-to-nowhere "research" via Twitter.
I'll keep fleshing out these issues and demand better not only from the media covering Pandora, but, when appropriate (and it is right now), from Pandora itself.For color and context on the real issues, use the three links in the paragraph just ahead of this one as starter. Also see the results of my recent conversation with ASCAP President and Board Chairman Paul Williams. Follow @rocco_thestreet -- Written by Rocco Pendola in New York City