Pandora is trying every trick in the book to brazenly and unconscionably underpay and take advantage of the creative labor that produces the core offering of their business - music written by individual songwriters and composers. ASCAP has an ethical obligation to serve and protect the hundreds of thousands of small and independent songwriters, composers and music publishers we represent to ensure that they receive fair compensation when their songs are performed on any technology platforms.While I do not agree with what Williams says there, I respect it. I believe he -- and ASCAP -- is 100% genuine. I would even take it a step further to say that, defenses down, Williams loves Pandora. As I argue, more love-hate relationships exist between people such as Williams and Pandora. And I bet Pandora prefers ASCAP to BMI. BMI's recent lawsuit against Pandora reflects a wholesale misunderstanding of the music industry's place -- and massive opportunity -- in the digital age. ASCAP's rhetoric against Pandora comes off more level-headed, like an organization doing what it needs to do to get the best deal for its membership. But, at the end of the day, ASCAP's not stupid. It realizes that, without Pandora, those dwindling music download numbers we're seeing at Apple's ( AAPL) iTunes Store would be ever lower. Asymco's Horace Dediu does the math across iTunes offerings:
We have more information about number of users (575 million), what they spend on media and software and services ($20 billion/yr.) and, increasingly what they spend on each media type (about $9/yr on Software, $2/yr on books, $16/yr on apps $12/yr on music and $4/yr on video.)Five years ago, the picture looked a heck of a light brighter for the music industry. Fewer iTunes accounts, yes, but $42 per spent on music. Clearly, a massive number of credit cards means a lot more to Apple's data collection efforts than it does to ASCAP and the larger music industry's efforts.