Greg Auman leaving the USF beat

[JTrue]

 

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

 

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora.  They are not going to record and perform for free.

 

Would you like to work for free?

 

Pandora pays them and then has ads to cover the costs, thereby giving me my music for free. And if musicians don't like their compensation, they don't have to sell their songs.

[Bull94]

 

 

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

 

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora.  They are not going to record and perform for free.

 

Would you like to work for free?

 

Pandora pays them and then has ads to cover the costs, thereby giving me my music for free. And if musicians don't like their compensation, they don't have to sell their songs.

 

pandora is losing money. they also have a subscription service.

[Who'sYourData?]

It sure is strange how many companies have made billions by being free.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Skype, YouTube, etc.  How do you explain that they not only stayed in business, but turned your donuts into billions of dollars?

 

You think the Tampa Bay Times gets the same number of hits as any of the others you mentioned.  The Tampa Bay Time audience is much more specialized (smaller) than the others you mentioned.  Facebook content is generated by users, TBT generates their own content (reporters).

 

You are comparing apples to watermelons.

[Bull94]

It sure is strange how many companies have made billions by being free.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Skype, YouTube, etc.  How do you explain that they not only stayed in business, but turned your donuts into billions of dollars?

like I said earlier, the advertising model works if you have a huge number of viewers. it can support the content. BTW they generate revenue by more than just advertising.  that's not the case with a local newspaper. it really doesn't even work for national newspapers. it will never be the case for the Bulls.

 

comparing google, twitter, facebook, business models to the tampa times is ridiculous. that's like saying the garden channel should be able to generate the same in advertising revenue as ESPN (both of these charge a subscription fee BTW-they aren't free).

[CousinRicky]

Mad Cow time?  Talk about being way      BTW, I heard Greg Auman will be covering the Bucs starting next week. 

[JTrue]

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora. They are not going to record and perform for free.

Would you like to work for free?

Pandora pays them and then has ads to cover the costs, thereby giving me my music for free. And if musicians don't like their compensation, they don't have to sell their songs.

pandora is losing money. they also have a subscription service.

http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1793815

Another argument, if you've got one? I'm no economist, but this looks oddly like the complete opposite of losing money.

Edited September 13, 2013 by JTrue

[Who'sYourData?]

 

 

 

 

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora. They are not going to record and perform for free.

Would you like to work for free?

Pandora pays them and then has ads to cover the costs, thereby giving me my music for free. And if musicians don't like their compensation, they don't have to sell their songs.

pandora is losing money. they also have a subscription service.

http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1793815

Another argument, if you've got one? I'm no economist, but this looks oddly like the complete opposite of losing money.

 

 

Do you realize that, according to your link, Pandora is losing money?

 

For the fiscal year 2013, GAAP basic and diluted net loss per share were ($0.23).  Non-GAAP basic and diluted net loss per share were ($0.08), excluding approximately $25.5 million in stock-based compensation. Basic and diluted earnings per share were based on 168.3 million weighted average shares outstanding.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

Its not entitlement at all. Its common sense. Why would I pay (even a small fee) for one product when I get the exact same thing elsewhere legally and free? I have no emotional attachment to the local paper and I don't give a **** if they go out of business, so I'm not giving them $0.15 out of some romantic notion of the newspaper and what it once was. Those days are gone, don't blame me because the industry has evolved. If you believe its worth it, by all means, give them your money, but calling me entitled because I can (not expect to) get the EXACT same content elsewhere is silly.

I've been listening to Pandora for free for years, if they cut that off and asked me to subscribe, I wouldn't. Not because I think I'm entitled to free music, but because I can get my music elsewhere. Pandora made a choice when they started offering free music and they'd be making a choice if they stopped. Some people will pay because they like the format, or they're familiar with it, or whatever. Totally up to them. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to pay if there is a perfectly legally option out there that I'm content with.

Well then who pays the musicians for the music transmitted via Pandora. They are not going to record and perform for free.

Would you like to work for free?

Pandora pays them and then has ads to cover the costs, thereby giving me my music for free. And if musicians don't like their compensation, they don't have to sell their songs.

pandora is losing money. they also have a subscription service.

http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1793815

Another argument, if you've got one?

 

an argument about what? I said they lose money and that they have a subscription service. from your link:

 

For the fiscal year 2013, GAAP basic and diluted net loss per share were ($0.23).  Non-GAAP basic and diluted net loss per share were ($0.08), excluding approximately $25.5 million in stock-based compensation. Basic and diluted earnings per share were based on 168.3 million weighted average shares outstanding.

 

and

 

Subscription and other revenue was $51.9 million, a 51% year-over-year increase.

 

They lost $40M dollars. Without their subscription and other revenue they lost almost $100M. how long do you think they stay in business with advertising only free model? now imagine a local paper that doesn't have anywhere near 70M listeners.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Bull94

[JTrue]

You're absolutely correct. They are losing money. As I said, thats why I'm not an economist. I just grabbed a recent financial report and linked to it without reading of their dire straits. However, I do commend them on 1) in spite of their impending financial ruin, they still offer me free music (including liftng their 40 hour a month limit on free mobile radio) and 2) despite their flawed business model, they've tripled my investment in them from about $8.50 a share to almost $24 a share in less than 12 months.

Edited September 13, 2013 by JTrue

[NCBull]

It sure is strange how many companies have made billions by being free. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Skype, YouTube, etc. How do you explain that they not only stayed in business, but turned your donuts into billions of dollars?

You think the Tampa Bay Times gets the same number of hits as any of the others you mentioned. The Tampa Bay Time audience is much more specialized (smaller) than the others you mentioned. Facebook content is generated by users, TBT generates their own content (reporters).

You are comparing apples to watermelons.

Who compared the Times to those companies? I was refuting 94's bakery metaphor.

Anyway, sad that I won't have my daily Greg dose one way or the other...maybe I will miss it so much that I'll pay for it and come back here to eat crow.