One Musician's Demand From Pandora: Mandatory Analytics

jfruh writes "Most Slashdotters have been following the debate among the various players in the music industry about how much money artists (and their labels) get from traditional music outlets like radio and newer services like Pandora or Spotify. But Zoë Keating, a professional cellist who has a professional interest in the outcome of this argument, thinks there's one thing missing from all the proposals: more data on who her audience is. Even digital services can't tell her how many people heard her songs or where they're most popular. 'How can I grow my business on this information?' she asks. 'How do I reach them? Do they know I'm performing nearby next month? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?'" She proposes mandatory reporting of information on listeners as part of royalties.

Comments

Whose Data Is It?

[sdoca]

The last line of the article is a quote from Zoe (emphasis mine):

“I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it,” she wrote.

Which begs the question in my mind, whose data is it? The stations' to whom listeners tune into and collect the data or the artists' whose music is played? I would argue its the stations as they're the ones collecting it.

Another question is what is the data? I don't listen to any satellite or internet radio stations so I could be wrong, but I suspect that in the case of internet radio you can get the number of feeds and their location but that's about it. Is there any listener data that can be collected by satellite? How can that data be used to help artists market themselves better?

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's MY data. She got MY money in trade for the music. Is that not enough? Is this going to be another reason to drive people to piracy? She didn't get this kind of detailed information when her song was delivered over radio waves, why should she she demand my information now that it is over IP?

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[MidnightBrewer]

You got something in exchange for your money, so arguably the data is half hers. Also, the data she's requesting still leaves you anonymous, but would allow her to be able to know what age ranges like her music and what parts of the world. This would allow her to be a more successful artist by focusing her marketing efforts to those people who might actually pay to see her in concert, which eventually benefits you as she continues to make the music you enjoy. Everybody wins. Radio doesn't offer that kind of information, and as a result it always goes for the safe money (or the payola, as the case may be) and plays the music guaranteed to appeal to the largest majority of listeners. If you're listening to Pandora then it's likely because terrestrial radio has let you down in terms of selection. Exactly what are you fighting against here? Allowing people to give you what you want?

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[TheLink]

Bullshit. Why should getting something in exchange for the money automatically mean the data is half hers?

She's got the data on whatever she has sold directly.

If she doesn't want to incur the costs of selling directly then why should she automatically get the benefits of selling directly to the customers?

The supermarket and grocery store knows who is buying their stuff and where. If the farmer wants to know where each tomato is going, the farmer is going to have to pay for it. Or set up his/her own store.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[bistromath007]

This post, and the entire thread it's spawned, seems like a perfect example of what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of ownership of information. Something as very basic as "who wants this stuff" is information that would help every business and consumer in the entire chain if it were released publicly, but that doesn't happen, because every single business and consumer in the chain wrongly, stupidly, and greedily claims that it is theirs and nobody can use it if they don't get a cut. Nearly everyone involved in this industry works as hard as they can to screw themselves over, all because they want to be paid for something that literally everybody has a reasonable claim to.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got something in exchange for your money, so arguably the data is half hers.

She got money, I got music. There was no agreement to get my data. 0% is hers.

Also, the data she's requesting still leaves you anonymous, but would allow her to be able to know what age ranges like her music

Just age? Or my full birthday? How about my IP address? Or my real address? Or my credit card number? Does she get to say which information and where the line is drawn? Which "HALF" of MY data does she get exactly?

Exactly what are you fighting against here? Allowing people to give you what you want?

That just because I trade my money for something doesn't mean they can get my personal information "just because it's the internet".

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[bistromath007]

You need to complete this thought, guy. An independent artist with a quite limited travel budget is trying to figure out where to perform next. If she has data on where there are large numbers of her fans, she can have more successful shows, allowing her to put on more shows and continue creating, thus benefiting her fanbase. Successful artistry is not a parasitic relationship unless you're some kind of objectivist robot.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

she could you know post on her website that she has limited travel budget and ask where fans want her to perform. and then 4chan will send her to alaska.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Mitsoid]

I get a feeling her problem is along the lines of:

1) You paid money (or paid with eyes/ears on an advertisement) to listen to her song
2) She doesn't know you did so...

She's not getting "Money for you listening".. or at least, she has no way to know it.. Pandora doesn't tell her how many times her music was listened to... Being in a business.. it IS helpful to know exactly how many transactions you made to get your $500... or .. how many of what song was sold..

I agree with you.. She doesn't need my name, or birthday, or my financial information.... But if she wants to know I listened to Her Songs X, Y, and Z... and that I bought Her Song A.. She should, in my opinion, be able to get some kind of breakdown of that information (Here is $250, your songs were listened to by 20,000 people.. 240 bought the following songs:)

This data requires no data mining.. It's data Pandora already has and uses to pay her royalty... and the only cost is from writing the artist a semi-detailed receipt to go with her royalty check.. currently Pandora says "Here's $300, no.. you can't know how many times each song was listened to.. no.. you can't know how many songs people bought"

Great for us.. Great for Pandora... makes learning what we (the audience) like to listen to and buy impossible without getting the tainted groups of fanatics who seek the artist out on their own..

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Culture20]

Another question is what is the data? I don't listen to any satellite or internet radio stations so I could be wrong, but I suspect that in the case of internet radio you can get the number of feeds and their location but that's about it. Is there any listener data that can be collected by satellite? How can that data be used to help artists market themselves better?

Users of Pandora sign up for the service, which allows them to create their own "stations" which are randomly generated groups of songs determined to be similar to the seed song or seed genre. For each individual song played, users can skip, thumbs up, or thumbs down (which also skips, but reduces the likelihood of replay). That's way more data than the old radio model with snail mail surveys.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Jumperalex]

So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy? Because that is exactly what you just said. The only difference is that I've removed "artist" from the equation to acknowledge there is nothing special about an "artist" in this equation.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[omfgnosis]

I think responses like this are missing the forest for the trees in the idea being proposed here.

Let's take a step back. The context of the idea is a dying traditional music industry; most of the old business models are failing. In the old models, there were a number of large marketing and distribution networks who collected the sort of data Keating is asking for, and used that data to inform their marketing and distribution efforts. An organization in the business of successful music sales needs to know the size, makeup and geographical distribution of the audience. As those organizations become increasingly irrelevant, the capacity to make those informed decisions is to some extent decentralized, but also to a large extent in danger of vanishing entirely.

What Keating is asking of "internet radio" (Pandora being a major source of her exposure, but it is really a clarion call to the changing music industry) is to recognize the fact that artists are becoming more and more isolated and atomized, and to create a business model that represents that. If any of the businesses currently "in the game" want to be relevant, they'll allow artists (to the extent they're motivated and willing) to act as their own respective businesses, and do a lot of the work that the old marketing and distribution channels no longer can or want to do.

And it really is a gift to the industry players to publicize the idea this way. The alternative is to build the new model in relative obscurity, grow it and supplant the current players. The idea is about more than data, but that data is central to its success. The real idea, at its core, is that the new model (and she touches on this in her blog post) requires a great deal more individual initiative on the part of artists. And whatever you may think about "whose data is it?" and the fairness of the request, a music industry can't survive if artists fail. A successful, modern music industry would help to foster all of that atomized effort in a productive way. And isn't that, basically, what most of us have been asking for since we saw the writing on the wall for old music business?

Keating and other enterprising artists want a venue to reach their fans. They don't just want this, they require it for commercial success. We, as music fans, require the artists' success for our lives to be enriched by the music. A team of enterprising developers could provide this in a relatively short time (relative, at least, to the pace of the old industry's death), and pretty much steal the show. As Keating says, the new model is supposed to be peripheral sales, the music being the driving force behind those sales. Providing what Keating has asked for is not a concession, it's a recipe for success.

As an artist myself, I've imagined creating a tool of this nature. It's not enough to have a place to upload music files and artwork. It's not even enough to have a couple of form fields to link to the artist's blog. A lot of the elements of a powerful new business model already exist, but they're woefully unintegrated. What artists and fans alike need is a way for everyone to get connected, in a very distinct way from the existing social networks. Artists are businesses in this model, and anyone who empowers them to act in that capacity stands to win the day. And I think we'd all be better off for it.

As a developer, I'm unfortunately indisposed with other work too important to me to pursue a business like this, but I thought it would be helpful to share this perspective in case other developers are reading and want to create the next big thing in music. That thing is: create the tools that artists need to reach their audience. Giving them data lets them adjust their own marketing efforts, their own performance efforts, their own merchandise efforts. Everything else is icing on the cake. These tools are force multipliers, and the more you can accommodate those efforts, the more artists will succeed and the more they'll choose your service. And fans will follow, not just because that's where the music is heading, but also because that service would provide more of what fans want too. Why would I choose the noise of "radio" when there's something better?

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[Draknor]

In broad strokes, yes.

I've seen Zoe in concert -- she's pretty awesome! I would like to see her again. But I'm a busy guy, and "sign up on Zoe's website for tour news" usually doesn't bubble up very high on my priority list. If I see a banner or promo flyer, however, I'm more likely to make note of it and maybe actually put it in my calendar to attend. If she knows there's a lot of others listening to her in my region, then she's more likely to schedule another concert here, and do more marketing here. I have no problem with her (& other artists) using anonymized data to help regionally target their sales & marketing.

Likewise, many (paid) apps I install now ask me to submit "anonymous usage data" to help them improve their product. I usually agree to do this, under the assumption that the data is actually anonymous, and that by me giving them feedback, they can make a product that I will find more useful & more appealing. I like programs that work they way I think they should work -- that are intuitive to me, and I'm willing to give up some data about my usage in exchange for that potential.

What I DON'T like is companies that harvest personal, non-anonymous information about me, and then sell that to other companies that I have not expressed interest in. I get flyers in the mail for "Skillpath Seminars", addressed to my small business name. I never attended a Skillpath Seminar under my small business name, nor do I recall ever signing up or purchasing a leadership/management product for my small business that would be relevant to Skillpath. So that means some OTHER vendor I used compiled a list that Skillpath purchased and cold-called (mailed) me. That's not effective for me; in fact, it's irritating because it's more mail I have to sift through & dispose of.

Re:Whose Data Is It?

[mcgrew]

I don't understand how artists did it before the internet.

They didn't. The internet changed everything. Before the internet, either a record label signed you (and usually ripped you off) or you played in bars. The record companies had all the data; they knew how many copies of whom was selling where, and who was playing whom on the radio and where.

If your label liked you they might illegally pay radio stations to play your stuff. If they didn't, they either didn't renew your contract or simply didn't ship much product.

Before the internet, musicians were dependant on the labels. When Roger McGuinn, front man for the hit record selling band The Byrds got too old (in the eyes of the label) his career crashed hard. He played in bars and other low-paying places... until Napster came along with P2P, when a new generation of listeners revived his dead career. Now it's the labels who are floundering; nobody needs them any more.

"To everything there is a season... a time to live, a time to die."

I think not

[SSpade]

Geographic distribution and some basic demographics is one thing, and quite a reasonable one, but combine "How do I reach them? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?" and “I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it.” and it sounds like the worst sort of stalkery marketer who'll abuse the hell out of your personal information for a buck.

Re:I think not

[dbc]

Sure, I see your point. But for certain artists I would like to be able to opt-in to show announcements. Or get a summary. Like, how about a personalized calendar that shows the dates for nearby shows for the list of artists I select? I get a calendar, and artists get anonymized numbers about where and how many people have added them to their calendar.

Re:I think not

[Jafafa Hots]

Not necessarily.
Think about YouTube analytics.

I find out that certain videos are a hit with certain blogs, that's where my traffic comes from. So I make sure to give them more of what they want, PLUS I struck up a relationship of sorts with the blog owners which is mutually beneficial.

I let them know when I have new content, which helps them. They give me a wider platform, info that helps me learn the subculture, etc.

I am NOT a networker kind of person, I'm a "do every last thing yourself" kind of person, but analytics let you know when you're wasting your time, let you know where your "friends" and compatriots are, etc.

For a musician, it could even help them know what cities they might try booking an appearance in, because they discover they have a fan base there.

Re:I think not

[girlintraining]

it sounds like the worst sort of stalkery marketer who'll abuse the hell out of your personal information for a buck.

Whoa there partner, back up. What this artist is asking for is entirely reasonable because this information is already available to the distributor. And offering additional information from the artist like when and where shows are happening is not only reasonable but the main method by which independent artists make their money! Radio was given free license to air music precisely because air time led to increased ticket sales, and they're very pro-active about announcing concerts that are coming up; It's typically part of the contract.

This person isn't asking for the personal details of every listener, but rather information on when and where those listeners are -- something that would be needed to audit the distributor and ensure their contractual agreement is being upheld, and something that a court order would easily be granted for. And it's just good business anyway. There's nothing "stalkery" about this. Or would you prefer the artist take it on faith that the distributor isn't screwing them over? As I understand it, there's something of a commotion over contractual obligations of certain 4-letter acronym'd agencies that often talk about "artists' rights", though they afford none to those who sign contracts with them. Shouldn't we be wanting the industry to be moving away from this kind of vendor lock-in?

Re:I think not

[SSpade]

What this artist is asking for is entirely reasonable because this information is already available to the distributor.

Also available to the distributor is all the information about the other artists you listen to. And your zip code, your email address, your age. Possibly, depending on what sort of account you have, your home address and your credit card number. I'm pretty sure that she wouldn't ask for your credit card number, but I'm sure she'd love to have your email address.

Re:I think not

[MidnightBrewer]

I disagree. She says that she wants "her" data, but she's talking about basic demographics and geographic distribution. There are plenty of automated, autonomous ways for Pandora et al to help her reach you without her ever knowing who exactly you are. If the data tells her that all of her fans are located in San Francisco, then she would be wasting time and money holding a concert in Cincinnati, and vice-versa. She then takes out a TV ad, a billboard or a newspaper ad saying that she'll be in the area for a concert and her fans can then buy tickets. Everybody wins. I don't see the problem with this.

Re:I think not

[gl4ss]

Not necessarily.
Think about YouTube analytics.

I find out that certain videos are a hit with certain blogs, that's where my traffic comes from. So I make sure to give them more of what they want, PLUS I struck up a relationship of sorts with the blog owners which is mutually beneficial.

I let them know when I have new content, which helps them. They give me a wider platform, info that helps me learn the subculture, etc.

I am NOT a networker kind of person, I'm a "do every last thing yourself" kind of person, but analytics let you know when you're wasting your time, let you know where your "friends" and compatriots are, etc.

For a musician, it could even help them know what cities they might try booking an appearance in, because they discover they have a fan base there.

so she should get a fb page.
btw. networking with blog owners and people who bring you traffic sure as fuck sounds like "networking".

Re:I think not

[Draknor]

Yes, you are networking. But there's nothing WRONG with that!

"Networking" is just "communicating" -- you are communicating with people (such as blog owners). In this case, your goal is growing your audience, not growing your business or profit. That's fine -- there's nothing WRONG with networking. There's nothing wrong with growing your audience. And I'd also argue there's nothing wrong with growing a business or increasing your profit, if that's what you wanted to do.

Networking seems to get a bad rap when it's sleazy companies selling lists back & forth, looking for new fools to sell their crap too. But it's not networking that's bad, it's being sleazy & selling crap.

Personally, I think if you've got something valuable to offer, and you use networking connections to find the right audience who WANTS what you have -- that's exactly how networking (& capitalism) is SUPPOSED to work. When a blogger I trust & follow suggests something, it's likely
to be something I might be interested in. When I do a google search and find results on squidoo, I run away because 99% of the time, it's sleazy content filled with affiliate links written by people with no real value to offer.

How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy ads like everyone else?

Here's an idea you can monetize

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Be an obnoxious prick and demand things for nothing
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Eat shit and die.

Re:Here's an idea you can monetize

[Extremus]

For free?! I give back to Pandora a lot of "packet received" packets.

Make an example of her...

[future assassin]

thow her the fuck out. With out exposure she'll have nothing, let her run her own website and gather those stats. The only things pandora should give out is the basic stats on how much the copyright owner should get paid past that they can PAY Pandora to get more stats.

Google.

[vovick]

How do I reach them? Do they know I'm performing nearby next month? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?

They can look you up if they like your performance on the radio. If they like it, they can look you up and probably subscribe to your RSS feed with all your new updates. If they are not doing so, they don't like you and your songs. Duh.

Bandcamp Seems Like More Her Thing

[eldavojohn]

Oddly enough the first and only place I've heard of this artist is bandcamp and I think she's helped it grow. She seems to be demanding Pandora put in all the nice things that Bandcamp has.

Bandcamp is not a radio streaming station but you can stream a lot of albums freely on it. Bandcamp seems to solve a lot of these problems with it's pricing clearly stated. I don't use it as a musician but I make a lot of music purchases there and this is how things work. If you want to get an album for free, the band has the option of asking at least for your e-mail address and zip code. That way they can geographically target you or let you know they have a new album on Bandcamp. On top of that I think the sites has a huge stats dashboard for artists -- even including the referral URLs from which your listeners are landing on your page (so if you have it hooked up to your band's page, you can differentiate that from someone who found it via pitchfork or something).

I've had really good experiences with bandcamp but their 'discover' methodologies still leave a lot to be desired and I hope that someday they just turn it into a station that has a great front end that will allow you to see and purchase whatever is playing.

Of course, there's a lot of terrible music on bandcamp but I sort of enjoy the idea that it's open to all (as opposed to, say, Magnatune). There are famous artists that I already loved on Bandcamp and total nobodies I've come to adore.

what privacy?

[Isara]

your listening data is already being collected. She may or may not be asking for listener email addresses, but if not, the statistics on your likes and dislikes and other listening patterns are part of the music genome project anyway. How would the artists' ability to view your listening patterns (without identifying you specifically) violate any right to privacy that isn't already given up as part of your agreement when creating an account to use the service?

Middle-man Fee !

[Taco Cowboy]

With all the data already collected actually it's not that hard to generate the dataset that Zoà Keating or any musician required, via data-mining.

The problem is on who's going to pay for the data-mining effort?

I reckon that if the Musicians (or any other people) wants the dataset and are willing to pay for it, there will be people who will be more than happy to provide the service.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[icebike]

That is not the biggest problem I see here.

The biggest problem is that she still doesn't understand the first sale doctrine. I bought a recording, not a relationship.

If I want to attend a concert i am perfectly capable of seeking that Information or joining a fan club. Any information she get from me should be at my decision.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not the biggest problem I see here.

The biggest problem is that she still doesn't understand the first sale doctrine. I bought a recording, not a relationship.

If I want to attend a concert i am perfectly capable of seeking that Information or joining a fan club. Any information she get from me should be at my decision.

She's talking about Pandora, which is a streaming service. You aren't purchasing anything, you didn't buy anything, so first sale doesn't apply.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[Jumperalex]

Specifically you are correct with regards to "first sale". Generally you are not with regards to the "relationship". That is to say, I paid the rights to have music streamed to me in consideration for monies paid. What I did not pay for is a relationship. What's more, if that data IS provided then I expect some consideration in return. Pandora should not have to provide it free of charge, so they should get a discount on royalties paid, and in return I should not have to pay as much for the service be it fewer ads or lower fees.

I get her point. She is an artist trying to make a living. As an artist (her not me) I believe she genuinely wants to know who her fans are so she can engage with them more and expand her fan base. Artists want to be seen/heard/etc. That is a very personal thing for an artist. As a person trying to make a living out of it, I also understand her desire to use that very same data to help her market herself.

What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[mellon]

If she's asking for your personal details, then yeah, you have some cause for concern. But I doubt that's what she's asking for. TFA suggests that she wants to know where her work is popular, so that she can plan where to have her next concert, and target publicity effectively. Seems like a reasonable idea to me, although she may be disappointed to find that there is no locality to the data, and that her fans are actually evenly distributed across some large area.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[Stan92057]

Radio advertising,Album sales and concerts will tell her everything she needs to know. no album sales and low ticket sales means she sucks or made a bad album and needs a different line of business. In my heydays i listen to the radio if i like the music i went out and got an album,8 track or cassette depending on the age. Buying the after mentioned listening to the radio or read the music magazines of the day i found out when a concert was planned. But the best indicators were radio play and requests.

Re:Middle-man Fee !

[NulDevice]

If you're an indie artist, you'll note that streaming services like Pandora, Spotify, etc are slowly displacing a lot of traditional album sales. And if you're an indie artist, radio play and advertising are basically nonexistent.

So I don't think she's asking anythign unreasonable. You want to know what venues to book for your next tour? Then you need to know who's listening. And if you're not selling albums the traditional way, and you're not getting radio play, then what you need are the metrics from the services that are delivering your music. You don't need to know eprsonal details, but vague geographical and demographic info makes a huge difference when you're planning out a tour or trying to figure out what sorts of magazine ads to buy, etc.

The services are clearly collecting the data, but god only knows what they're doing with it.

Oh why is even THAT reasonable?

[SmallFurryCreature]

She sells a product, TO THE RADIOSTATION, who then sells it to us. I am quite sure that say, Hostess, would like to have the demographic data from each supermarket, but they can't have it because it is NOT their data.

It is only the odd nature of content (infinitely replicatable unlike physical products) and bought laws that even has music being counted (number of times played). Physical product makers sell X amount to resellers and that is all the data they get. Why do you THINK they hold product promotions requiring you to send in your address? To get some data on were their products end up because the supermarkets are NOT just going to tell them for the fun of it. The product maker delivers his goods to the supermarket and his involvement ends there. He wants more, he pays for it. Through the nose.

A supermarket has no obligation, legal or moral to even record, let alone report, how that pallet of cookies was distributed amongst its shops let alone its customers. The amount of entitlement in this Zoe the Freeloading cellist demand is staggering. You want to get in touch with your customers, engage them yourself. It is NOT a broadcasters job to do that for you. Setup a youtube channel or whatever and get people to give them your details, expecting a radiostation to do that for you is everything that is wrong with the content industry today.

Content is a product nothing more, I buy it the same as toilet paper and frankly I be a lot more upset running out of toilet paper then out of commercial content.

What next, MP3 players have to upload logs of the play history, so the bills can be send correctly? She wants to force the use of kinect with Pandora to count the number of listeners?

She wants private consumer data from a commercial entity for free. If it wasn't the content industry this would be instantly discarded in the waste basket of bloody stupid ideas. Really, would you be okay with Hostess getting your address from the supermarket that they got from your credit card?

NO! Hell, in Holland at least, the supermarket itself ain't even allowed to use its payment data to find out peoples addresses, they have the bank numbers but are not allowed to match them in anyway. That is why loyalty cards are not simply tied to your bank pas which would be far simpler then having a separate card and give far more reliable tracking data (you didn't think loyalty cards existed for any other reason did you).

But this bitch wants that data. Fuck OFF.

Grooveshark has this.

[rich90usa]

Grooveshark has some of this functionality. https://forrst.com/posts/Grooveshark_Artist_Dashboard-a2N

Re:I'd opt-in - but it needs to be an opt-in

[MightyMartian]

Artists have a hard enough time getting royalties and accounting out of labels. Asking for statistics is shooting for the moon.

Re:How can I tell them I have a new album coming o

[Taco Cowboy]

... and this is the one thing that is so irritating.

Ms. Zoà Keating things that because people listen to her song she has the right to SPAM her listeners with announcement of new album / new gig / new whatever and so on.

Granted, a portion of her listeners would want to know everything she does, but a larger portion do not.

And it is not right for an artist to bug the listeners, whether they are paid listeners, or not.

I actually like this

[Xacid]

I've been an avid paid Pandora listener for a few years and would love to see them find a way to improve their services especially if it can make them more marketable and last longer. This can benefit both the consumer and the artist if done properly and I think Zoe Keating, incidentally whom I discovered on Pandora, has the right idea.

When I find an artist I REALLY enjoy the first thing I end up doing is finding more of their songs not on Pandora...but on youtube. Then if I like a good portion of their stuff I'll usually go hunt for their album, which I usually try to buy directly from the artist when possible, or I'm looking to see if they're ever playing anywhere near me.

It would also be neat if it could show a map/chart of artists based on what you've thumbs upped previously or sort by station or something while you're in a buying mode. One thing I couldn't understand is how Pandora didn't enter into the music sales business as that would have flowed nicely with their current business. Imagine having an "add to cart" for songs you really dig and being able to play those on demand within the Pandora interface? Or just revert back to full on radio mode like always. There's just so much potential for this service and it typically nails what I'm in the mood to listening to.

She's right about one thing

[asdbffg]

Part of what she's asking for isn't so bad, namely aggregate metrics or just general listening statistics. I've got some music on Pandora as well, and I can say that they make absolutely no information available about how many people are listening, how many listeners skip the song, how many listeners give the song a thumbs up or down, etc. Once the music goes in, the rest if a big mystery.

She loses me when she suggests that she should just magically be able to get her listeners' contact information without some sort of opt-in. As much as I would love an epic mailing list of anyone who has ever heard my work... yeah... no...

Re:I'd opt-in - but it needs to be an opt-in

[somersault]

Maybe he means more along these lines? Spotify is part owned by the big labels. Artists get a pittance from Spotify, but seeing as it's 1) one of the the few legal ways to listen to lots of music without paying much, and 2) very convenient, it's what I use.