Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Pandora, really.

  1. #11
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Things have gotten much better for Pandora since their restructured deal...enough for them to become profitable.
    Founder Tim Westergren won’t say if Pandora was profitable in 2010, explaining they’re focusing on more than the bottom line. “It’s not the principle goal right now — we’re focused on growth,” he says.

  2. #12
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,513
    "We became profitable for the fourth quarter of 2009, and now we're shooting for profits for the entire 2010 [period]," Tom Conrad, Pandora's chief technology officer, told GigaOM.

    They became profitable in Q4 of 2009 and have done nothing but grow by leaps and bounds since then. The only reason they wouldn't be stacking cash is because they are reinvesting in themselves.
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  3. #13
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    ho, you have got to love this time of the year. once again Charles has been caught in a lie but wont admit hes proven to be wrong. Just like Havasucker will look out the window to see 4 feet of snow and say welp, that must be due to glopal warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    now unlike me, i will just stick with the facts of what the owner of the comapny himself has stated:

    Founder Tim Westergren won’t say if Pandora was profitable in 2010, explaining they’re focusing on more than the bottom line. “It’s not the principle goal right now — we’re focused on growth,” he says.

    now this is an example of why you dont see me going to far off the reservation. i stick only with facts which can be proven. let me remind you again what charels said

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    now here is what the owner of the company himself has publicly stated in a recent interview when asked about 2010 revenue:

    What revenues did you do last year?

    TW: We can’t discuss numbers but it’s all going in the right direction.


    now here's charles proof:

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    "We became profitable for the fourth quarter of 2009, and now we're shooting for profits for the entire 2010 [period]," Tom Conrad, Pandora's chief technology officer, told GigaOM.

    They became profitable in Q4 of 2009 and have done nothing but grow by leaps and bounds since then. The only reason they wouldn't be stacking cash is because they are reinvesting in themselves.
    ho, thats right, let me remind you that "shooting for profits for 2010" is not the same thing as there profitability being "public knowledge". So, once again Charles has been caught in a big lie by saying that Pandoras profits are "public knowlege" when really they are nothing more than assumptions, speculation and a fig mint of charles imagination.

    you just cant admit you have lost. i stick only with facts, logic and common sense and things that can be proved unlike charles who uses assumptions, speculation and hearsay. thats a big difference

    you and havasucker probabnly thing the muslim brotherhood will be good for egypt for god sake simply because of things you assume to be true that are proven to be wrong evertime

    So the point being, watch how you come to your conclusions. Hey you can be like me for instance, I use 4 things (facts, logic, common sense, and history) correctly, I have been proven to be correct MOST (not all) of the time.
    Last edited by john163888; 02-09-2011 at 08:09 AM.

  4. #14
    Havakasha is offline

    Red face

    I thought this was an argument about Pandora? You had to drag me and weather into it didnt you John. LOL

    There you go again John mixing up winters WEATHER with the year round CLIMATE.
    You do know the difference John dont you? Obviously not.
    And by the way, your argument is a retread from last year and you
    were proven miserably wrong.
    Earth to John: 2010 tied for the WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. Please return to your
    cave mr. Neanderthal.

    P.S. Were you the same John who was wrong about the stock market's moves toward the
    end of the year (just ask S&L. Dont take my word for it) and beginning of this year, and wrong about SXM pushing out their debt to later years?

    Now back to Pandora. Thank you.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 02-09-2011 at 10:13 AM.

  5. #15
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,513
    Like I said, they restructured their royalty deal which allowed them to become profitable. That is true. They did restructure their royalty rates and they did become profitable because of it. This is public knowledge. I'm not basing my comments on 10 year old comments, I am basing them on the last known definitive answer given from the company a few quarters ago.

    "We can't discuss numbers but it is all going in the right direction" is not proof that they are not profitable (in fact, it sounds like they are to me). As far as we know, based on their last public update, they are in fact profitable. As soon as they come out and say that they are no longer profitable, we will know things have changed.

    Stick to the facts.

    Fact: They have a better royalty rate than Sirius XM
    Fact: That new rate allowed them to become profitable.
    Fact: They have not stated that they are not profitable since becoming profitable.
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  6. #16
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Stick to the facts.

    Fact: They have a better royalty rate than Sirius XM
    Fact: That new rate allowed them to become profitable.
    Fact: They have not stated that they are not profitable since becoming profitable.
    Ho boy where do I start. It figures you would not understand what I said even though it was very clear to most (that is most likely the reason you two dumbasses think I am the one being laughed at)....

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Fact: They have a better royalty rate than Sirius XM
    I like to use facts, logic and common sense. Here is what Tim Westergren said in a recent interview:

    Q: You settled your issues on Internet royalty rates some years back are you happy with where your content costs are today?

    TW: We negotiated a resolution which runs through 2015. Our rate is known but we continue to work on a lack of parity because Internet radio pays a lot more than other forms of radio. And it’s a case where over time new platforms have come out and been treated differently for no apparent reason. So Internet radio pays a much higher royalty per song than Sirius XM for instance while broadcast radio pays no performance fee. So we’re not happy with that still.


    oopsie daisey

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Pandora's royalty fees are quite manageable and they got a sweetheart deal.
    Q: You settled your issues on Internet royalty rates some years back are you happy with where your content costs are today?

    TW: We negotiated a resolution which runs through 2015. Our rate is known but we continue to work on a lack of parity because Internet radio pays a lot more than other forms of radio. And it’s a case where over time new platforms have come out and been treated differently for no apparent reason. So Internet radio pays a much higher royalty per song than Sirius XM for instance while broadcast radio pays no performance fee. So we’re not happy with that still.


    "For more than two years now I have been eagerly anticipating the day when I could finally write these words: the royalty crisis is over!" Westergren wrote in a message to users at the company's website. "Pandora is finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates."

    The deal with webcasters, artists, and record labels staves off a virtual death blow that could have been dealt to Pandora by a "calamitous" Internet radio royalty ruling" by US regulators in 2007, according to Westergren.

    Two years ago, the US Copyright Royalty Board set a new fee structure for Web music broadcasts that Westergren and other Internet radio proponents decried as ruinous for the business.

    Westergren described the freshly negotiated royalty rates as "quite high" but manageable. He said Pandora will have to control costs by limiting users to 40 hours each of free online music listening monthly.

    Users will be given the option of paying a flat fee of 99 cents in any given month to continue listening past the 40-hour play limit, according to Pandora.

    "In essence, we're asking our heaviest users to put a dollar (well, almost a dollar) in the tip jar in any month in which they listen over 40 hours," Westergren said.

    "We hate the idea of limiting anyone's listening, but we have no choice but to react the economic realities of the new rates."


    ho, thats some sweatheart deal they got and you conveniently left out that the current royalty deal expires in 2015. no wonder morgan stanley is rushing this ipo out the door. god help the small investor who get scammed by this offering only to find that the actual time spent listening to Pandora is decreasing as smart phone penitration is increasing and since almost all of there revenue comes from advertising, whoops, last.fm

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Fact: That new rate allowed them to become profitable.
    "We became profitable for the fourth quarter of 2009, and now we're shooting for profits for the entire 2010 [period]," Tom Conrad, Pandora's chief technology officer, told GigaOM.

    again I will point out that they have only ever stated that they were profitable in the 4th quarter of 2009. if you have prrof that there is any public record of Pandora stating that they were profitable besides that 1 quarter than I would link to that because I cannot find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    Fact: They have not stated that they are not profitable since becoming profitable.
    who are you kidding charles. this logic is as twisted as havasucker saying there is 2 feet of snow in Dallas and since no one has come out and said that it isn't due to glopal warming it must be a fact that global warming is the cause.

    let me remind you that they have only ever publicly stated that they were profitable in the 4th quarter of 2009 which does not automatically mean they were profitable any time after that because they themselves have never stated this too be the case. you do not seem to understand this because either you are a dumb twit or you are like havasucker and do not understand that there are high costs associated with refinancing debt.
    Last edited by john163888; 02-10-2011 at 07:18 PM.

  7. #17
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,513
    Their internet streaming royalty rates are lower than SiriusXm's internet streaming royalty rates. Tim is comparing apples to oranges in that statement (over the air satellite vs streaming internet). Obviously because he is posturing for an even better deal. But, you already knew that, you just like to argue. I'm not arguing with you or anyone else, just putting information out there for discussion.

    2015 is a long contract period. Again, they are going to continue to get a rate that makes both them and the RIAA the most money possible because it behooves the RIAA to do so. The RIAA will not pressure Pandora to a point of failure because they too will lose.
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  8. #18
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Just so you know I enjoy these arguements not once was I pissed (laughed alot) but not pissed, thats because I dont get emotional about it. You do that and you will lose, trust me especially with me you had better keep a clear mind and have a good memory of what you have said before, I love to pull up old crap on people to prove my arguement

  9. #19
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    "We can't discuss numbers but it is all going in the right direction" is not proof that they are not profitable (in fact, it sounds like they are to me). As far as we know, based on their last public update, they are in fact profitable. As soon as they come out and say that they are no longer profitable, we will know things have changed.

    Stick to the facts.

    Fact: They have a better royalty rate than Sirius XM
    Fact: That new rate allowed them to become profitable.
    Fact: They have not stated that they are not profitable since becoming profitable.
    the truth means nothing to you that is clear if they told you the sky was green you would believe it. That is plain and simple to see at this point I have given you example aftyer example of them lying to you and example after example of NONE of their predictions coming true and you still believe them when they say, opps were sorry we are going to now say 10 years staaaarttttttinnnnng NOW. How many times are they going to do that to you before you learn your lesson. They are making you out to be a fool and you are letting them.

    just like Havasucker who will say opps, we didn't know the muslim brotherhood would take over egypt someone must have lied to us

    Associated Press
    Pandora tunes up for IPO, looks to raise $100M
    By RACHEL METZ , 02.11.11, 07:27 PM EST

    The company has lost $83.9 million since its inception and remains unprofitable, according to Friday's filing. In the first nine months of its last fiscal year, Pandora suffered a $328,000 loss on revenue of $90.1 million.

    The filing said its independent auditor determined there was "material weakness" in Pandora's financial reporting practices. The company said it's trying to fix the problems.

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...o_8305035.html
    Last edited by SiriusBuzz; 02-12-2011 at 04:09 AM. Reason: duplicate content

  10. #20
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,513
    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    the truth means nothing to you that is clear if they told you the sky was green you would believe it.
    I'm a huge fan of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    That is plain and simple to see at this point I have given you example aftyer example of them lying to you
    Who is lying? What did they lie about?

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    and example after example of NONE of their predictions coming true and you still believe them when they say, opps were sorry we are going to now say 10 years staaaarttttttinnnnng NOW. How many times are they going to do that to you before you learn your lesson. They are making you out to be a fool and you are letting them.
    Who's predictions? What predictions?
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •