AfterDawn: Tech news

Pandora ends 40 hour listening cap on free users

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 22 Aug 2013 21:20 User comments (10)

Pandora ends 40 hour listening cap on free users Speaking during their quarterly earnings call, Pandora executives have stated they will end the 40-hour monthly cap imposed on free mobile listeners since February.
Pandora first initiated a cap in September 2011, and then lifted it soon after.

CFO Mike Herring says the cap was a "blunt tool" for limiting costs and halting abusive users, but there have been more "surgical techniques" implemented since, including skip limits that help control costs but do not affect the customer experience as much.

Additionally, he says the business has improved to the point where the company can "monetize those hours from 41 onward at a much higher rate."

Herring noted that when the cap was put in place, usage dropped 10 percent. Despite the drop, revenue jumped 58 percent year-over-year, and the company says they will be profitable for this year.

Tags: Pandora
Previous Next  

10 user comments

123.8.2013 13:56

Considering that limiting listener time prevents listeners from hearing ads, the ONLY way Pandora can monetize the vast majority if its users, it was quite obvious this limit was an idiotic blunder.

This quote is quite amusing and revealing:

Quote:
CFO Mike Herring says the cap was a "blunt tool" for limiting costs and halting abusive users, but there have been more "surgical techniques" implemented since, including skip limits that help control costs but do not affect the customer experience as much

This sets off bullshit detectors in *so* many ways:
- "Abusive users"..?! SCREW YOU, PANDORA. Don't offer a free service, then pretend to be amazed when people use it. I can't think of a more arrogant label.
- "Surgical techniques"? Idiot, Pandora has had the same skip limits for free users as long as I can remember!
- "Blunt tool"? Yeah, right, like any "blunt tool" has ever worked in the history of the internet.

tl;dr? Don't freaking offer a free service, then bitch about people using it en masse. Congrats! Your service apparently does not suck. But guess what? No one else is responsible for you finding ways to monetize your *free* service. If any other content distributor can do it with ads, so can you.

223.8.2013 15:32

Good thing I don't use Pandora. I get sick & tired very quick with their "push" selection and ads.


Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

323.8.2013 20:24

I used Pandora all the time, but when I hit the 40 hour cap I found iHeart Radio was much better anyway, so rarely will I use Pandora anymore.

424.8.2013 11:29

I got sick of Pandoras ads and how the station would stop automatically. Switched to Jango a couple of years ago and havent looked back since.

525.8.2013 7:45

I used pandora a few times, but liked Slacker much better, and would use IHeart Radio on occasion.


627.8.2013 4:10

Originally posted by Bozobub:

This sets off bullshit detectors in *so* many ways:
- "Abusive users"..?! SCREW YOU, PANDORA. Don't offer a free service, then pretend to be amazed when people use it. I can't think of a more arrogant label.

They weren't referring to general users, rather the people that were using 3rd party software to rip the streams.

Someone obviously lacking in critical thinking skills should refrain from being so openly hostile. It just makes you look like a tool, and people are less likely to take anything you say seriously.

I personally use pandora because it allows me to enjoy and discover new music based on my tastes in a way that no other service has ever come close to. I realize that not everyone uses a service like pandora for the same reasons, and as such it's not going to be for everyone.

On a different note, almost every single complaint I have ever heard about pandora was from people who use the free version. The paltry fee for a whole year eliminates almost every complaint I've ever heard. Complaining about ads is like saying broadcast television shouldn't have commercials. How else are they going to make any money on a service that is otherwise free?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Aug 2013 @ 4:11

727.8.2013 23:52

Originally posted by CarpeSol:
Originally posted by Bozobub:

This sets off bullshit detectors in *so* many ways:
- "Abusive users"..?! SCREW YOU, PANDORA. Don't offer a free service, then pretend to be amazed when people use it. I can't think of a more arrogant label.

They weren't referring to general users, rather the people that were using 3rd party software to rip the streams.

Someone obviously lacking in critical thinking skills should refrain from being so openly hostile. It just makes you look like a tool, and people are less likely to take anything you say seriously.

I personally use pandora because it allows me to enjoy and discover new music based on my tastes in a way that no other service has ever come close to. I realize that not everyone uses a service like pandora for the same reasons, and as such it's not going to be for everyone.

On a different note, almost every single complaint I have ever heard about pandora was from people who use the free version. The paltry fee for a whole year eliminates almost every complaint I've ever heard. Complaining about ads is like saying broadcast television shouldn't have commercials. How else are they going to make any money on a service that is otherwise free?
1) The point is what he said, not what he meant. It's not my job to parse what the man may have intended, I can only go on what he actually says.
2) Pandora gets a large part of its operating capital from ads - which, you'll note, I did not complain about; that's all you - served to user of the free service. Limiting that capital is foolhardy, at best, since that userbase is also the majority of those who go on to eventually pay for the service. Pissing off clients that already make you money, merely to try to force them to pay for the service themselves (rather than the advertising agencies), is just plain stupid.
3) I notice that they ain't keepin' the limit, buster. I wonder why? lol

Point of fact, you didn't actually respond to most of the points I raised, nor did you grasp that I wasn't criticizing Pandora itself or its decision to backtrack, but rather its CEO's bullshit and blarney. I'll have you know, I don't even use the service; there are quite a few superior alternatives. I happen to prefer Slacker.

So much for your critical thinking skills. I'll note that you were the one to take a derogatory note here, when I insulted your (apparent) idol. A classic case of fanboi-itis.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Aug 2013 @ 23:56

84.9.2013 17:21

Originally posted by Bozobub:
Originally posted by CarpeSol:
Originally posted by Bozobub:

This sets off bullshit detectors in *so* many ways:
- "Abusive users"..?! SCREW YOU, PANDORA. Don't offer a free service, then pretend to be amazed when people use it. I can't think of a more arrogant label.

They weren't referring to general users, rather the people that were using 3rd party software to rip the streams.

Someone obviously lacking in critical thinking skills should refrain from being so openly hostile. It just makes you look like a tool, and people are less likely to take anything you say seriously.

I personally use pandora because it allows me to enjoy and discover new music based on my tastes in a way that no other service has ever come close to. I realize that not everyone uses a service like pandora for the same reasons, and as such it's not going to be for everyone.

On a different note, almost every single complaint I have ever heard about pandora was from people who use the free version. The paltry fee for a whole year eliminates almost every complaint I've ever heard. Complaining about ads is like saying broadcast television shouldn't have commercials. How else are they going to make any money on a service that is otherwise free?
1) The point is what he said, not what he meant. It's not my job to parse what the man may have intended, I can only go on what he actually says.
2) Pandora gets a large part of its operating capital from ads - which, you'll note, I did not complain about; that's all you - served to user of the free service. Limiting that capital is foolhardy, at best, since that userbase is also the majority of those who go on to eventually pay for the service. Pissing off clients that already make you money, merely to try to force them to pay for the service themselves (rather than the advertising agencies), is just plain stupid.
3) I notice that they ain't keepin' the limit, buster. I wonder why? lol

Point of fact, you didn't actually respond to most of the points I raised, nor did you grasp that I wasn't criticizing Pandora itself or its decision to backtrack, but rather its CEO's bullshit and blarney. I'll have you know, I don't even use the service; there are quite a few superior alternatives. I happen to prefer Slacker.

So much for your critical thinking skills. I'll note that you were the one to take a derogatory note here, when I insulted your (apparent) idol. A classic case of fanboi-itis.
So you are not only putting words in his mouth, but you admittedly don't even use the service.

Your use of the term "fanboi" only serves to prove my point. For someone who doesn't care about using pandora you are getting awfully emotional.

94.9.2013 18:01

a) You are assuming I have *never* used the service; I simply found it inferior and moved on. Fail #1

b) Again, YOU are the one putting words in folks' mouths:

Quote:
They weren't referring to general users, rather the people that were using 3rd party software to rip the streams.
You don't actually know this, you're just assuming it. My response to you was:
Quote:
The point is what he said, not what he meant. It's not my job to parse what the man may have intended, I can only go on what he actually says.
Please explain how this is "putting words in his mouth", why don't you? I'd say it's exactly the opposite. Fail #2

c) You first decided to insult me, when you not only didn't have all the facts, but completely misunderstood the post you were responding to:
Quote:
Someone obviously lacking in critical thinking skills should refrain from being so openly hostile. It just makes you look like a tool, and people are less likely to take anything you say seriously.
I'd say that's the act of a silly fanboi with no self-awareness, defending something he has no actual stake in or knowledge of, and many would agree. Oh, and a little hint: Being hostile to something/someone does not actually imply either the lack OR presence of critical thinking skills; learn2logic, please. Fail #3.

Did you think no one could read the entire response thread, or not notice that you still haven't responded to any of the points I have raised..? Don't accuse others of lacking critical thinking skills, when you quite obviously have a dire lack in that area, yourself - lol. And as for "being emotional", well, your emotions are in question, here, as well; what's driving you to this illogical defense against something I didn't actually say?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Sep 2013 @ 18:09

105.9.2013 12:37

I use Pandora, and I got a yearly subscription which ended up costing $3 per month. My wife and I love streaming Pandora to my JBL Charge bluetooth speaker while sitting on the deck, down by the lake.

You can find fault with any service like Pandora, but my experience with them, has been great.


Life is good!
GrandpaBruce - Vietnam Vet - 1970 - 1971
Computer: Intel Core i7-920 Nehalim;Asus P6T Deluxe V2

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive