It's funny because for a minute there, the CEO thought he was talking to a journalist with a real question.

Nailed it.  Seriously Paul, did you really expect him to answer you, given the way you approached him?

Brilliant approach if you ask me.  

Lame question. As he said it is all public and the ironic thing is he hasn't sold a share which is completely his right to do. 

Wow who exactly are you defending here, may I ask why? This is a totally relevant and really simple question if you ask me.

..and out come the Pandora trolls..

Nobody takes you seriously when you use words like 'trolls'. That's pirate speak.

That aside, Pandora does seem to be busy in this forum today.

But I think they'll find that it's too late for damage control.

Please Pandora. Tell your press hacks to stop polluting this thread. 

And if you were in their shoes you'd be doing the exact same thing. The interesting aspect is that the CEO Kennedy is hanging on to all his stock. It's very common for company insiders to sell after the lockup period of an ipo ends. Not news. Sorry.  

Yes, according to the public information available, Kennedy has yet to sell a single share of the over 4 million that he has. Very interesting. If anything, you had the story backwards. He was pretty gracious to answer your question three times. On the fourth time I'd of walked off too. Sorry bro. He seemed pretty excited to see you too. Too bad you blew it. 

So why didn't he just say that?  What's he hiding?

Sure you want to know?

This guy... I see a horror movie waiting to happen. :-]

Why is Digital Music News the only one asking this question?

Indeed! Wow!

It's not only reveiling, relevant and courageous, it's also absolutely hilarious and creepy at the same time.

I mean, that guy... my god, lol. Anyone remember Serling from the Twilight Zone? :)

This is going to go viral.

Goldman Sachs couldn't a cooked a better scam.  Actually, this IS the new business model

Pandora = NO profits

Stock Value = Worthless

Execs = Making Millions

You're over your head and naive that its scary. Was bill gates scamming as he cashed out stock regularly through the late 80's and 90's while the stock went up 3000%? 

Bill Gates has given a lot to the world.

This guy? Non Tam.

[latin: not so much]

Kinda rude question to ask don't you think?

So unlike yours, huh?

His was relevant, though.

Awesome interview, Paul!

Respect.

...also, could you please interview Kim Dotcom, Daniel Ek, Peter Sunde and Sergey Brin?

Please, please, please!

I just read that article again.

It literally makes me sick, physically.

I happen to believe people that should be rewarded economically for creating great stuff, and I couldn't care less how many billions Apple or Beatles or Picasso made. They gave a lot of people so much.

But these parasites... :(

Someday, someone is going to have to do this to Paul, since he loves doing it to other people. Just film him and ask him silly questions. 

Paul, are you not happy with him because of his compensation?

He's probably not happy because Pandora is (on the film above) testifying before Congress that they can't make their buisness profitable so Congress should do away with most artist rights including the impartial Royalty judges.  Instead of going the legal route for negotiating royalty rates, they buy a Congressman to pass a Bill that does away with the Free Market and in the process making speaking out about it a sueable offence and punishement subject to the Sherman Act...

I wish you would have just decked the guy, Paul!

Then why not ask him: how do you feel that this bill will hurt artist income, or something like that.

Its public knowledge how much he makes and how many shares he owns, etc.

He seemed very open and excited at first when he learned who he was speaking to. This was a missed opportunity in my opinion. You could have built on your relationship and perhaps even setup  a future interview or so.

If you want to report good industry news, then do just that and do it well. This has nothing to do with news,  this should be put a gossip site or something.. You may lose credability by doing things like this. Think!

"He seemed very open and excited at first when he learned who he was speaking to"

You gotta be joking.

He was as open, slimey and slippery as an oyster.

I agree that the question to Mr. Kennedy was inimical. It would appear from the approach of the initial question that it  intention and character suspect and did not seem as though there was really any interest in the more fundamental issues pertaining to his presence on Captial Hill. 

I agree with "JL"

business is business, and "news" should be news..

The question asked did nothing to improve things and seems more like a snipe.. almost ANY other question would have been more usefull.

huge missed opportunity ..

I'm neither happy nor unhappy, but I think the level of compensation being collected by Pandora executives needs to be part of this discussion.  It should be viewed holistically, especially when we have public servants grappling with these issues.  That's why I asked the question that I did, and I'm disappointed Kennedy decided to mostly avoid the issue (and walk away).  Maybe that's the 'answer' that speaks volumes here.

And, to address an earlier complaint, Mr. Kennedy actually had a pretty reasonable response had he decided to answer the question -- his salary seems defensible, and he's holding his shares, that seems like the right thing to do.  

That's not the case for other executives like cofounder Tim Westergren, and it seems to be having an effect on Wall Street's confidence (and contributing somewhat to the battered nature of this stock.)  We won't even get into the effect it is having on angry artists and songwriters, many of whom I've met.

Actually, Tim Westergren at one point offered to give me a detailed response as to why he was cashing out so many shares (more than $10mm in 2012 alone).  I never received the response, perhaps he changed his mind.

Digging a bit deeper into this issue, there's a temptation to isolate the aspect of executive compensation from the rates discussion.  And, as long as these guys are playing by the rules, then of course it's okay (is how the argument goes).  I think the analysis needs to be a bit more nuanced than that: here you have some of the top executives taking tens of millions of dollars off the table for themselves, yet somehow expecting this activity not to interfere or cloud their efforts to lower royalties for artists, quite a beleaguered group.  And speaking strictly from a strategic or public relations perspective, I'm not sure this was the smartest path, to say the least.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out, and the floor is open if any Pandora executive actually wants to answer one of my questions.  

/paul

Hey Paul,

how much do you make a year?  Since you make money off of angry artists I think it's a fair question.

Actually, it's a silly question.

Don't waste your time Pandora, the damage is done.

The old model's dead. But Pandora, Spotify or any other system that does not adequately incentivize those who supply their product will fail miserably. The paradigm shift seems to follow the movie business, where rentals (streaming being the audo equilvalent) only has a place after the initial sell through. The book business equivalent is the paperback. Streaming audio has not demonstrated that it should be the first stop for an artist's new record.

I think it's pointless to ask a question that can be easily verified thru public records.  Perhaps a better question, which he still wouldn't have answered, could have been:  "Why are you asking for lower royalty rates when you and your fellow executvies have profited so greatly?"

Although the answer to that is obvious...they can profit more if the royalties go down.  

Remember one thing here though. This is NOT Spotify - Spotify pays, and we are all doing fine w/ their money in Sweden!

Interesting approach, wrong person. +1 for effort, though this should have been the lead to the article: 

"the broader group of executives and investors have removed more than $70 million in cash in just over a year.  By comparison, there's almost no stock purchasing by this group: since going public, records show buys of just over $1 million. "

A 70:1 ratio on sales to purchases is not good.  You expect sales at this point, but that high? Hmmm..  What is it in relation to what they actually kept?  If that's closer to 1:1, then it's a non-issue, but if they're actively cashing out of Pandora, it's a key red flag.

I think we're missing the point if we focus on the stock he's holding. Even if the company goes under - he's still making a salary of over 700 Grand a year! How many of the artists and consgwriters who make his company a possibility are seeing that kind of money?

The new digital music ecomony is looking like the old one - musicians make pennies while the suits make millions. An age old story.

Joe kennedy gave an honest direct answer, why the amataur interview questioning? 

What more did you expect from this man?

Just look at his previous business success - e-loan inc .... for another example of sharklike behaviour

Cool story bro.

Even cooler follow up by asking the same stupid question three times in a row rather than having ready the answer (as Joe hoped you would) and explaining why you don't like those facts.

Paul - do you think redirecting 9 - $9.5million of Joe's compensation will fix the starving musicians problem?  If so, then this is much smaller probem than you blow it up to be every day.

...whydoikeepreadingthisbs.

Could someone explain to me exactly why Pandora should be held to different standards than terrestrial radio?  I see Pandora as the evolution of radio.  More selection and the ability to "customize" a playlist by skipping disliked songs.  

In my opinion, if you are asking these questions to the Pandora CEO, why not ask the same of Clear Channel, Entercom, Citadel and CBS Radio?  And truthfully, why stop there.  It is common American business practice for CEO's to make bilions while a company fails!  

Pandora and maybe Joe Kennedy himself seem to be commenting up a storm. 

Remember -- there's a lot of money riding on this so last thing they need is some bad press.