NPR: Pandora #1 in Major Markets and Taking Payola!

[FredLeonard]

Interesting story from NPR's Morning Edition this week.

Two surprises:

(1) They say Pandora is number one (over other online and terrestrial stations) in 14 of the top 15 markets. (I'd sure like more details on that one.)

(2) Pandora is doing something illegal for terrestrial stations since 1960. Taking payola.

 

[FredLeonard]

Wifey has NPR on her alarm clock so I was a captive listener the other morning. 15-minute segment on the difference between art auctions and art fairs. The reader admitted this is only of interest to the .0000001% of the nation's ultra-rich. So I ask....

Why the hell would anyone listen to NPR (at least Morning Edition)? I used to get more useful information from the 60-second TOH news spew from Top-40 radio.

If tuna wants to complain about an NPR story, he could have started his own thread in the Public Radio forum, instead of derailing a thread about a completely unrelated topic in this one.

In addition, HE LIES. "The reader" never "admitted" any such thing. And the segment was four minutes long - not 15. Well, maybe he's not lying. Maybe the story was over his head. Judge for yourselves.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/28/367154357/whos-buying-art

Maybe Tuna should ask "Wifey" why anyone listens to Morning Edition, that is if she's speaking to him. Maybe she'll exile him to the guest room so he won't be a "captive" any more.

 

[BOZ Profit]

I moved the post to the Public radio forum.

 

[landtuna]

If tuna wants to complain about an NPR story, he could have started his own thread in the Public Radio forum, instead of derailing a thread about a completely unrelated topic in this one.

In addition, HE LIES. "The reader" never "admitted" any such thing. And the segment was four minutes long - not 15. Well, maybe he's not lying. Maybe the story was over his head. Judge for yourselves.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/28/367154357/whos-buying-art

I should have learned from our last exchange Fred that you cannot discern sarcasm in written form. Although I took several liberties in my post it was essentially correct: The reader did allude to the very small percentage of people who might be interested in that story due to its content. And it might have just seemed as if it was 15 minutes long - it was that boring. Not something I would expect on a workday news broadcast. More like a weekend filler.

One thing I did not say, and should have, is what are these pieces doing on Morning Edition (a supposedly news show) at all? It was anything but news in the normal sense - more like news magazine filler.

I do apologize for appearing to take the thread off-topic. That was not my intention. I thought I saw a dichotomy between the hard news of your post and the soft subject of mine in the same program and it seemed like an interesting contrast. As I do not listen to NPR I subconsciously wondered if this was their normal format.

 

[FredLeonard]

I should have learned from our last exchange Fred that you cannot discern sarcasm in written form. Although I took several liberties in my post it was essentially correct: The reader did allude to the very small percentage of people who might be interested in that story due to its content. And it might have just seemed as if it was 15 minutes long - it was that boring. Not something I would expect on a workday news broadcast. More like a weekend filler.

One thing I did not say, and should have, is what are these pieces doing on Morning Edition (a supposedly news show) at all? It was anything but news in the normal sense - more like news magazine filler.

I do apologize for appearing to take the thread off-topic. That was not my intention. I thought I saw a dichotomy between the hard news of your post and the soft subject of mine in the same program and it seemed like an interesting contrast. As I do not listen to NPR I subconsciously wondered if this was their normal format.

Tuna, the story referenced the small percentage of the population that invests in art. That's different than saying a miniscule percentage will be interested. Almost all news deals with the activities of outliers, a miniscule part of the population.

 

[TheBigA]

(2) Pandora is doing something illegal for terrestrial stations since 1960. Taking payola.

As we've discussed here many times, accepting money from record labels is permitted in broadcasting as long as it's identified. Such identification isn't required in digital media because it's not regulated by the FCC. Sirius also engages in some practices with labels that broadcasters might consider payola. On the other hand, there are royalties digital media must pay that aren't required in broadcast. Some labels will discount those royalties in exchange for certain "favors." That would be considered payola in the broadcast world. Which is why it's unlikely that label royalties can ever be applied to broadcast radio unless the payola laws are abolished. They would likely want to play the same kind of hanky panky with OTA radio.

As for Pandora being #1 in certain markets, they've been claiming all kinds of numbers for years. 70 million subscribers doesn't mean 70 million listeners. I listened to the NPR piece, and the reporter didn't cite any source for his statement, so he was probably parroting the Pandora press release. Pandora doesn't subscribe to Nielsen.

Here's a link to the NPR piece:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/26/366339553/pandoras-new-deal-different-pay-different-play

 

[landtuna]

Tuna, the story referenced the small percentage of the population that invests in art. That's different than saying a miniscule percentage will be interested.

It might be. Depends upon the subject matter.

Almost all news deals with the activities of outliers, a miniscule part of the population.

Not according to my old journalism professor.

 

[FredLeonard]

It might be. Depends upon the subject matter.



Not according to my old journalism professor.

I doubt it. What grade did your old journalism professor give you? What percentage of the population holds elective office? Plays professional sports? Stars in movies? Is tech billionaires? Bites dogs? Probably not much different than the percentage that collects art.

And you flunked journalism 101 when you hear a small percentage of the population invests in art and quote it as a small percentage are interested in a story about investing in art.

You and others like you on the right are so obsessed in your hatred of public radio, that you ignore a topic based on one of their stories and rant about them. Did your journalism professor teach you that, too?

HERE'S THE BIG STORY: PANDORA GETS HIGHER RATINGS THAN ANY OF THE TERRESTRIAL STATIONS IN 14 OF THE TOP 15 MARKETS. Get it? This is the beginning of the end. They are winning.

Also worth noting: Pandora is as big a whore as any broadcaster, only they can get away with it.

Here are other links that one hopes will not trigger your anti-public radio hate-obsession:

http://runthetrap.com/2014/11/26/pandoras-new-deal-blatant-payola/

http://www.stereogum.com/1721833/pandoras-new-deal-with-indies-sounds-a-lot-like-payola/news/

 

[davideduardo]

HERE'S THE BIG STORY: PANDORA GETS HIGHER RATINGS THAN ANY OF THE TERRESTRIAL STATIONS IN 14 OF THE TOP 15 MARKETS. Get it? This is the beginning of the end. They are winning.

You frequently criticize ratings, but here you are dancing in the town square over quai-bogus information.

Pandora definitely has audience. But much of it comes from people who previously listened to iPods who previously listened to CDs who previously listened to Cassettes.... sure, some came from radio, but much of it did not.

And in any event, the data Pandora uses to make those rather questionable claims is totally questionable. Streams are measured on the basis of different metrics and generally those come from the source: session starts and such. Radio does not measure "session starts" at all. So you have an apples and oranges type of comparison.

We are approaching the time when Nielsen will give us ratings that combine all sources, including OTA, streams, and even podcasts. Until such time, these mixed methodology comparisons made by the party-at-benefit will have a significant degree of puffery in them.

 

[FredLeonard]

You frequently criticize ratings, but here you are dancing in the town square over quai-bogus information.

Pandora definitely has audience. But much of it comes from people who previously listened to iPods who previously listened to CDs who previously listened to Cassettes.... sure, some came from radio, but much of it did not.

And in any event, the data Pandora uses to make those rather questionable claims is totally questionable. Streams are measured on the basis of different metrics and generally those come from the source: session starts and such. Radio does not measure "session starts" at all. So you have an apples and oranges type of comparison.

We are approaching the time when Nielsen will give us ratings that combine all sources, including OTA, streams, and even podcasts. Until such time, these mixed methodology comparisons made by the party-at-benefit will have a significant degree of puffery in them.

Thank you. I agree with what you say about "mixed-methodology comparisons." And to paraphrase St. Paul: Cume without TSL is dead.

Nice thing about online listening (and viewing): They can count hits. No problems with sampling and response rates. Or diary completion, which is still an issue for much of the audience.

 

[davideduardo]

Nice thing about online listening (and viewing): They can count hits. No problems with sampling and response rates. Or diary completion, which is still an issue for much of the audience.

The problem is that they get boxcar numbers with no certainty on the demos of any kind.

 

[TheBigA]

Nice thing about online listening (and viewing): They can count hits.

Yes they can. But that's not what they're basing their information on. Which is one reason why we should doubt their numbers.

 

[landtuna]

What percentage of the population holds elective office? Plays professional sports? Stars in movies? Is tech billionaires? Bites dogs? Probably not much different than the percentage that collects art.

Although the percentage of the total population holding elective office is very small they are of the ultimate importance to the rest of us because we live under their laws. The remainder of your examples are of no real importance to any of us (unless we are the ones bitten). And, art collectors in general are not what the piece was about. It was about the very miniscule number of art collectors at the very top of the financial ladder spending enormous sums of money for "investments" they can show off. It was also about the process of buying and selling that is hidden from us ordinary folk - even in "public" auctions.

And you flunked journalism 101 when you hear a small percentage of the population invests in art and quote it as a small percentage are interested in a story about investing in art.

The story was not about "investing in art". It was about the process of investing in art in two similar but different formats. Your ability to understand still needs work.

You and others like you on the right are so obsessed in your hatred of public radio, that you ignore a topic based on one of their stories and rant about them. Did your journalism professor teach you that, too?

Nothing like taking a single comment and stretching it out into a general theory, but no, I am not a hater of public radio. I don't listen to it because I don't find it entertaining (which would be the reason I would listen to any other radio although I don't find it entertaining either). That does not make me a hater. I was addressing one specific show.

My journalism class proceeded public radio (and TV) by almost a decade and I doubt whether the old professor, as smart as he was, could have foreseen either. It is interesting that I've been called a conservative and liberal on the same subject on the same day. I wasn't aware you had to have a badge to listen to a specific station.

HERE'S THE BIG STORY: PANDORA GETS HIGHER RATINGS THAN ANY OF THE TERRESTRIAL STATIONS IN 14 OF THE TOP 15 MARKETS. Get it? This is the beginning of the end. They are winning.

I don't know if that is a true statement or not. Some of the more educated people in the industry seem to question the numbers BUT it really makes no difference to me at all. I could really care if commercial radio disappeared tomorrow as I have almost quit listening entirely and as I have said several times before it is because the music I like is no longer played on stations in my market. Simple as that.

And why should I listen to Pandora when I already have a complete library of my favorite music on several devices I call up with the push of a switch? Instead of depending upon somebody else's idea of what I like I can program my own favorites into playlists I enjoy and don't have to pay anyone for the purpose. Why should I have to pay for a connection to the Internet where my music exists? That is even dumber than listening to free OTA radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

A decade before public radio (which launched in 1971) journalism classes were taught by former newspaper men and operated on the assumption that students would become newspaper (wire service or magazine) writers and editors.

Broadcasters hired actual newspaper men back then, not failed disk jockeys.

 

[TheBigA]

A decade before public radio (which launched in 1971) journalism classes were taught by former newspaper men and operated on the assumption that students would become newspaper (wire service or magazine) writers and editors.

That was 50 years ago. Back then, you still had morning AND afternoon papers in most cities. People lived their lives around newspapers. It was the main contact with the world.

Not any more.

 

[davideduardo]

A decade before public radio (which launched in 1971) journalism classes were taught by former newspaper men and operated on the assumption that students would become newspaper (wire service or magazine) writers and editors.

I don't know that this was universally true. I can recall my step-brother complaining back in the mid-60's that the college journalism classes were too TV and radio oriented and that "his" paper did not get enough qualified job seekers because "everyone" wanted to get into broadcast.

 

[TheBigA]

Now, the New York Times has hired a former NPR exec, Kinsey Wilson, to run its digital department.

 

[landtuna]

A decade before public radio (which launched in 1971) journalism classes were taught by former newspaper men and operated on the assumption that students would become newspaper (wire service or magazine) writers and editors.

Broadcasters hired actual newspaper men back then, not failed disk jockeys.

My journalism class was structured around publishing the school newspaper. I do recall quite succinctly that all the old journalism edicts were strictly enforced (who, what, when, why and verification of facts) - something that modern broadcast and online journalism have almost completely discarded.

In 1961 I cannot recall any "failed" disc jockeys.

 

[FredLeonard]

I don't know that this was universally true. I can recall my step-brother complaining back in the mid-60's that the college journalism classes were too TV and radio oriented and that "his" paper did not get enough qualified job seekers because "everyone" wanted to get into broadcast.

It wasn't. This must be LaLa Land you're talking about. Back then, the Times was a right-wing POS and LA TV was actually in a brief golden age for TV news.

 

[davideduardo]

It wasn't. This must be LaLa Land you're talking about. Back then, the Times was a right-wing POS and LA TV was actually in a brief golden age for TV news.

No, it was right in the middle between the Times and the Tribune... the Cleveland Plain Dealer. And the statement was made by its editor and publisher.