• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Radio - dead and loving it (sorry Mel Brooks)

Pandora's stock dropped 20% because their revenue was $8 million short of projections. Stocks usually take a hit when companies' revenues aren't up to what was expected. Amazon still has yet to turn a good profit, from what I read in a newspaper article a month ago. Yet I don't think anyone would say that Amazon is not the future of retail, or that everybody is going to abandon Amazon and go back to brick and mortar stores.

Amazon is predicted to have a $4.8 billion EBITDA for the past year. That's on $88 billion in sales. It's over a 5% margin, which is good for a broad based retail establishment and an indication of a sound business model The stock sells at a high PE ratio because investors sustain a belief that Amazon can grow the business while at the same time increase margins.

Pandora has increased its operating losses each of the last 3 years... from $11 million to $31 million to a projected $42 million in the last fiscal year. In other words, the more subscribers, the more the losses. There is no economy of scale.

Investors saw the key growth indicators slowing, particularly ad revenues and conversion to paid subscriptions. They saw the burn rate increasing. They realized that future guidance would likely be revised. They also saw the Friday report from the copyright office, which affords no prospect of relief from the excessive fees. And they put in sell orders.

The linked article below says that Pandora's listening hours went up by 20% from the previous year,

They lose money on every free subscriber, and the more they listen, the more it costs Pandora.

and their advertising revenue was up 36% from the previous year,

But in the last quarter, the rate of growth slowed, indicating that they are approaching a plateau.

and 'subscription and other' revenue went up by 24% from the previous year.

Which is a slowing of conversion to paid subscriptions, perhaps an indication of a saturation point.

Unless those claims are lies, it doesn't sound like the company is losing listeners. It may not be gaining them at a high enough level to sustain the company -- time will tell.

This is a typical press release spin. The issue is that all the indications are that growth of paid subscribers is slowing, and growth of ad sales has slowed. But they continue to add unpaid free users, who cost them money.

The keyword here is "slowing" as investors were looking for future profitability which is obviously now more elusive than ever.

The company is losing money... burning capital... at an increasing rate. If there is profitability to be had, it is simply that much further away
 
If anything, when they get out of college, they have a job, and consequently they have more money.

Which means they have more money to pay for the pay version of Spotify, or whatever new streaming model crops up in a few years to replace it.

It also means they have a lot more responsibilities such as rent, utilities, car payments, etc., and the priority of a paid music service or higher, more expensive data caps goes way down.
 
People will put up with data caps. They put up with overpriced cable service. But still pay for it. If it's a perceived 'need',they will complain, but still pay for it.

Cable subscriptions, for the first time in a long time, are on the decline. It's not by a lot, but it did go down for the first time in a very long time. It's extremely hard to fathom that cable subscriptions will increase with all the new outlets available to consumers.

Note that data caps are in place primarily in mobile subscriptions. And with the vast majority of radio listening is done out of the home, that will affect streaming audio services.
 


It also means they have a lot more responsibilities such as rent, utilities, car payments, etc., and the priority of a paid music service or higher, more expensive data caps goes way down.

True, but people do go in debt, too. If I had a dime for every 20-something (or other person) I've met that spent beyond their means, I'd at least have a dollar. :) People often don't always budget their money logically.
 


The keyword here is "slowing" as investors were looking for future profitability which is obviously now more elusive than ever.

The company is losing money... burning capital... at an increasing rate. If there is profitability to be had, it is simply that much further away

So how much time do you think it will last before it folds? A year or two? And does this mean non-radio streaming services are basically dead in the water for the long term unless the digital royalty situation changes?
 
@Howdareu, in all your posts you actually make two pretty good points. "I demand substance, entertainment value and talent." I hear you on this one, and I'm only 21, probably 35-40 years younger than you. This is one of the main issues I have with today's radio, PDs, both at the local and corperate level, telling their jocks to cut back. Yes even though I'm young I know what I'm talking about. I encourage you to listen to the airchecks on aircheckdownloads.com of WIHT/Washington from September 11, 2002, WHTZ/NYC from January 20, 2003, and KRBV/DFW from March of 2004. Why isn't the type of night show all these stations had at the time standard anymore?
"Broadcasting does have the advantage of access & simplicity that still trumps the web for many. But it is not above critique for failures." I agree with you here also. When I want to hear something quickly, all I have to do is flip a switch or hit a button and there's sound. If I'm not in the mood for said station, all I have to do is turn a knob or hit a button until I find something I want. Hitting 6 buttons to cycle through 6 different stations is a lot more convenient than swiping 4 or 5 times then waiting for one station to load only to find something you don't like.
Re: streaming services and other portable devices
This may be a personal preference that's not shared by many in my generation, but if I'm not going to be able to pick song for song what I want to hear I want at least some personality in it. Yes I have an iPod that I use quite a bit, but I like to pick every song I play when I play multiple songs back to back. I'm hoping that the rules will be revised so that services like Pandora can be viable, even if I personally don't use them. While I'm not 100% against the idea of a streaming fee being charged by my ISP, I really think that needs to be divided by about everyone that provides streaming. In other words, if an ISP sets up a contract with Pandora that says we'll add a $5.00 fee to customer's bills that will go to you but iHeart Radio doesn't have such a contract, I shouldn't be paying for Pandora when I'm not using it. If iHeart Radio sets up such a contract however, I don't think I'd mind as much since I actually use that platform.
 
My expectation is it will be bought by a much bigger fish that wants their database and their genome. Operating as a stand-alone just doesn't make any sense.

If you want a frightening scenario, Pandora is bought by the members of the RIAA and used as a way to control the usage, exposure and monetization of their music.
 
I shouldn't be paying for Pandora when I'm not using it. If iHeart Radio sets up such a contract however, I don't think I'd mind as much since I actually use that platform.

What they're talking about is an industry wide fee that everyone pays, regardless of service. It wouldn't go to Pandora or iHeart. It goes to the music industry.
 
So how much time do you think it will last before it folds? A year or two? And does this mean non-radio streaming services are basically dead in the water for the long term unless the digital royalty situation changes?

As long as there are investors who will pump money into the concept, it will endure. They can always do another public offering to rase more capital.

Another issue is whether, at the size that Pandora has reached, it may be too big to fail. If they come close to bankruptcy, that might force our lawmakers to revise the DCMA so that both the record companies and the record "exposers" can equally survive. But, again, that sounds a lot like a public utility with regulated rates...
 
Big corp does dominate life today you are right.

They like cheap labor too, not you, so thus they will be hiring more of the illegals than expensive citizens like you especially at Microsoft and the like. They gotta be cheap & most of you are expensive. Like GOOD talent. Thus why corporate ownership of what WAS TALENT dependent radio, is BAD MATH.
 
Big corp does dominate life today you are right.

They like cheap labor too, not you, so thus they will be hiring more of the illegals than expensive citizens like you especially at Microsoft and the like. They gotta be cheap & most of you are expensive. Like GOOD talent. Thus why corporate ownership of what WAS TALENT dependent radio, is BAD MATH.

Uh...yeah, okay. Pandora and alike don't need to hire much in the way of labor, as they pretty much just move audio files around. It isn't like the old days with the need for minimum wage labor dubbing or recording off vinyl or tape. From what I understand, they have sales and commercial production staffs, that's about it. As David and BigA pointed out, most of the expense for streaming on-line music services are DCMA-associated costs.
 
Thus why corporate ownership of what WAS TALENT dependent radio, is BAD MATH.

Except that factually speaking, OTA radio today is still extremely dependent on live talent. Especially when you compare it to other forms of audio entertainment, like Pandora or Spotify. The biggest companies pay the highest salaries and provide the best benefits. Those are the facts. They may cut costs in other areas, like secretaries and personal assistants. But not in the main product. This is even MORE of a fact now than it was just five years ago. Why? Because advertisers want to be associated with talent. It's good for business. At the same time, the job description for talent is different than it was 20 years ago. Back then, talent sat and waited for songs to end so they could load the music up and play it. Now, computers perform the more mundane functions of talent, leaving time for social networking and listener interaction. Much of it involves brand promotion and marketing. On air talent are now part of marketing. That makes them valuable. But it requires different skills, making older, less talented people obsolete. And because they're part of marketing, they're not cheap. As I said earlier in this thread, Clear Channel just paid a local DJ $3.2 million dollars to leave one station in LA for their new start-up. So before you lecture me about my job, it might help to get a few facts.
 
Oh yes it is good you found ONE example! From Los Angeles no doubt where everything is expensive!

Taking a ride up & down the dial these days I don't hear much but computers running everything overnight or on weekends, and even during the day satellite and syndication deliver much of the broadcast so NO ONE IS NEEDED at the station. Many stations know this reality.

Sorry but I am not interested in your crafty salesperson or good engineering because that isn't what I am LISTENING FOR. They have a different job, not entertainment, which clearly is not a concern to you either.

Stations have learned quite well to run on virtually no staffing & marketing/promotions aren't looking too "robust" these days. Giving callers cash to tolerate you or occasional billboards? Wow! Hot! Hot! Ugh.
 
Taking a ride up & down the dial these days I don't hear much but computers running everything overnight or on weekends, and even during the day satellite and syndication deliver much of the broadcast so NO ONE IS NEEDED at the station. Many stations know this reality.

Really? I know for a FACT that most of the companies that own radio stations in Seattle have specific policies AGAINST satellite syndication. CBS, Entercom, Hubbard, Bonneville, all hire live and local talent for their music radio stations. Maybe you could be a bit more specific about what you're talking about. And remember: I work in the business, and I know people in Seattle. So don't make crap up.

By the way, it's not only LA that has highly paid air talent. There are a few big money makers in Seattle, including a guy I know who just had his contract renewed.
 
I don't listen to CBS, Entercom, Hubbard, as they don't own every station yet so I couldn't care less. Bonneville doesn't do very well keeping KIRO on the air at night when they attempt to understand the coast to coast clock after several years so I stopped listening to them stumble through pressing buttons & listen via an AUTOMATED Oregon or California station at night (SADLY, because at least they are competent) as I am more a night listener because of my work schedule - that's why I said WEEKENDS AND OVERNIGHTS. As for KTTH in the they are satellite AND live during the day, not purely in Seattle. - though I don't listen to them much either. CBS AM 1090? Seattle's like 20th sports station or whatever? Also includes satellite during the day - Jim Rome a Seattle guy? Hubbard's KIXI does John Tesh during the afternoons now.
 
I am more a night listener because of my work schedule - that's why I said WEEKENDS AND OVERNIGHTS.

Let me ask you a question: Do YOU want to work overnights? I don't. I did it once early in my career. I was in AFTRA, so I got paid good money, and I quit after a month because I hated the hours. Never worked overnights OR weekends after that. Never. When I started running stations I found it was impossible to get good talent to work weekends or overnights. They simply refuse to do it. So we can either hire crappy talent, or run a computer. It's my decision to run the computer. If you don't like it, don't listen. I don't care. But that's the situation. You want quality entertainment, and you want it overnight and on weekends. Sorry, but quality people don't want to work crappy hours for any amount of money. And would you PLEASE stop talking about stations with no audience. More people read this message board than listen to KIXI.
 
I still believe there's way too much saturation in sports radio. KJR is a shell of its own self, KFNQ gets zero ratings even with Scott Ferrell and Jim Rome, and KRKO is Fox Sports off the bird except for high school sports and Aquasox/Silvertips. KHHO is a waste of channel except for Tacoma Rainiers. The only really good sports station in Seattle is KIRO-AM with the 12's and Mariners and local talk. Gets ratings even being on AM.

-crainbebo
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom