• 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

Big radio, it’s time to get over Pandora

davideduardo

davideduardo

Moderator/Administrator
Staff member
I have a real problem with services that simply distribute other people's content without any additional involvement as being equal to a service that augments other people's content with additional material created by the distributor. When this writer says "These new services are taking radio to a new level," he is overstating the case, unless that "new level" is the basement. All Pandora has done is replace the Teamster truck drivers who delivered music from the warehouse to the store. It's like going to a restaurant and having to cook your own food. Should that place be on the same par as a place that hires a chef and a group of waiters?

Now it could be said that there are OTA radio stations that are merely computers in a closet. What I'm seeing is that those kinds of radio stations are becoming fewer and fewer. Instead, those stations are finding ways to get live presentation of music, whether it's by hiring local talent or using national talent. But it's more than simply the replaying of a personal playlist.

I have never disputed that Sirius is radio. That company spends many millions of dollars in the PRESENTATION of the music. That's also the idea behind iHeart's Music Choice and the Cumulus national format services. My problem is that the streaming services are strictly technology companies, not programming companies. The money they spend is on the technology of their site, and not on the presentation. They don't provide anything more than a way to enjoy music on a digital device. That's a fine service, and in some ways, it might be similar to radio, but it's not the same thing, and shouldn't be accepted as the same thing, or we risk losing our identity as an industry.
 
TheBigA said:
My problem is that the streaming services are strictly technology companies, not programming companies. The money they spend is on the technology of their site, and not on the presentation. They don't provide anything more than a way to enjoy music on a digital device. That's a fine service, and in some ways, it might be similar to radio, but it's not the same thing, and shouldn't be accepted as the same thing, or we risk losing our identity as an industry.
Click to expand...

How do we do this when both listeners and buyers already consider Pandora et. al. to be "radio"?

I would be interest in knowing what percentage of Pandora listeners use the "curated" formats that are pre-programmed and what percentage use the "build my station around these songs and artists" customization.

I think Pandora does an acceptable if not inspired job of doing some of the curated formats; Apple has taken this to a different and higher level with professionally programmed channels executed in a studio rather than on a computer with an algorithm.
 
DavidEduardo said:
How do we do this when both listeners and buyers already consider Pandora et. al. to be "radio"?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Pandora has done a good job of marketing itself, in the same way that iTunes has done a good job of marketing itself. There are lots of competitors for both services, but those two are by far the most popular.

My comments are mainly directed to the author of the linked article. It would be very easy and cheap for OTA companies to duplicate Pandora. I agree that we shouldn't focus our time and attention on an unprofitable service. But to credit Pandora for taking radio "to a new level" is simply buying and perpetuating the hype. I don't know what success Pandora is having with curated formats, but I know it's a huge failure at Apple.
 
My rambling thoughts:

I got into a blog the other comparing Pandora to the cassette, CD, etc. The author said he had a good collection of Cd's in his teens and 20's. As he got into his mid 20's his collection wasn't as important, and he spent more time listening to the radio. I would agree. I had a large collection of cassettes and Cd's in my younger years, but still spent a good amount of time listening to radio (Y100, I-95, 96.3/5) in Miami at the time, now radio is just easy to access.

I think most use Pandora for "Passive" listening (I guess a term I use). Radio is still a primary part of daily life as indicated in many articles printed in Tom Taylor's newsletter this week.

I think the poor performance of some of the major companies, has hurt our industry perception in general, and competitors have used that to their advantage.

We have a lot of work to do in order to change that perception. I agree, I don't think the agencies worry about it as much as we do.
 
All Pandora has done is replace the Teamster truck drivers who delivered music from the warehouse to the store. It's like going to a restaurant and having to cook your own food. Should that place be on the same par as a place that hires a chef and a group of waiters?
Click to expand...

Things like Pandora, CDs and local MP2 collections are like a five-star luxury hotel with a complimentary gourmet all-you-can-eat buffet downstairs, valet parking and a skybridge to the Neiman Marcus across the street. Commercial radio is like a little $10/night fleabag motel on the edge of town with a McDonald's across the parking lot and an addiction clinic and sheriff's precinct on the other side of the block.
 
Last edited:
Wow! You really don't like radio.
At some point, sites like Pandora will stop streaming music for free. They will become subscription services.
Will you be willing to pay for Pandora?
 
Last edited:
More like, I don't like what it's turned into. A decade and a half ago a broadcast receiver was a necessary part of my portable audio kit. These days it's just something I grab if I know I'm going to be DXing and hope the batteries haven't leaked all over inside.

"At some point, sites like Pandora will stop streaming music for free. They will become subscription services.
Will you be willing to pay for Pandora?"
Click to expand...

Nope. I have multiple gratis sources for local content as it is so it's not much concern. (Think I'm pretty much set.) I should also clarify, I'm not actively using Pandora myself but I have heard it recently and used it in the past.
 
Last edited:
Darth_vader said:
Things like Pandora, CDs and local MP2 collections are like a five-star luxury hotel
Click to expand...

Oh be serious. Pandora is just another way to access your own personal record collection. It's DIY. And if you have the time to make your own radio station, good for you. But there's nothing luxurious about doing the work yourself. Plus, you still have commercials. And there will be even more coming next year.
 
I don't hear commercials in my audio library unless I specifically insert them.

What's wrong about doing all the work yourself? You get your hands dirty, you have full involvement and you're assured of getting a product that 100% meets your specification, rather than a corporate "one-size-fits-some" thing. You end up with something that you can take pride in. What's not luxurious about that?

Which would you rather have: a hastily slapped-together Dell factory PC that'll work for maybe 2-3 years at best, or one that you've put a little bit of thought and effort into designing and assembling with your own hands and will last a good decade or longer?
 
Last edited:
Darth_vader said:
I don't hear commercials in my audio library unless I specifically insert them.
Click to expand...

You paid for that library, didn't you? How much did you pay for radio? People have always had the option to buy recorded music. The phonograph was invented BEFORE the radio. If you want to buy CDs, be my guest. But from what I see, most people want free music.

Look, if you're willing to get your hands dirty, then do it. But don't compare it to a luxury hotel, because when I stay in a hotel, I don't have to fix my own bed or vacuum my own rug.
 
I enjoy my music library but I do listen to the radio ... mainly when I'm in the car. I can get news and weather updates on the radio. The long commercial breaks can be annoying but it's nice to hear another human while I'm driving (alone).
Each entertainment source has it's place.
 
Most of my CDs I got for free at swaps or elsewhere. Downloaded content is largely off Youtube and from other people, because screw Apple and because I can. Don't forget the years that I was getting Muzak via satellite. Over the years I think I've maybe only spent $100 on my personal audio library, but have put far more into it as time and effort. I think I have a larger financial investment in the hardware than the audio content that runs on it.

It's called the "underground economy". It's a generational thing, I guess.
 
Darth_vader said:
It's called the "underground economy". It's a generational thing, I guess.
Click to expand...

Fine...so the people who get screwed are the musicians you love. At some point, that affects the music. There are some who feel it already has.

Do you even pay for concert tickets?
 
I don't go to concerts, unless they're the free outdoor Vancouver Symphony ones at Esther Short Park in the summertime, the only ones that are worth going to anyways.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, whatever. *rolls eyes*

When the industry evangelicals start waving the "it's immoral not to give corporations money" bible, it's obvious the discussion has run its course. I'm done here.
 
Last edited:
Gratis is when something is given for free.
You are stealing when you download (and record) music from YouTube and other similar sites.
 
frankberry said:
Gratis is when something is given for free.
You are stealing when you download (and record) music from YouTube and other similar sites.
Click to expand...

Technically, it was stealing when we recorded music from radio on our cheap cassette recorders as well (and we all did it). It wasn't enforced, and it was unenforceable, then and now.

Besides, if I download a video off of YouTube, it's no different than recording a TV show off-air, as long as it's for my own personal use and I'm not selling copies. The Supreme Court made that decision decades ago.
 
Darth_vader said:
Yeah, whatever. *rolls eyes*

When the industry evangelicals start waving the "it's immoral not to give corporations money" bible, it's obvious the discussion has run its course. I'm done here.
Click to expand...

Artists sign with record companies to get the advantages that an international infrastructure for promotion, marketing and distribution give. So if you don't "give" to those corporations, the artist gets no money. The artist made a decision not to go it alone, because they felt the rewards, individually, were potentially better.

Those corporations you dismiss spend lots of money signing, producing and distributing music that does not ever have a payback for the artist and the label. But unless they constantly work with new talent, they will not be able to find the artists that you will like in the future and give them an opportunity.

Even self-distribution by artists requires making deals with iTunes and Amazon et. al. Those distributors take a cut for making the songs available and they provide a valuable service for the artists.

Your apparent hatred for corporations has the end effect of harming the artists and stifling the development of new talent. Are you proud of that?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom