PANDORA - not radio - STOP REPORTING ON IT!

[TVradioguru]

Here's the real question:

Is iCloud radio? Should radio folks be worried about iCloud?

Apple is giving $50 million advances to each of the four cash starved major record labels, while radio pays them nothing.

Potentially iCloud is yet another competitor to radio, just as iTunes has become, so if I'm in traditional radio should I be worried? No, but I'd be putting myself at risk by not keeping an eye on all my competition while all the while, evolving my product to best serve the audience that listens to over the air radio.

Back to the Pandora for a moment; I was checking out their published balance sheet and noticed something interesting. The headlines that their PR firm pushes show Pandora at something north of 130% revenue increase last quarter. ($51M to $81M) But if you look deeper, their expenses increased almost 140%. The majority of expense? You guessed it, music royalties. Unfortunately for Pandora, that expense isn't a one-time, but a reoccurring one. So it appears on the surface that Pandora needs to time their IPO pretty well, before their losses continue to reveal the true problem with the business model.

 

[TheBigA]

Potentially iCloud is yet another competitor to radio, just as iTunes has become,

Depends once again how you define radio. iTunes is more of a competitor to Amazon and brick & mortar retail. If you define radio as a way for people to purchase, download, and share music, then iTunes is a competitor. It's not really much of a "discovery" tool. Neither is iCloud, at least AFAIK. iCloud is simply a means of accessing or archiving ones own music collection without carrying it with you. I think radio needs to decide how dependent it wants to be on music for its content. If radio was more into original content creation, then this would be less of an issue.

 

[bossbill]

You guys are spending a lot of time splitting hairs over the definition of radio. In fact, there's now a plethora of media forms that compete for the listeners' ears, and each new form of delivery competes with all the others. We should expect that all this competition would bring a serious downturn in hour listening to conventional terrestrial radio, but it hasn't. There's been some attrition, but not like you'd expect, given all the choices we now have.

One thing we need to keep in minds is that most of these delivery methods are not capable of being a "companion". Only live radio can do this, and live and local radio can do it the best. I say "can do it" because many don't. And the ones that don't will fall behind.

 

[TheBigA]

One thing we need to keep in minds is that most of these delivery methods are not capable of being a "companion". Only live radio can do this, and live and local radio can do it the best.

Depends on what kind of "companion" you want. You'd be surprised how much better radio can be when it's on a two-way medium like the internet. OTA radio is a lecture. The internet is a conversation. Men like to lecture, women prefer conversation.

 

[davideduardo]

You guys are spending a lot of time splitting hairs over the definition of radio. In fact, there's now a plethora of media forms that compete for the listeners' ears, and each new form of delivery competes with all the others. We should expect that all this competition would bring a serious downturn in hour listening to conventional terrestrial radio, but it hasn't. There's been some attrition, but not like you'd expect, given all the choices we now have.

One thing we need to keep in minds is that most of these delivery methods are not capable of being a "companion". Only live radio can do this, and live and local radio can do it the best. I say "can do it" because many don't. And the ones that don't will fall behind.

To the listener, or at least the non-luddite music listener, there are two forms of audio entertainment: the playlist and radio. A playlist is just one's own selection of songs, Radio is a selection of songs that generally fit the listener's taste. An iPod has a playlist, and a cloud based storage system does not change that. Configurable Pandora is viewed as radio, just as AM and FM and satellite is.

The next generation of non-AM/FM will be a total companion, but made to order. If you look at how the Seacrest show is delivered, in work parts, or how satellite does weather and traffic, it's easy to see the next step. I like, let's say, alternative rock, but not the harder stuff. I want traffic when I get in the car, and weather, too. And I like Seacrest, as odd as that may seem. So I get in the car, push a button and say "radio" and it beeps. I say "morning station" and I get my blend of alternative, with the precise amount of Seacrest I asked for previously... and the first thing I hear is the current trafffic and weather. And if I don't pay for the service, i get 3 or 4 commercials, probably 30's, an hour. For most people, that is as local as they want and need... for "community" they have Facebook, because communities are not geographical today as much as they are affinity groups.

I can't wait for this to be reality. The two places where I live are both rated markets, but not in the top 100. The radio is, for the most part, unlistenable. I got satellite, but that's still a trade of too many songs I don't want to hear for none of the horrible, badly produced local commercials in never-ending stopsets. The local news is seldom given, but when it is, it seems to consist of New York Times length stories about irrelevant things. One local paper was never readable, and the other, chain owned, has gone from outstanding to less than mediocre in the last few years.

We are probably entering the dawn of the least informed generation of Americans ever. But with so many choices, many will never be exposed to news because they will tune out if they can find music... just as teens did in the 50's and 60's in markets where there were several Top 40's and the FCC mandated news came on. then, you somehow got some news. Today, you can avoid it totally.

 

[TheBigA]

But with so many choices, many will never be exposed to news because they will tune out if they can find music... just as teens did in the 50's and 60's in markets where there were several Top 40's and the FCC mandated news came on. then, you somehow got some news. Today, you can avoid it totally.

Worse than that, they can avoid news or music they don't like, or opinions they don't agree with. Which makes them increasingly impatient when faced with real diversity, such as blacks, Hispanics, gays, or anything else they're not familiar with. They were raised by parents that insulated them from a lot of things like that, and it's extremely discomforting when they're forced to face it. We're seeing it in Congress right now.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We could have a giant debate as to whether I am "well informed" or not, but to use the Lake Woebegone terminology, I am at least a little bit above average when it comes to trying to follow a very diverse diet of news and information.

It is always interesting when attending a committee meeting for some organization I participate in, to have some one make some bold (often sarcastic) comment on some issue of the day. If the agenda of the meeting permits, I will sometimes turn to them and suggest we shake the subject out like a dust mop at the back door. The national hub-bub over healthcare delivery and healthcare financing is a good example. Explain to them, using real live examples how any direction we go on that subject screws some providers and makes some providers more wealthy. Any direction we go on that subject lessens the financial burden for some patient and puts some patients into poverty. Any direction we go on that subject gets either a government bureaucrat or an insurance industry bureacrat out from between the patient and doctor in some cases, and inserts one right into the middle of other cases.

I don't know if any of my "conversational victims" are ever motivated to start paying attention to the news a bit more carefully or not. I guess I do get solme perverse pleasure from the green look on their face.

 

[davideduardo]

Worse than that, they can avoid news or music they don't like, or opinions they don't agree with. Which makes them increasingly impatient when faced with real diversity, such as blacks, Hispanics, gays, or anything else they're not familiar with. They were raised by parents that insulated them from a lot of things like that, and it's extremely discomforting when they're forced to face it. We're seeing it in Congress right now.

The niche creation of media fragmentation, irrespective of the chicken vs. egg issues, has made "sense of community" synonymous with following tweets where our friends tell us what they got at the mall. I could probably stage a pretty good rant on that, too.

But if there is isolation to the extent that diversity falls victim, I see an even worse situation with the understanding of the rest of the world. Despite the availability of so much information, the divisions on the Hill are nothing compared to the understanding of world situations.

"May you live in interesting times" is purported to be an old Chinese curse, but it seems all the more appropriate today, and could have been written by Mark Zuckerberg. Or Sarah Palin.

 

[Tom Wells]

One thing we need to keep in minds is that most of these delivery methods are not capable of being a "companion". Only live radio can do this, and live and local radio can do it the best.

Depends on what kind of "companion" you want. You'd be surprised how much better radio can be when it's on a two-way medium like the internet. OTA radio is a lecture. The internet is a conversation. Men like to lecture, women prefer conversation.

I like reading and/or hearing a good lecture.
Lectures are at best, a distilled downloading of data, logic, and real working knowledge in an understandable format, if the lecturer is effective.

Even if some of the data or logic is possibly of question, the excercise of more minds on the issue is always useful.

It's no different than the Lemonade case.


Lemonade is fresh squeezed lemons, sugar, ice and water.

The powdered stuff is blankety-blank lemonade flavored instant drink mix....

The main difference is that radio as we currently know it, is "free" to the listener.

The newer modes insist on paid-for service access.
They will grow as new generations will eventually disbelieve in such a thing as free broadcast ever existed.
Until something happens to the interconnectivity thing, and who knows what will be left of radio by then?

 

[TVradioguru]

For right or wrong, that's where you and the vast majority of media consumers part. People under 40 don't like to be lectured. They want want they want when they want it. If they choose to be part of a 'conversation' then they want to be heard. And of course they want it in a time and format that suits their self-perceived busy lifestyle.

Now with so many choices, the average consumer gladly no longer has to choose between a book and listening to the radio or watching TV in their living room.

That's just the way it is. Trying to align your past or current personal opinion of how best to consume media with the way people do today will only serve to frustrate you. If you're waiting for consumers to "come around" to your way in the past, chances are you won't live long enough to see it.

As a traditional media owner or executive you can choose to ignore the new competition, try to get in line and participate in it, or make sure you protect and super-serve existing and potential listeners/viewers.

 

[Manic_Monkey]

As a traditional media owner or executive you can choose to ignore the new competition, try to get in line and participate in it, or make sure you protect and super-serve existing and potential listeners/viewers.

You mean do what for the most part commercial radio should of been doing all the while? What a crazy notion you spout sir.

At any rate terrestrial radio isn't irrelevant until Wi-Fi is free and even if or when it does become free I still like humans with my radio.

 

[KeithE4]

At any rate terrestrial radio isn't irrelevant until Wi-Fi is free...

Don't hold your breath waiting for that. WiMax is all but dead technology (even Sprint is moving its 4G network to LTE), and city-wide wireless networks were stillborn just about everywhere, for legal, financial, and technical reasons. The infrastructure is too expensive to implement on a large scale (towers, equipment, NIMBY problems and the resulting lawyer fees, etc.).

 

[Manic_Monkey]

At any rate terrestrial radio isn't irrelevant until Wi-Fi is free...

Don't hold your breath waiting for that. WiMax is all but dead technology (even Sprint is moving its 4G network to LTE), and city-wide wireless networks were stillborn just about everywhere, for legal, financial, and technical reasons. The infrastructure is too expensive to implement on a large scale (towers, equipment, NIMBY problems and the resulting lawyer fees, etc.).

So people want to get rid of terrestrial radio and replace it with something I have to pay for. Yeah.....that makes sense? :-\

 

[KeithE4]

So people want to get rid of terrestrial radio and replace it with something I have to pay for. Yeah.....that makes sense? :-\

Who's talking about "getting rid of terrestrial radio?" That's not gonna happen.

But they do have competition, and that's not going away. And just like cable/satellite TV, people are willing to pay for it. Yes I know that some folks are cutting the cable, but they're keeping internet service. We're not going back to the days of only CBS/NBC/ABC//Fox/PBS on TV, and we're also not going back to the days of only AM and FM radio.

 

[adma]

But with so many choices, many will never be exposed to news because they will tune out if they can find music... just as teens did in the 50's and 60's in markets where there were several Top 40's and the FCC mandated news came on. then, you somehow got some news. Today, you can avoid it totally.

Worse than that, they can avoid news or music they don't like, or opinions they don't agree with. Which makes them increasingly impatient when faced with real diversity, such as blacks, Hispanics, gays, or anything else they're not familiar with. They were raised by parents that insulated them from a lot of things like that, and it's extremely discomforting when they're forced to face it. We're seeing it in Congress right now.

And the added conundrum for the radio biz is that in practice, those who are enlightened enough to adapt to "real diversity" are also more prone to adapting to technologies beyond traditional mass media--and in their turn, they find themselves vindicated by the all-too-often backwoods idiocy they left behind. IOW those radio bozos bumbled their way into one heck of a metastatic listener brain drain...