Current Issue:

Current Issue

On The Cover:
Cumulus Chairman Jeff Marcus

Click here to subscribe to Radio Ink.

Radio Ink Writers

User Feedback

Pandora VS. Radio. Tons of Comments.

Add a Comment

(2/18/2011 10:43:24 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
(Originally posted this mistakenly on Part One's comments)
(continuation due to space limitations)

- Dick Downes
(2/17/2011 9:25:27 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Dear KD:

Lets talk about you blunt response to facts, not supositions.
Your number one: If radio has been losing market share, and it still has more then 90%, your premise is weak at best.

Re your number two. Do research on membership organizations. You will find that being a member is not a measure of the actual participation of the population. Subscriptions, clicks, etc, say very little. At least to be counted in a broadcast audience one has to spend some measured time with the media. There is no mention of how a member ever uses the service and how often. That data is more relevant, not just the number of subscriptions.

Your number 3 is valid, but you ascribe more signicance than it deserves. If you think me wrong, hop in a tenagers car and turn on the radio. They still spend more time than you think on the free stations, and the digital niche alternatives have them spending even more time with radio.

- Frank Zappala
(2/17/2011 6:32:06 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
There are many problems with the writer's analysis.

First, let's establish that the writer's anecdotal evidence is not "fact", it 's simply one perceived side of an experience. People interpret what they want and how they want. Because one has this and utilizes that personally doesn't constitute the truth for all.

However, here's what we do know...

1.) The radio industry has been losing market share to other forms of media for many months. Satellite radio and Internet radio, social media and other platforms have taken the place for many people.

2.) The 90 or so million people our industry claims listen to radio is a fleeting at best. One, our industry doesn't have the verifiable account information that Pandora does. They have 80 million actual memberships to their club. That's one of the keys of their perceived valuation as of now. Radio just has potential and unverifiable reach numbers to support their claim. I don't know about anyone else, I rather have the dedicated memberships.

3.) Estimates in our industry say that the median age of the person who uses radio is around 42 years old. That figure seems to make sense. Potentially, there are younger generations who don't or have no desire to listen to our products. For years, we have chased the 25 to 54 year old demographic in vain and we're finally seeing the results from that. We grew old with our audiences and left potential listeners behind. On the other hand Pandora skews a little younger.

4.) Pandora and their Music Genome Project is a great example of what radio and technology should strive to be. Look at their structure and algorithms and you'd be amazed at what they've accomplished. Another big piece of their value is based on their patent. It's no mistake that Fast Company magazine - a well regarded viewer of the future of business and technology - ranks them as one of 50 best companies anywhere.

These are a few of many facts that make Pandora and attractive alternative. To call people silly names that support the investment of Pandora is simple minded and unfortunate at best. I for one see the expanding potential they represent. I'll be investing.

Unfortunately, with the news that Cumulus is in talks to buy out Citadel, the business that I love still has a few issues.

Twitter: @kdwilliams

- K.D Williams
(2/17/2011 5:45:30 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Mary Beth:

You go! While I wasn't around quite yet, TV meant the death of Radio...I WAS around for cassette's, CD's, XM, Ipod's, all of which also meant the end of Radio. While new technology may fragment, we're still not experiencing anything close to the level that TV has endured.Do we need to take advantage of new delivery methods? Of course. Do we need to continue to strive for relevant, compelling, and local content? Certainly. Do we need to continue being involved and supporting our communities? Without a doubt. Is the end in sight? Hardly.

- Scott
(2/17/2011 3:55:19 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content

1. Do you think broadcast radio can withstand ANY further reduction in revenue right now?

2. Do you think Pandora, or Pandora-like services will pull ANY revenue away from broadcast radio as they grow in popularity?

3. Do you understand that broadcast radio runs on profitable advertising revenue, not programming--no matter how good, or how “local”?

4. Do you understand that if a stick can’t pay its bills, it goes bye-bye?

5. Do you think that tomorrow’s decision makers will view broadcast radio in the same light as their predecessors?

You know the answers.

- Will Baumann
(2/17/2011 3:22:11 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Love it, and would love to connect on Facebook!
- Billy Craig
(2/17/2011 3:00:41 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
The buzz surrounding Pandora belies its more modest reality. Its 80 million subscribers' aggregate listening equals that of terrestrial radio in ONE large market. When put into perspective, it's not so exciting. Nonetheless, the buzz Pandora has created is great for its IPO. Now if that goes well, Pandora will be bought out by one of the big boys, Tim Westergren and his buddies will walk away with some serious cash, and Pandora's remnants will blend into the ever-morphing internet mix. Refer to the history of Mark Cuban and Same thing. With Pandora, it's not about the music, and it's not about the listener. It's all about the money. We traditional radio folk like money, too, but we live, work, and have relationships in our communities, so there's something more to it than money. That's not the case with Pandora.
- local oscillator

Add a Comment