"Pandora nearly beats CBS in Online Radio" Yea, baby - LOL!
HD Radio Farce
CBS Radio is number one - but look at who's number two, Pandora.
Pandora, the company with exactly zero terrestrial radio stations.
Pandora, the company that has no Arbitron nor any need for Arbitron.
Pandora, the company that actually charges folks who use the service
the most.
Pandora is a handful of streams away from being the leading source of
online radio in the US (among those that Ando measures).
During September, Pandora was launched more than 80 million times - 20
million more than CBS Radio and 60 million more than Clear Channel and
its hundreds of streaming brands.
60 million more!
Recognize, of course, that this industry is young. Recognize, of
course, that it will only grow.
But recognize, most importantly, that your station - our industry -
need not be the leading players or even significant players in this
world unless we specifically set out to do so.
You don't win at online radio by repurposing your over-the-air signal
online.
You win at online radio by providing an experience matched to the
digital medium and the expectations of a digital audience. You win by
catering to the audience, not to your pre-existing over-the-air
brands. You win by thinking digital, not by thinking analog belongs
digital.
This is radio's game to lose.
http://www.hear2.com/2009/11/pandora-nearly-beats-cbs-in-online-radio.html#comments
Wait until Pandora makes it in-dash - LOL!
Watchin & Waitin'
"HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:186ad39d-5602-497c...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> "Pandora nearly beats CBS in Online Radio"
>
> CBS Radio is number one - but look at who's number two, Pandora.
re:pandora
the general motors wi-fi device for the car cost $499
the service is $29 per month
knowing how apathetic people are to pay $10 for sirius/xm, i hardly think
this will take off anytime soon.
people are compaining about the price of gas, dont see the value of
sattelite radio....and you are going to put all your eggs in the pandora
model?
i think people are staying with the "free" model. free radio is what people
want.
Gerry
Since I don't own a car I use Pandora on my computer and iPod touch for
free. Another source for music is from Slacker.com which seems to have a
much larger library than Pandora, it also works on my computer and iPod
touch. There is also Lala.com which I haven't used yet all sources for
music that I choose by artist, song or genre.
HD Radio Farce
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:186ad39d-5602-497c...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Whom ever said Pandora would need Internet connections? The Slacker
portable comes pre-loaded, refreshed through Wifi hotspots. Pandora
could easily do the same thing. Online, terrestrial radio will die a
slow death, as "personalized" music services take over - LOL!
leansto...@democrat.com
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:186ad39d-5602-497c...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
XM should have a few free channels. You need to recruit people to the
service. Putting sat radios in new vehicles is only half the job.
With a few free channels, you could promo the pay service channels. XM
somewhat does that now, running promos for their "best of" channels on
their standard service.
David Kaye
>XM should have a few free channels. You need to recruit people to the
>service. Putting sat radios in new vehicles is only half the job.
If Sirius/XM can pay Howard Stern half a billion in cash over 5 years to
promote Sirius/XM, I don't think they need unpaid evangelists.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
SMS
> XM should have a few free channels. You need to recruit people to the
> service. Putting sat radios in new vehicles is only half the job.
> With a few free channels, you could promo the pay service channels. XM
> somewhat does that now, running promos for their "best of" channels on
> their standard service.
There's no mass market for satellite radio at $13 per month. If
XM/Sirrus could get the cost down to $3/month they'd likely get 10X the
number of subscribers and end up making more money than they are now.
But won't do that because they're not willing to drop the cost to the
current subscribers. It's similar to the cellular phone model up until
the 1990's, keep prices high because of the belief that there's no mass
market. Of course with cellular there are increased costs as the number
of subscribers go up which isn't the case with XM/Sirrus.
leansto...@democrat.com
If you can't get enough people to pay $13 a month for 140 channels,
you have to wonder who pays for those premium podcast services, which
are generally $5 a month.
I like XM a lot, but I can see the writing on the wall. And wall is
the appropriate term since they don't seem to be growing customers.
The cellular market really hasn't made a race to the bottom on cost
per minute or flat rates. They are concentrating on selling features.
SMS
> The cellular market really hasn't made a race to the bottom on cost
> per minute or flat rates. They are concentrating on selling features.
Sure it has.
You can now get unlimited voice and text plus 20MB of data for under $34
a month, or 1500 minutes/1500text & MMS/50MB of data for under
$25/month, all on Verizon's network (actually you can get unlimited
low-speed data on these plans as well, at no extra cost, but they don't
like to talk about it).
Where you still pay the big bucks is for the high volume 3G data plans.
The fact that most people pay more, for less, is beside the fact.
David Kaye
>There's no mass market for satellite radio at $13 per month. If
>XM/Sirrus could get the cost down to $3/month they'd likely get 10X the
>number of subscribers and end up making more money than they are now.
I'm not so sure of that. People spend a bundle on iPhones and auxiliarly
monthly charges that make $13 a month look like 13 cents a month.
No, I think the problem is that Sirius/XM is thought of as a car thing, not
something you can take along with you. Sure, cafes love it because they can
pick and choose exactly what kind of mood they want, but from what I've read
so far, home penetration is tiny.
When they can create a truly portable Sirius/XM receiver then they'll have
something. People think of radio as something they can carry around, not
something they have to listen to in their car (even though 30 to 40% of people
do exactly that.
leansto...@democrat.com
They have had portable XM radios for a while. I'd have to check on
Sirius. The XM satellites are more powerful than the Sirius
satellites, so their service is more likely to work better than Sirius
for portable use.
For home use, they started a premium streaming service with 128kbps
streams. XM voice channels, excluding the public radio talk stations,
are very low fidelity. A good AM station is much better than XM talk
stations. Coast to Coast is somewhat in the middle, i.e. better
fidelity than say America Left.
There is a two tier pricing for the streaming. One for their satellite
customers, and one for those who just want streaming at home, i.e. no
satellite. Home streaming has been around a long time, but it's just
starting to become popular. I've made a few Squeezebox converts, but
all in the last year. If those idiots at Fry's streamed to their
internet radios on display, they would probably sell a few.
SMS
> No, I think the problem is that Sirius/XM is thought of as a car thing, not
> something you can take along with you. Sure, cafes love it because they can
> pick and choose exactly what kind of mood they want, but from what I've read
> so far, home penetration is tiny.
DirecTV and Dish network include a lot of the XM and/or Sirrus
programming though I don't think the quality is as good as regular XM or
Sirrus service. It's thrown in on many of the packages, though I doubt
many people would pay for it if it were charged separately. I don't know
how many people actually ever listen to the satellite radio channels via
their DirecTV or Dish receivers, but we do (or 100% of the people
surveyed said they listen to Sirrus or XM over their Dish or DirecTV
receiver).
> When they can create a truly portable Sirius/XM receiver then they'll have
> something. People think of radio as something they can carry around, not
> something they have to listen to in their car (even though 30 to 40% of people
> do exactly that.
Wow, is it only 30-40%? Maybe in New York City.
The whole satellite radio business model is to subsidize receivers for
vehicle manufacturers, and offer free trials in the hope that the new
car buyer will keep the service beyond the trial period. Actual sales of
satellite radio receivers in the after-market have continued to fall.
The HD radio business model has more of a chance of working, especially
now with the agreement for the power increase (assuming the FCC approves
it).
My gut feeling is that for the after-market the XM/Sirrus/HD car
receivers have to not be add-on gizmos but have the satellite or HD
radio built in to the base unit. I know that when I replace factory
radios in my vehicles I'm not looking to install multiple pieces hidden
all over the vehicle as best as possible yet too many equipment
manufacturers offer receivers that are "HD- Ready," "XM/Sirrus Ready,"
"Bluetooth Ready," or "iPod Ready," requiring extra-cost add-ons that
make the installation process too complicated.
Surely XM and Sirrus have done enough market research to determine that
dropping the price would not result in a sufficient increase in
subscribers to make financial sense. Yet it's also clear that they can't
go on the way they're going for very much longer.
Dave Turner
The problem with your argument is that you're assuming people are going
to look at $29 a month for one internet item. As soon as I can get a
quality internet signal in my new car I'm going to get it and not just
for Pandora - which I use on my cell phone - but for BBC6 and other
internet radio stations I can't get but on my PC for now and for general
internet usage.
The fact that I might be able to download stuff to my laptop while I'm
on a 4-5 hour drive and away from my computer would be worth the $30 a
month to me -- as long as you get a competent, clear signal and a decent
download speed - at least as good as DSL.
SMS
> The fact that I might be able to download stuff to my laptop while I'm
> on a 4-5 hour drive and away from my computer would be worth the $30 a
> month to me -- as long as you get a competent, clear signal and a decent
> download speed - at least as good as DSL.
There are very few areas of the country where you could go on a 4-5 hour
drive and have a signal with a download speed as good as DSL, nor is
this likely to be the case in the near future. The whole appeal of
satellite radio is that it works almost anywhere.
And of course if everyone signed up for mobile internet and immediately
began streaming music into their vehicle, the whole network model would
quickly collapse (as you're seeing with the iPhone and AT&T already).
Why stop at streaming audio? You can also stream video to the backseat
video monitors.
Jo Jo Gunn
On Nov 8, 4:41?pm, "Watchin & Waitin'" <Watc...@Waitin.com> wrote:
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:186ad39d-5602-497c...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Pandora nearly beats CBS in Online Radio"
>
> > CBS Radio is number one - but look at who's number two, Pandora.
>
> re:pandora
>
> the general motors wi-fi device for the car cost $499
>
> the service is $29 per month
>
> knowing how apathetic people are to pay $10 for sirius/xm, i hardly think
> this will take off anytime soon.
>
> people are compaining about the price of gas, dont see the value of
> sattelite radio....and you are going to put all your eggs in the pandora
> model?
>
> people
> want.
> Whom ever said Pandora would need Internet connections?
Would it be free?
Jo Jo Gunn
"Dave Turner" <da...@wrightpopcorn.com> wrote in message
news:4af852e1$0$1590$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Watchin & Waitin' wrote:
>> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:186ad39d-5602-497c...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> "Pandora nearly beats CBS in Online Radio"
>>>
>>> CBS Radio is number one - but look at who's number two, Pandora.
>>
>> re:pandora
>>
>> the general motors wi-fi device for the car cost $499
>>
>> the service is $29 per month
>>
>> knowing how apathetic people are to pay $10 for sirius/xm, i hardly think
>> this will take off anytime soon.
>>
>> people are compaining about the price of gas, dont see the value of
>> sattelite radio....and you are going to put all your eggs in the pandora
>> model?
>>
>> i think people are staying with the "free" model. free radio is what
>> people
>> want.
>>
>
> The problem with your argument is that you're assuming people are going
> to look at $29 a month for one internet item. As soon as I can get a
> quality internet signal in my new car I'm going to get it and not just
> for Pandora - which I use on my cell phone - but for BBC6 and other
> internet radio stations I can't get but on my PC for now and for general
> internet usage.
And maybe you can connect your Tivo while you're in the car as well!
Most people don't care enough to want "internet" in the car. Apathy is
everywhere.
You could spend half that for all the offerrings on Sirius/XM including
BBC...but no one cares.
With gas prices the way they are, and 10% unemployment, people don't want to
spend $29/month to listen to things in the car.
> The fact that I might be able to download stuff to my laptop while I'm
> on a 4-5 hour drive and away from my computer would be worth the $30 a
> month to me
The average commute is about 17 minutes to and fro.
Most people dont have 4-5 hours of driving at a time.
Don Freeman
>
> Alternatively, you could cancel the car subscription and purchase a
> portable device. Then, activate the portable subscription and then
> endlessly move the device between the car and the house, along with
> everything else you have to carry that day.
>
> If they wanted to improve things, one subscription per address. Perhaps
> a very small, and I do mean very small[1], additional fee for additional
> devices. I suppose having to have multiple subscriptions for a single
> family looks better on the bottom-line.
>
> [1] Additional devices do not cause additional drain on their resources.
>
I have a portable Sirius device (Stiletto 2), it's small enough to put
in my pocket so I can use it while outside, Or plug it into my car dock
while driving, or into my home dock while there. It is very versatile.
The subscription charge is about half for any device you add to your
account over the first one, which is a lot more then what it should be.
I've had my son's radio on my account for the past two years. After
this last rate increase and the removal of free PC internet access for
satellite accounts, I am reconsidering having the second device.
--
-Don
Dave Turner
> Dave Turner wrote:
>
>> The fact that I might be able to download stuff to my laptop while I'm
>> on a 4-5 hour drive and away from my computer would be worth the $30 a
>> month to me -- as long as you get a competent, clear signal and a decent
>> download speed - at least as good as DSL.
>
> There are very few areas of the country where you could go on a 4-5 hour
> drive and have a signal with a download speed as good as DSL, nor is
> this likely to be the case in the near future. The whole appeal of
> satellite radio is that it works almost anywhere.
You're probably right with that. Hell my XM unit loses the signal in San
Francisco quite a bit. But it's worse since the merger. There's even a
dead spot on the 101 in Burlingame where it's an 8-10 lane highway and
no tall buildings around.
>
> And of course if everyone signed up for mobile internet and immediately
> began streaming music into their vehicle, the whole network model would
> quickly collapse (as you're seeing with the iPhone and AT&T already).
But chances are they won't. I know my parents wouldn't, so you're
looking at the under 50 crowd that's going to be interested with, and
I'm guessing, the 20-40 crowd the most interested but only if it's built
in or an easy add on.
>
> Why stop at streaming audio? You can also stream video to the backseat
> video monitors.
Because I'm usually on the road by myself making deliveries or sales
calls. No need for backseat entertainment. :)
Travis James
> In news:hd8i6b$j9u$1...@news.eternal-september.org you wrote:
>
>> No, I think the problem is that Sirius/XM is thought of as a car
>> thing, not something you can take along with you. Sure, cafes love it
>> because they can pick and choose exactly what kind of mood they want,
>> but from what I've read so far, home penetration is tiny.
>
> Sirius/XM radio and you want portable use, you have to have two
> subscriptions. One for the car and one for the Home/portable device.
>
That's what stopped me from buying in to satellite radio, and now I've
lost interest. I have my car during the week, the family car on the
weekend, radio in the house, portable radio for yardwork and the gym.
Too complicated and/or too expensive to bother.
My iPod Touch is slowly filling that gap that satellite had the
potential for (still haven't done the car integration part). No
subscriptions and it's more than just a radio.
leansto...@democrat.com
I'm not sure the merger changed performance of XM. It turned out their
local XM transmitters were cranked up a tad to much, and they had to
return to their licensed limit. I don't think I ever used my XM in San
Francisco. [Way too many targets to avoid. I try to use Bart whenever
I need to go to the city, and I go there as little as possible.] The
only place where XM is touchy locally for me is Marin. Often the
hillside shields the satellite and there is no local transmitter.
Though I predicted doom and gloom, XM post merger has been better than
ever since Sirius had the better programming. [Grateful Dead,
Springsteen, and 3 extra NPR stations.] Though probably a money loser,
they kept POTUS after the election and added Pete Dominick. While
Pete is a natural for radio, the producers for his show make the magic
happen. Whomever books the guests does a hell of a job.