Read Eric Rhoads' Blog
User Feedback
What if Radio Paid Like Pandora Pays?
Add a Comment
(11/21/2012 10:37:38 AM) Flag as inappropriate content
Ken Dardis just captured the situation perfectly. It is time to face up to the truth and do something about it.
Also, Al, SOME radio stations provided help during the storm but many, as no doubt you know, are just unmanned boxes playing automated content from somewhere else and therefore contributed nothing.
In fact if it wasn't for the geographical limitation of the towers a lot of radio stations would look a lot like Pandora.
Using these figures, and the fact that Pandora says it has (I can't remember, 6 or 8% of the listening),,,does this mean Pandora is pays $150,000,000 a year,,,I hardly think so.
At least this proves the point, the numbers released by Pandora are a joke.
I'm in the process of developing a new online business that will (hopefully) revolutionize the relationship between radio broadcasters, the music industry and the public. But, with the economy the way it is, I've been having quite a time getting things moving.
Hopefully, we'll be up and running by early next year.
What you will be seeing is a concept that's totally 'outside the box' and designed to successfully compete against online broadcasting, such as Pandora.
Chuck - Radio is not a dying industry, try asking a real audience who depended on broadcast radio during the recent storms... what did Pandora do to help, play music? Broadcast Radio is NOT all about music, if you think it is, then you don't know radio or ever worked successfully in it.
Jim - Radio does pay plenty to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC plus for streaming as well. Yes broadcasters are against paying a performace fee, broadcast radio has been the platform of choice to creat hits and make performers money through our broad exposure, if internet jukeboxes want to try go for it, how many stars have you created that were not first exposed to a mass audience on broadcast radio first.
Ken - Comparing broadcast radio to an internet jukebox is apples and oranges, no matter how hard you try, we are not the same. As Ronald mentions, maybe Pandora can offshore itself and save money.
A nebulous sense-of-fairness notwithstanding, I have to wonder what stops internet broadcasters from originating off-shore and telling absolutely everybody to go pound salt....?
I'm sure Ken could school me and get me straightened out on this - instantly. Ken....?
Al, there is a software backend that needs to be developed for online music services. When done correctly the cost of developing that backend is enormous; what radio has created in software developement is mostly weak and cheap attempts at copying pureplay platforms.
Al's defense in not paying for content is that he provides an emergency service (needed a few times a year), and that he operates a brick-n-mortar business which has seen competition grow a thousand-fold over the past decade.
Cable and Sirius pay these fees. They, along with Pandora and other major streaming services all have capital expense.
Had the broadcast industry responded when first asked to get involved with the performance rate issue (in 1998, 2002, & 2005), it might have helped hold costs down. Now that extremely high rates are set, and being used as the basis for broadcaster performance rates, folks like Al howl it's unfair. To many people "unfair" is exempting broadcasters from paying for content other music-intensive business are forced to pay for today.
I wrote the following on June 14, 2007: "Recording artists and music companies are set to release details today on how they want to give '...performers the right to receive compensation when their music is broadcast by radio stations.'"
As with nearly everything digital, it was the broadcasters who chose to ignore the train.
I think the real point is that the fees paid for streaming are insanely high. Terrestrial broadcasters need to oppose these fees because:
A. many of us have Internet streams that are pretty expensive to operate for a relatively small number of listeners.
B. attempts are underway right now to get new royalties from terrestrial broadcasters, just at the point in time when we cannot afford more of a load. We certainly don't want this model to be used.
We should be pointing out that these fees are devastatingly high... for everyone. And they give foreign Internet broadcasters a big edge.
Add a Comment
Add a Comment
(11/21/2012 10:37:38 AM) Flag as inappropriate content
Ken Dardis just captured the situation perfectly. It is time to face up to the truth and do something about it.
Also, Al, SOME radio stations provided help during the storm but many, as no doubt you know, are just unmanned boxes playing automated content from somewhere else and therefore contributed nothing.
In fact if it wasn't for the geographical limitation of the towers a lot of radio stations would look a lot like Pandora.
- Guest
(11/21/2012 10:27:25 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentUsing these figures, and the fact that Pandora says it has (I can't remember, 6 or 8% of the listening),,,does this mean Pandora is pays $150,000,000 a year,,,I hardly think so.
At least this proves the point, the numbers released by Pandora are a joke.
- Andy Collins
(11/21/2012 10:24:02 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentI'm in the process of developing a new online business that will (hopefully) revolutionize the relationship between radio broadcasters, the music industry and the public. But, with the economy the way it is, I've been having quite a time getting things moving.
Hopefully, we'll be up and running by early next year.
What you will be seeing is a concept that's totally 'outside the box' and designed to successfully compete against online broadcasting, such as Pandora.
- Bruce McLaird
(11/21/2012 10:13:18 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentChuck - Radio is not a dying industry, try asking a real audience who depended on broadcast radio during the recent storms... what did Pandora do to help, play music? Broadcast Radio is NOT all about music, if you think it is, then you don't know radio or ever worked successfully in it.
Jim - Radio does pay plenty to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC plus for streaming as well. Yes broadcasters are against paying a performace fee, broadcast radio has been the platform of choice to creat hits and make performers money through our broad exposure, if internet jukeboxes want to try go for it, how many stars have you created that were not first exposed to a mass audience on broadcast radio first.
Ken - Comparing broadcast radio to an internet jukebox is apples and oranges, no matter how hard you try, we are not the same. As Ronald mentions, maybe Pandora can offshore itself and save money.
- Al
(11/21/2012 9:48:44 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentA nebulous sense-of-fairness notwithstanding, I have to wonder what stops internet broadcasters from originating off-shore and telling absolutely everybody to go pound salt....?
I'm sure Ken could school me and get me straightened out on this - instantly. Ken....?
- Ronald T. Robinson
(11/21/2012 9:29:44 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentAl, there is a software backend that needs to be developed for online music services. When done correctly the cost of developing that backend is enormous; what radio has created in software developement is mostly weak and cheap attempts at copying pureplay platforms.
Al's defense in not paying for content is that he provides an emergency service (needed a few times a year), and that he operates a brick-n-mortar business which has seen competition grow a thousand-fold over the past decade.
Cable and Sirius pay these fees. They, along with Pandora and other major streaming services all have capital expense.
Had the broadcast industry responded when first asked to get involved with the performance rate issue (in 1998, 2002, & 2005), it might have helped hold costs down. Now that extremely high rates are set, and being used as the basis for broadcaster performance rates, folks like Al howl it's unfair. To many people "unfair" is exempting broadcasters from paying for content other music-intensive business are forced to pay for today.
I wrote the following on June 14, 2007: "Recording artists and music companies are set to release details today on how they want to give '...performers the right to receive compensation when their music is broadcast by radio stations.'"
As with nearly everything digital, it was the broadcasters who chose to ignore the train.
- Ken Dardis
(11/21/2012 9:17:55 AM) Flag as inappropriate contentI think the real point is that the fees paid for streaming are insanely high. Terrestrial broadcasters need to oppose these fees because:
A. many of us have Internet streams that are pretty expensive to operate for a relatively small number of listeners.
B. attempts are underway right now to get new royalties from terrestrial broadcasters, just at the point in time when we cannot afford more of a load. We certainly don't want this model to be used.
We should be pointing out that these fees are devastatingly high... for everyone. And they give foreign Internet broadcasters a big edge.
- Kyle M
Add a Comment
