Radio Challenge Part 3 - The Conclusion

In part one of this series, I outlined the experiment. Compare an hour of commercial radio against an hour of Pandora. Part two goes into greater detail about how I conducted the research and the actual results. Which just leaves the question -- how do they compare?

Music Content
Over the course of the hour, the radio station played ten songs, and Pandora played fourteen. So if music was all I was interested in, Pandora was the winner. Plus, these weren't any old songs. Radio stations carefully craft their playlists to ensure that listeners know exactly what they'll hear when they tune in.

In this case, I was listening to a classic rock station, and I wasn't disappointed. All the artists and songs I heard fell under that definition. And I even heard a (relatively) new song by Joe Walsh!

To set up my Pandora station, I took the first three artists I heard on the radio and plugged them in. I could have carefully crafted my station's playlist by using the thumbs up/thumbs down feature. But for this experiment, I just let Pandora's algorithms do the selecting. And they did a pretty good job. All of the artists (well, maybe with the exception of the Hollies) fit comfortably into the classic rock format.

Local Information
Surprisingly, this was pretty much a draw. Of course I didn't expect to hear any local programming or information on Pandora. Sometimes on the website local ads would pop up, but going only by what I heard, my Pandora station was an anonymous music machine.

Unfortunately, the classic rock station wasn't much better. The DJ intro'ed a few tracks, and read the weather once, but that was all. I didn't hear about any local events, any local news, or any local traffic alerts. With the exception of that lone weather forecast, this station could have been broadcasting from anywhere.

Overall Listening Experience
So which would I prefer to listen to? Well, it depends. Had there been more local content on the radio station, it would have been closer. As it was, I really only had two factors to consider:

1) How much music did I want to listen to?
2) How many interruptions was I willing to put up with?

The radio station lost on the first point, and definitely lost on the second. There's a reason why I put spaces between each music/non-music element in the lists. Because each break represented an interruption. On Pandora, the interruptions were minimal -- one 15-second commercial after every four songs. That's not to say it wasn't irritating, but it was tolerable.

Not so much on the commercial radio side. I understand the concept of station promotion -- I really do. I practice quite a lot of it when I'm on the air. But they were all for the same thing, the morning show. Really? There's no other special programming I need to know about? Who's on in the afternoon? What's happening this weekend? Anything else going on I should stay tuned for? Now those spots were irritating.

But worst, I thought, were the marathon commercial breaks. Yes, by clumping all the ads together into two blocks you can boast about "long music sweeps." But four minutes of unrelenting pitches is strong encouragement to turn the dial (or move to another music source). And as I listened through the breaks, I wondered how much value the advertisers of spots #2 and #3 really received for their ad dollar.

When the music started again, I tried to recall the ads I heard. I could remember the last one, and with less certainty the first one, but the ads in the middle? No idea.

Conclusions
So is Pandora radio? Well, based on my listening, I think it is. The primary difference I heard was the commercial station played more ads and ran more promos telling me how great they were. When both sources were just playing one song after another, the experience was the same -- it just lasted longer on Pandora.

Let's go back to Gordon Smith's keynote at the National Association of Broadcasters convention I cited in part one.

"[Broadcasters] have what everyone else wants --airwaves, content and a local connection."

Airwaves? Yes
Content? Not as much
Local connection? Not that I heard

So if two of your three key differentiators are neutralized, where does that leave you?

The Radio Challenge
Part 1 - The Premise
Part 2 - The Details

Radio Challenge Part 2 - The Details

Here are the detailed results of my radio vs. Pandora experiment. I first listened to a midday hour of the local classic rock station. I then created a Pandora station based on the first three artists aired on the rock station. I just let Pandora play, and didn't thumbs up or thumbs down any selection. The time is in minutes.

I've inserted breaks between music and non-music sections so they're easier to see. The underlined songs were those common to both stations.

So what does it all mean? I'll finish my analysis in Part 3.

Classic Rock Station
0:00 Station ID/Promo (10 seconds)

0:00 Song 1: Guess Who – No Time
0:03 Song 2: Doors – Love Her Madly

0:06 Station bumper (10 seconds)

0:06:Song 3: Styx – Come Sail Away
0:12 DJ break – intro song (15 seconds)

0:12: Song 4: Pink Floyd – Wish You Were Here

0:17 Station morning show promo (30 seconds)

0:17 Song 5: Led Zeppelin – Stairway to Heaven

0:25 Station promo w/DJ (30 seconds)
0:26 Spot break - 5 commercials
0:30 Station promo (15 seconds)
0:30 Spot break - 2 commercials
0:32 Weather check (10 seconds)

0:32 Song 6: Steve Miller – Take the Money and Run

0:35 Station promo

0:35 Song 7: Alice Cooper – No More Mr. Nice Guy

0:38 Station promo

0:39 Song 8: Kansas – Carry On

0:44:Station promo w/DJ

0:44 Song 9: Joe Walsh – Analog Man

0:48:Station promo

0:49 Song 10: Fleetwood Mac – Dreams

0:53 Station promo w/DJ  (1 minute)
0:54 Spot break - 4 commercials
0:58 Station promo
0:58 Spot break - 2 commercials


Pandora – Guess Who Radio 
0:00 Song 1 Guess Who – American Woman
0:05 Song 2: Zombies - She’s Not There
0:08 Song 3: Doors – Spanish Caravan

0:12 Spot break - 1 commercial (15 seconds)

0:12 Song 4: Offspring – Why Don’t You Get a Job?
0:15 Song 5: Jimi Hendrix – The Wind Cries Mary
0:18 Song 6: Hollies – Long Cool Woman (In a Black Dress)
0:22 Song 7 Free – All Right Now

0:27 Spot break - 1 commercial (15 seconds)

0:27 Song 8 Styx – Come Sail Away (live) 
0:36 Song 9: 8lue Oyster Cult – Don’t Fear the Reaper

0:42 Spot break - 1 commercial (15 seconds)

0:42 Song 10: Foreigner – Long, Long Way From Home
0:45 Song 11: Led Zeppelin – I Can’t Quit You Baby
0:50 Song 12: Doors – Alabama song (live)
0:52 Song 13: Rolling Stones – Miss You

0:56 Spot break - 1 commercial (15 seconds)

0:56 Song 14: Buffalo Springfield – For What It’s Worth


The Radio Challenge
Part 1 - The Premise
Part 3 - The Conclusion

Radio Challenge Part 1 - The Premise

There has been a lot of debate recently about the differences between online music services and broadcast radio. On one side, broadcasters claim that services like Pandora aren't really radio. After all, as Gordon Smith said in his keynote at the recent National Association of Broadcasters convention, "Think big: We have what everyone else wants --airwaves, content and a local connection."

On the other hand, Pandora calls itself "Internet Radio" and the streams the users create "stations." And according to a Jacobs Media Research report, 43% of its users think it should be consider "radio."

Do online services offer the same listening experiences as commercial broadcasters? Well, no. But as industry observers Mark Ramsey and Ken Dardis (among others) have continually pointed out, what really matters is not whatever distinction the industry makes, but how the listener perceives the experience.
 
So I decided to try an informal experiment. I listened to an hour of one of our local commercial radio stations (in this case a classic rock station), taking careful notes of what content I heard (and how much of it). I then went to Pandora and created a radio station using the first three artists aired by the commercial station.

Here's the content breakdown for my test hour:

Classic Rock Station:
10 songs
13 breaks (station IDs, promos, ads)
14 commercials

Pandora:
14 songs
4 breaks

This doesn't tell the whole story, of course. Tomorrow I'll publish a more detailed listing of all the content.

My perception was that I heard more music with fewer interruptions listening to Pandora. And the numbers confirm it. I deliberately chose a mid-day segment. (Morning shows tend to have a higher talk-to-music ratio, so I wanted  to get a more representational segment.)


The Radio Challenge
Part 2- The Details
Part 3 - The Conclusion

TWOS RIP

One of my favorite Internet radio station is the Technicolor Web of Sound. Or rather, it was. Sometime in late December the site went down, and it hasn't returned.

Now this isn't necessarily a unique event. Sites have gone dark before.

But what happened next I found very interesting. Most people assume that the Internet has the sum total of human knowledge. It doesn't, of course. And even though the Technicolor Web of Sound (or TWOS) was a successful Internet radio station for years and had a major presence with listeners all around the world, when the person running the service went offline, he essentially disappeared.

I've checked the TWOS Facebook page, the forums, done various searches and all to no avail. Some people knew the person running the station (I've corresponded with him myself and even sent some recordings along). They report that emails and even phone calls have gone unanswered. As far as the TWOS online audience can tell, he's completely disappeared with no forwarding address.


Now I'm sure there are savvy hackers out there who might be able to dig deep enough into encrypted business files to track the person down. But for the average online listener, the trail ends in a percipitous drop off the edge of the (virtual) world.


Which is perhaps the way the person wanted it to be.(and that's part of the reason why I haven't given his name in this post)


So if the person is still around online somewhere, thanks for years of great programming. TWOS was without a doubt one of my all-time favorite Internet radio stations, and I will miss it.


And it's good to know that not everything (or everyone) can be found online.

CES - HD Radio = CES + HD Radio?

Three news alerts hit my inbox almost at the same time, all talking about HD Radio in context with the 2011 Consumer Electronics (CES) show. The first comes from Jim Motavalli, blogging for Forbes Magazine. His post certainly had an engaging headline:

HD Radio: Is it the auto industry's next big thing?

I had to double-check the date. I could have sworn I saw that headline at least once in 2010, and 2009, and 2008, and each year back to 2004. But wait! There's more! Motavilli writes:

Is HD Radio the next big thing for in-car audio? Well, it’s not like the transition from AM to FM (that was a big leap), but it’s an interesting improvement. And it has a big advantage over satellite radio — it doesn’t cost anything. As long as you have an HD-equipped radio (three million have been sold by Ibiquity, which is owned by big-league radio chains) you can listen to the digital signal free, without a subscription, and at the same frequencies, too. [NOTE: It's taken seven years to move 3 million HD Radio units -- 10.3 million iPads were sold in 2010]

Classic 2004 talking points, playing off what the radio industry thought would pull listeners back from satellite radio subscriptions (better content is why they left in the first place -- content they were willing to pay for). I had to wonder where Mr. Motavilli's been for the last seven years if he thinks this is a startling new innovation.

The second piece is from Radio Survivor. Paul Riismandel writes about what he anticipates is the role of HD Radio at CES.

While all the biggest buzz around the show is in anticipation of new tablet competitors for Apple’s iPad, we can still expect to hear announcements of new radio gadgets across the spectrum, from analog broadcast and HD Radio to satellite and internet radio.

On the satellite radio and HD Radio front things have been quiet for the pre-show period. In fact, it doesn’t seem like iBiquity is even ready for CES this year, since their press release site is still touting a special section to highlight HD Radio at the 2010 CES from twelve months ago.

And finally, Mark Ramsey of Mark Ramsey Media weighs in on the subject, with his post-Toyota's Entune raises the stakes for Radio Online and on the Road.

Here’s a peek at Toyota’s new Entune in-dash entertainment system, which includes Pandora, iheartradio, local search, movie tickets, dinner reservations, and a whole lot more – all powered by an app you download to your mobile device and driven by your phone’s data plan.

Interestingly, Radio Ink reports that the system includes HD Radio and SiriusXM, too, but it’s telling that those assets are nowhere to be found in Toyota’s promotional video or on the Entune page of its website. Does that suggest that these assets are either too fuzzy or too non-compelling to merit a full frontal pitch?
You bet it does

That doesn’t mean they won’t be used, of course. Just that they won’t be used to sell cars.

That last sentence from Mr. Ramsey seems to neatly answer the question raised by Mr.Motavalli's headline. (And in case you're wondering, the algebraic expression in the title works if HD Radio = zero)

HD Radio sells out

Something interesting happened in Gainesville, Florida this week. The city completely sold out of HD Radios. There're some lessons to be learned here, but first a little background, and then some perspective.

The background
Public radio station WUFT had been the area's sole classical music station for some time. The station, owned by the University of Florida, decided to ditch the classical format for news and talk. Rather than just pull the plug, the classical music was moved to an HD2 channel. In answer to the howls of protests from long-time listeners, the general manager said: "buy radios." Which, apparently, they did.

The perspective
It's no secret (except to the radio industry) that HD Radio is a non-starter with the general public. So the total number of HD Radios available for sale in the Gainesville area was not that high, to begin with. I would be surprised if a retail store like Best Buy had more than 10 units total in stock.

No matter how vocal the opposition, when it comes to format changes, only a fraction of the pissed-off audience actually does anything. Out of tens of thousands of listeners, a station will receive perhaps 10 or 20 letters of protest. So the total number of people looking for HD Radios to keep listening to classical music is only a fraction of the total disenfranchised audience.

The takeaways
This story has three important messages if you pay attention.

1) Want to move HD Radios? Give listeners a compelling reason to use them.
Most HD Radio signals are just simulcasts of a station's regular programming. That's not compelling. Some do additional programming, but it's not promoted. In WUFT's case, the switch was a highly publicized one, primarily due to the controversy. And it was the only source of the programming people wanted.

2) Music to talk: get used to it.
Just because a station's non-profit, doesn't mean they're not looking at the bottom line. For public radio stations, the numbers speak for themselves: news/talk attracts more listeners than classical music, brings in more donations to the station, and (because it's all syndicated) can be run with less staff. WUFT's switch may seem evil to its long-time listeners, but in management's eyes, it was the logical thing to do. The story's been played out on other stations throughout the system and will occur in much more in the future.

3) HD Radio offers a way out.
WUFT's management knew their decision was controversial, but they had an out. They didn't kill classical music, they just moved it to another location (albeit an underpowered one that few had the necessary equipment to access it). WAMU did it with their popular bluegrass programming, and other stations have done it with formats they wish they weren't saddled with. This is a tactic we'll see used again throughout the system.

4) Internet streaming, the untold story.
Missing in all the coverage is the fact that WUFT's exiled classical programming is streaming on the web. And that's really where the potential for audience growth lies. As it gets easier to access the Internet in portable devices you can use in your car, Internet radio listening will continue to grow. So in the end, it doesn't matter how many bought HD Radios. The smart people have made the move to their smartphones, and even if it didn't make the news, that's where the action really is.

- Ralph

Day 116 of the WJMA Podwatch.

Pandora, the Radio Pandemic

The most recent comment by Pandora's Tim Westergren has the public radio listserves I subscribe to buzzing. According to a Cincinnati Enquirer interview with Westergren,

"Our goal right now is nothing less than to completely replace radio with this whole new thing called personalized radio"

Well, there's been a lot of hand-wringing and righteous indignation as you can imagine within the public radio community, but let's take a closer look at what's going on here.

First off, what is Pandora? It’s basically a music selection service. You start by creating a "radio station" (carefully chosen terms, those) by selecting some songs and/or artists. Each track in the Pandora database has over a hundred different characteristics assigned to it. Pandora starts by using its algorithms to select a song that fits the criteria of your core tracks.

The selection then plays, and you decide if it's great (thumbs up), awful (thumbs down) or OK (no response). “Thumbs up” adds that song (and its criteria) to the guidelines for the next selection. “Thumbs down” does the opposite, and helps filter the list.

The more you work with your "radio station," the better Pandora gets at finding music that fits your "format."

Most of the negative responses I’ve seen on the listserves tend to run along the following lines.

1. People will get tired of hearing the same old thing. They'll come back to the wonderful variety of our programming.
   
2. It's too high-maintenance. People will get tired of voting for every single song all day long soon enough and come back to our broadcasts.
   
3. Other media was supposed to kill off radio but we’re still here. This, too, shall pass.
   
4. Pandora’s not very good with classical. You only get individual movements, not complete works.

Well, there's truth in all of the above. But it’s clear some of the commentators have no first-hand experience of Pandora. As a user, here's how I see it.

1. People do get tired of hearing the same old thing. That's why they're moving away from commercial radio. And as for public radio, the genres are different, but are playlists really that much broader?
   
   Speaking just as a classical music listener, I can count on my local public radio stations (WTJU excepted) to NOT play any lieder, early music, contemporary works, anything from the renaissance, any significant amount of chamber music, or any compositions over 40 minutes in length. So just how varied is this variety?
   
2. It's too high-maintenance. That just depends on how high-maintenance you want your Pandora radio station to be. I've set up some of my stations with deliberately broad criteria so I don’t have to mess with them. I just press play and get taken on an adventure.
   
   Some of my other stations I treat like audio bonsais and scrupulously work the selections to get just the mix I want. But I don't have to. Sometimes I just let those channels play untouched as well -- if I don't vote on the track, it doesn't change the parameters.
   
3. Radio’s still here. Well, other media may not have killed radio, but each new development impacted what radio was. Initially, everything was on the radio -- concerts, news programs, comedy shows, variety shows, comedies, dramas, soap operas – even audio adaptations of popular films. TV pulled away the dramas, soaps, sitcoms and variety shows, leaving radio to play records and cover the news – the audience changed.
   
   Cable TV took over the role of news coverage, leaving just music and talk shows -- the audience changed again. The rise of social media (of which Pandora is a part -- you can share your stations and check out what other people are listening to on the site) is replacing the radio as the place to discover new music. Sure, radio will be around, but what will the remaining audience want of it?
   
4. Pandora isn’t very good with classical music. Agreed. Some people are quite happy to hear the middle movement of a symphony followed by a piano prelude, followed by the minuet from a dance suite and so on. I personally prefer to hear a work in its entirety straight through.
   
   Advantage public radio? Depends on which station you listen to. WTJU (where I do my classical music show) has a policy of airing complete works. The other two classical music broadcasters in our area have no such qualms. So that’s not entirely true.

So will Pandora totally replace radio? Not the medium, certainly. But just as TV took over part of radio’s programming, I think Pandora will do the same. When radio soap operas and dramas lost their audience, programmers moved on to different formats. The danger here – and it’s the same one commercial broadcasters made years ago – is that public radio broadcasters will assume that Pandora and similar services are but a passing fad and that it’s business as usual.

It isn’t, and it’s not.

- Ralph

Day 224 of the WJMA Web Watch. (I guess if you consider the whole Interwebtubie thing a passing fad, Pandora doesn’t even show up on the radar.)

Sam(e) FM

So I tried once again to listen to our local mix format station, 105.5 SAM FM Louisa, Virginia (I'd link to their website, but they, like WJMA, are part of the Piedmont Communications radio empire and don't have one). Like similar-styled "eclectic" stations (like Jack/Dave/Tom/etc.), the idea is to keep things fresh by playing a wide variety of music both from yesterday and today.

OK, I did. I gave it a good long listen, too. Here's what I thought of the experience.

The slogan overpromises.
"You'll never know what we'll play next." Perhaps -- but I know what you won't play. SAM plays the hits from several different charts. But they only play the hits. I heard "Brandy" by the Looking Glass, but I know I'll never hear "Jimmy Loves Mary-Anne" by that same group (which also charted), or any other song they recorded.

Radio support of artists is a sham.
All the new media -- satellite radio, Internet radio, and so on -- have to pay artist royalties in addition to publisher royalties for every song they use. Broadcast radio, on the other hand, currently doesn't have to pay artist royalties. Why? Because they made the case back when the rates were developed, that radio play promotes the artist, and that valuable exposure more than made up for any royalty payment.

True enough in the 60's, but not on SAM FM. Not one song or artist was ever identified. If I did hear a song I was interested in, I'd have to remember the lyrics, and hope that the chorus bore some relation to the title of the song, which would help me when I went online to find out the artist and what album it might be on. That's already three steps too many. I wouldn't bother.

Now RDS (Radio Data System) has been in place for years, which allow regular AM and FM stations to send text info. Most stations never go beyond using it to show their call letters. So SAM FM forgoes an opportunity to use technology already installed to identify the songs they play. No wonder artists are questioning that royalty waiver.

I get better programming on my iPod
And I'm not talking about just the choice of music, either (although being able to skip past a song I'm not in the mood for is a definite plus). The music flow on SAM was interrupted by commercials and canned station ID/bumpers.

Anything perceived as an interruption to the programming is annoying. There weren't many commercials, but between every single song there was a snarky little station ID that said absolutely nothing (not even dial position, save the top of the hour).

In the end, it wasn't the song selections that made me bail -- it was those vacuous station IDs, delivered once every four or five minutes that finally did me in. At least my iPod just shuts up and plays the music.

So I'll give up a chance to hear Billy Idol's "White Wedding," Elton John's "Crocodile Rock," and Natashia Bedingfield's "Unwritten" for the umpteenth time and get that new Los Campesinos EP that I just bought transferred over to my iPod. I may not know what SAM FM will play next, but I know it won't be "You! Me! Dancing!"

- Ralph


Day 117 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Internet Radio Saved? Let's run some numbers!

So the legislation's passed to allow webcasters and the SoundExchange (which represents the RIAA) to continue negotiating the royalty rates the Copyright Board allowed. No one's arguing that rates didn't need to increase -- just that they needed to remain rooted in reality. And not the "reality" of the SoundExchange.

If you go to the SoundExchange website, you can see for yourself what the rates are (strangely, I couldn't link directly to the pages in question). So I decided to run the numbers for myself to try to get a handle on this business.

I had to make some basic assumptions in order to do this -- real-life conditions are far more complicated.

Here goes: for 2006-2007, the rate was calculated based on an hour of listening. One person listening to one hour (or a part thereof) equaled one unit to be paid for. If one hundred people listened to the same stream, then that would equal one hundred hours requiring royalties.

Beginning in 2008, the rate changed from an hour of listening to a price per song. Again, that's multiplied by the number of listeners. For our purposes, I've assumed that the station's playing 100% music for the full hour or 15 four-minute songs.

I've also assumed exactly 100 listeners per hour (people who only listen for part of an hour or part of a song count as a full listen, so 100 listeners may actually generate higher or lower billable hours/songs). And I've assumed the station streams 24/7 with exactly 100 listeners every hour.

Finally, on the revenue side, I've also made some ballpark assumptions. I've taken an average rate of 0.20 CPM, (cost per thousand) for the total amount of ad revenue generated by site traffic. Which means that for 100 visits in an hour, the site earns $2.00 in ad revenue. So for a year, the income would be $17,520.00.

In 2006, the rate was $0.0123 per hour. Which, for 100 listeners, means $1.23 per hour. Our hypothetical netcaster clears $0.83 an hour, for a total of $15,020.00 a year.

In 2007, the rate went to $0.0169 per hour. That boosts the rate for our 100 listeners to $1.69, leaving $0.77 for our netcaster. The net income drops to $6,745.20 -- less than half what it was in 2006.

In 2008, the rate went to $0.0014 per song. That translates out to be $2.10 for 15 songs in an hour for 100 listeners. You see the problem. With an income of $2.00 an hour for those 100 listeners, the netcaster loses $0.10 an hour, for a net loss of $876.00 for the year.

The rate's already set to increase to $0.0018 for 2009, and $0.0019 for 2010. Our netcaster loses $0.70 and then $0.85 an hour respectively. In 2009 they'll lose $6,132.00, and $7,446.00 in 2010.

Now, of course, I didn't factor in bandwidth costs and other operating expenses that the netcaster has to pay for out of that ad revenue. And online ad rates are declining, not growing, so it would be difficult to raise ad rates to keep pace.

Bottom line? It's unlikely there'll be any webcasters left in the U.S. if this goes on. Even the largest ones, such as Pandora and LastFM don't have pockets deep enough to sustain an escalating negative cash flow.

So that's where things stand now -- even after the "saving" legislation just passed.

There's one set of numbers the SoundExchange neglected to run.

(Whatever royalty rate you want) x (No listeners) = Zero money

And if Internet radio's killed off, that's the only equation that will matter.

- Ralph

Day 110 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Internet Radio Saved? Not So Fast...

IInternet Radio is now Saved.

f you just scan the headlines, you'll glean that H.R. 7014 has passed both the House and the Senate, and

Well, kind of.

First off, what does the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 do, exactly? It basically updates the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, changing the terms slightly and moving deadlines. It allows for Internet broadcasters and the SoundExchange to continue negotiating the royalty rates that webcasters have to pay. And that they can continue to talk, and even reach a binding agreement while Congress is adjourned.

That's good, but not great. The royalty rate is still officially set at the ruinous levels it was on January 1. The SoundExchange has agreed not to collect the higher fees as long as talks continued. But should talks cease, then the entire uncollected balance plus interest would immediately come due -- which would shutter many netcasters with one fell stroke.

Webcasters like Pandora are obviously grateful for any kind of extension, but the SoundExchange is still acting pretty cagey. As their executive director John Simon said, "We are hopeful, but we've been close at other times during the past 18 months." (that would include the time last year when they lobbied the Copyright Board so hard they didn't have time to talk to anybody).

So there's still a need for the Internet Radio Equity Act (H.R. 2060 and S.1353), still languishing in committee. That bill would have the rates set at a fair level by Congressional legislation. The fees would be scalable, so each netcaster would pay in proportion to their income, rather than the current rates that demand a large payment that in many cases exceed the netcaster's income.

Still, it's a start. The Senate passed the bill unanimously, so kudos to my congressmen, John Warner (R-Va) and Jim Webb (D-Va). The bill also passed the House of Representatives, but by a voice vote that was not recorded. So how did my Representative, Eric Cantor (R-Va) vote?

I don't know. His responses to my correspondence on the subjects are always carefully crafted to betray no stance whatsoever. And there's nothing on his website either. Hmm.

This isn't over yet. And the outcome isn't clear at all. There's more to the story than just the headlines.

- Ralph


Day 109 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Congressional Correspondence

A while ago I posted a draft of a letter to my representative.

SoundExchange continues to force Internet broadcasters into bankruptcy through ruinous royalty rates -- with Pandora.com about ready to go under. Two bills -- H.R.2060 in the House and S.1315 in the Senate -- await action that could adjust the rates back to something equitable to both sides.

OK, I know this isn't the only thing facing our congresscritters, but we're not talking some massive bailout here. Just set the rates to something realistic and let the industry grow from there. One vote and everyone can get back to taking their partisan potshots.

So, I've printed out the letters to my representative and two senators. In the mail, they go. Let's see if I can get a better response by using snail mail than e-mail (which I used last time). Better yet, maybe we'll see some action.

Bombs away, dream babies.

- Ralph

Day 83 of the WJMA Web Watch.

My Pandora Story

Controversy about the possible shuttering of Pandora.com continues on the Internet. If you read the comments under any of the stories, you'll see a recurring theme -- people discover music through Pandora. Music that they buy.

I have that story, too. And it gives us some numbers to work with.

"The Love Generation" is one of the radio stations I started on Pandora. As the description says,

Sweet vocal harmonies from the Summer of Love. For a brief span of time, groups made groovy music influenced by the sunshine pop sensibilities of Southern California. Mellow songs from a gentler time.

While I started out with artists I already knew, such as the Love Generation, the Fifth Dimension, and Spanky & Our Gang, it wasn't long Pandora began adding songs and artists I'd never heard of before -- but I really liked. And, yes, I followed the links to Amazon and started buying music.

So far, I can attribute the following purchases directly to this one Pandora channel -- one of the six that I have.

Call Me - the Songs of Tony Hatch

Am I Dreaming?: Dream Babes, Vol. 1

Backcomb 'N' Beats: Dream Babes, Vol. 3

Go Girl: Dream Babes, Vol. 4

Folk Rock and Fancy-Free: Dream Babes, Vol. 5

Sassy and Stonefree: Dream Babes, Vol. 6

Beat Chic: Dream Babes, Vol. 7

Stockingtop Pop: Dream Babes, Vol. 8

Paper Dolls House

Each of these discs cost about $19.00 (most were imports), so listening to Pandora for free caused me to purchase $171.00 of music directly from the labels. So let's say the average listener only buys one CD or download equivalent (although I know plenty of music geeks who've spent even more).

Pandora has approximately 6.5 million subscribers. If each one only spent $15.00 on music they discovered through Pandora, then the site would be responsible for generating $97.5 million in music sales. And a good portion of that, I suspect, went to non-Top 40 artists. After all, I wanted more music by Two of Each and Jackie Trent -- not Beyonce and Avril Lavigne. 

And if the average Pandora listener buys more than one disc? Well, then SoundExchange -- currently collecting 75% of Pandora's revenue -- really is strangling the goose that's laying golden eggs.

 - Ralph

Day 67 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Pandora Boxed?

Looks like it's time to write my congresscritters again. And this time, I'll send it snail mail to let them know I mean business. The Sword of Damocles hanging over netcasters just slipped a little.

Pandora.com's announced they're rapidly approaching the point where they'll have to go dark. Why? You've read it here and many other places as well (I hope). SoundExchange, the agency that collects artist royalties from Internet broadcasters and streamers jacked up the rates past the point of sanity. While no one argued that the rates needed to go up, the industry was stunned when SoundExchange proposed (and the Copyright Board promptly agreed) that a 300% to 1200% jump was fair -- even though it meant royalty rates would outstrip income for most netcasters.

The old system was scalable. A percentage of a netcaster's income was paid to the artists. So niche netcasters catering to a small audience paid a small amount, and popular services with many listeners paid a large amount. And there was a reason for netcasters to grow their audiences. The more listeners, the more income -- and the more the artists got.

Under the new system, it doesn't matter. Unless you have a massive audience, you can't bring in enough to pay the royalty fees which have a pretty steep minimum fee. And when the service goes dark? Then no one gets any money, and how does that serve the artist?

I'll share my letters to my Congressmen encouraging them to support S. 1353 and my Representative to support H.R. 2060 in this blog.

No one's asking for an industry bail-out. As MC Lars said:

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.

- and not by leveling Internet radio.

- Ralph


Day 65 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Webb Responds!

As long-time readers may recall, back on May 20th I wrote Jim Webb, one of my two senators about the Internet Radio Equality Act. I received an e-mail response today. Here's the letter.

August 1, 2008
Dear Mr. Graves:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Internet radio. I apologize for the delayed response. [two months and some change -- but I'm just as guilty with some of my correspondence]

Internet radio and other forms of alternative media provide a fair and open forum for musicians to present their material, as well as for consumers to hear music that does not always receive air time on mainstream media. [true, that] My staff and I will carefully evaluate Copyright Royalty Board decisions, court decisions, legislation, and other pertinent matters affecting webcasting to ensure that the best interests of Virginians are served. [I'm hoping that the best interest of folks in my state aren't divergent from the rest of the nation here!]

As the 110th Congress continues to address media rights and other important issues facing the United States, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your views with us in the years ahead.

I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation. [Yep. And I also track you on OpenCongress.org]

Thank you once again for contacting my office.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW:as

OK, not too bad. I appreciate the initials at the bottom. For those not up on the formalities of business correspondence, it means the letter came from Senator Webb, but was actually typed by someone else whose initials are A.S. (either a secretary or office assistant). I appreciate it because it means Webb's not pretending to personally answer all the letters that come into his office.

And it looks like he actually read my email, so I'm kind of happy about that. How will he vote if S. 1353 ever makes it out of committee? Well, I'm not 100% sure. But his take on the issue seems a little more solid than Rep. Eric Cantor. At least he doesn't think I'm against any royalty increase at all!

So I'll keep watching the mail and inbox for something from Senator Warner. Two down, one to go!

- Ralph

Day 48 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Fair and balanced -- our five worst posts

Our last post we took stock of where we were after 30,000 views and ran down our five most popular posts. As as we've done before when we pass a milestone like this, we're also going to run down the five least popular posts, in descending order.

After all, what you don't like should get the same attention from us as what you do.

5) After the Bum Rush (Ralph) -- My analysis of the attempt to game the iTunes charts seemed to be of little interest to readers. Perhaps if I had used the uncensored version of the Black Lab's album art for "Passion Leaves a Trace."

4) The RIAA and musical myopia (Ralph) -- This was an explanation of the relationship between the RIAA, SoundExchange, the Copyright Board and how it all impacted Internet radio. A little too music-geekish, perhaps?

3) Pulling Cable (Ken) -- Ken's post about new fiber being laid in his neighborhood had him wondering if HDTV would soon be available. It was. And that's that.

2) The Revolution Will Be Dugg (Ralph) -- My commentary about the spreading of DRM codes as an act of civil disobedience seemed to not add much to the conversation.

And the absolute least-read post so far:

1) Return of the Marching Memes (Ralph) -- This was also the least popular post when we did the first survey at 10,000 views, and still sat in the basement at the 20,000 mark. Well, it seemed like a good idea when I wrote it...

Once again, I have four of the five bottom posts. Ken has one entry on the low end, but he still makes a strong showing in the top five.

We'll keep working hard to turn out posts you want to read -- and we'll take our lumps when we fall short.

- Ralph

Day 31 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Cantor Responds!

Back on May 20, I wrote Eric Cantor, my representative about the Internet Radio Equality Act. I received a response today, in a letter dated June 17 (I can't say anything -- when I get slammed my turn around time tends to slip, too). As promised, here's Rep. Cantor's reply to my correspondence.

Dear Mr. Graves:

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to increased royalties imposed on internet radio by the Copyright Royalty Board. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views. [Good start -- it's not a form letter.]

The Copyright Royalty Board is composed of three Copyright Royalty Judges [that would be Moe, Larry and Curly] within the Library of Congress who determine rates and terms for the copyright statutory licenses. On March 2, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board announced its decision to increase the royalties internet radio broadcasters pay to copyright holders for the use of their songs. [I know -- that's why I wrote. But I'm glad Cantor's up to speed.]

The Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060) would nullify the CRB's decision to raise rates for webcasters and would establish a royalty rate-setting standard for all radio. This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary Committee. To date, no further action has been taken on this matter. You may be assured that I will keep your opposition to increased royalties in mind should this legislation come before me in the House of Representatives. [Well, not quite. I don't disagree that the rates should be raised -- just not higher than anyone can possibly pay. Close enough, though.]

Again, thank you for contacting me. For your convenience, you can receive further information from me on issues important to the 7th District at http://cantor.house.gov. [Yep. And I can do so through OpenCongress.org as well.] Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.

And there it is. Of course, there's one thing I'm still not quite sure about. And that is where does Rep. Cantor stand on the issue? Hmmm. Perhaps it's time for another e-mail.

So is Cantor for or against the Act? Vote in the poll on the left. Maybe collectively we can correctly parse this correspondence.

- Ralph

Day 15 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Radio rediscovered

The big news in Los Angeles is that public radio station KUSC has given up on the crack-brained syndication service they were running with Colorado Public Radio, and returning to local (and live) announcers.

As in Washington DC, a long-time commercial classical station flipped formats, and KUSC picked up some of their audience. But according to the LA Times article, that doesn't fully account for KUSC's new-found success. In commercial radio, the trend is to fire talent and increase automation because it's cheaper. And they wonder why listenership continues to decrease.

At KUSC, they traded generic syndication for local announcers with real personality (like Rich Capparela -- I've known him for almost 15 years now, and he's an interesting, articulate witty person both on and off the mic). It's live and it's local, and listeners are responding -- which is only news to the bean counters.

But there's another part of the story that's worthy of attention -- and I hope our friends at WJMA (whose site is still under construction as of this posting) are paying attention.

Internet streaming of classical radio has made access to the genre more widely available than ever, offering anyone with a computer the chance to tune in WGBH in Boston, WQXR in New York or, for that matter, purely online services like Classical Music America or SKY.fm.

"We want to stand out on the Web by offering something unique," [KUSC General Manager] DeWeese says, "by promoting Southern California's fine arts scene -- the Phil and the opera. Outside of London and New York, you don't see that."

"As local as we can make it," [KUSC President] Barnes says.

KUSC gets it. In order to stand out online (the future of radio), you have to be unique. And being local is the best (and most authentic) way to do that.

Program locally, broadcast internationally. It even works for classical music.

- Ralph

Day 2 of the WJMA Web Watch.

One out of three

I heard back from one of my elected officials today. You may recall that I wrote my representative and both my senators recently to ask for their support for the current Internet radio bills that would dial back the 1200% increase in royalties netcasters are required to pay to the SoundExchange to a more rational and reality-based level.

Here's Senator Jim Webb's response:

Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to my office in Washington. I am pleased that because of the Internet, more than 100,000 Virginians will send their ideas directly to me this year.

[Well, yeah. That's why I'm concerned about keeping the Internet as regulation-free and open for everyone to use as possible.]

Please be assured that your views are very helpful to me and my staff.

[And those views would be....? Relax, I know this is an automated response.]

As the Senate addresses crucial economic, domestic and foreign policy issues facing our nation, we will be sure to keep your comments and ideas in mind.

[Not sure how the Save Internet Radio bills fit in with foreign policy, but it's certainly a crucial economic issue to netcasters.]

I encourage you to visit my website at http://webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.

[Yep, I have -- I'm also tracking your Senate activities, voting records, large contributors, et al. at OpenCongress.org. ]

If the subject of your communication is time sensitive, involves a personal issue relating to the federal government (such as help with a passport, claim for veterans' benefits, or immigration) or requires more detailed attention, please visit my Assistance/Casework page or contact my office directly toll free at 1-866-507-1570.

Again, thank you for contacting my office, and I hope you will communicate with me often in the future.

Jim Webb
United States Senate

OK, it's a canned response, but at least it is a response. I'm sure my letter was mixed in with a bunch of CIA-microwave-mind control rants and black helicopter emails. I'm hoping in time a real person will read this and I'll get a more genuine reply.

In the meantime, I'll continue to follow this issue, and take note of how Senator Webb supports or blocks the passage of the bill.

- Ralph

That Reminds Me...

Audio Graphics did an extensive post on the SoundExchange/Internet radio fight. I've talked about it at length in this blog, but as one of the players in the drama, Ken Dardis brings some real insight to the issue. As he so succinctly puts it:

The whole issue from the webcasters' perspective is that they don't want to pay performance royalty rates which far exceed what satellite radio, cable, and online music services pay.

And that reminds me -- I haven't yet received a response from either my senators or representative who I wrote about Orphan Works act. I'll send them another e-mail and see what shakes over the weekend.

After all, isn't eternal vigilance the price of democracy?

 - Ralph

Scannin' the Senate

Using my interest in H.R. 2060 and S.1353, I've been showing how I use OpenCongress.org to research the legislation that interest me, and make sure my elected officials get (or stay) with the program. Yesterday I outlined how digging into my representative's history helped me figure out how to most effectively present my case for his supporting H.R. 2060.

Today I'll do the same for my congresspersons. And remember -- I'm just using this legislation and my interest in it as an example of what you can do for the bills that you're concerned about.

My two congressmen are John Warner (R-Va) and Jim Webb (D-Va).

Warner's had a long and distinguished career in the Senate. His most recent legislation (ignoring the resolutions of only local interest -- hey, he knows how to keep his constituents happy) is primarily concerned with the military. I doubt Internet radio royalty rates are of much interest to him, but I've conversed with Senator Warner before and I'm pretty sure he'll give my e-mail some consideration.

Jim Webb is a freshman senator, so I don't know as much about him. He also seems mostly concerned about military matters (his sponsorship of S.729 is interesting). What's more interesting is that Webb cosponsored S.Con.Res.82 supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act. That resolution basically said that record labels shouldn't charge performance royalties to radio broadcasters.

Well, it's a short step from that concept to S.1353, which reigns in the royalties attached to Internet radio. And that's how I'll approach Senator Webb's email.

I don't like sending copied emails to my representatives. They see plenty of them and know that the senders didn't put a lot of effort into them. If nothing else, I'd like my letters to be read and thought about -- even if my representative disagrees.

Thanks to Open Congress I've been able to write three e-mails that (I believe) should be effective. When I get some responses I'll post them so you can see if I was right about that.

- Ralph