I write this as the proud father of a 24-year-old who has already found his path in life. Pulling a nearly straight "A" GPA, beginning in grade school and continuing through college, he's recently accepted a position at a technology company in Silicon Valley.

My son grew up around the radio industry, often being a young voice when dad produced a commercial needing one. He understands the "power of radio," and also how radio has remained stagnant - which is why he reports seldom turning on a radio station today.

He and millions of others in that 18-24 age group are following their instincts, turning to new media for audio entertainment and information. Showing not the least bit of interest in what's offered as "programming" by the radio stations where he now lives, he turns to his iPod and Pandora.

"This isn't the 1980s anymore. Choice and consolidation's cutbacks are what's eating away at the power of this once very powerful media. Radio's angst is showing."

I sometimes wonder what would have been my feelings had he taken another direction, one that put him in a less promising situation, had he not paid attention when he was supposed to be learning new technology in college. It's what I see akin to radio not paying attention as new media grew around it. Enough column inches are being printed about Pandora in radio industry trades today to create a book. Most every word is written in desperation. The words are in response to yesterday's comparative by Pandora, turning its listener numbers into an AQH equivalent for media buyers. Radio defenders are now trying to dispel whatever words have been written that show Pandora making inroads on radio's roads. It's as if I'm watching a second son in a serious situation.

We do have one bright spot, though, in a powerful article penned by Radio Ink Editor, Ed Ryan. In it, he asks pertinent questions and offers an important perspective. It's followed by an article from Katz EVP of Radio Analysis and Insights, Mary Beth Garber, who lashes out at (what I believe is a mistaken claim of) "special math" used in Pandora's declaration of gain in top-ten radio markets.

Another radio defender, one who I perceive as an old man that refuses to acknowledge new ideas, writes of "...a sloppy rewrite of a single radio trade story on the recent Pandora investor’s meeting." In this he does nothing more than rant about a couple of points while ignoring the author's valid observations; he fails to understand that while his words are read only by radio industry insiders, the author (who he admonishes) is reaching many of the movers and shakers shaping today's media buys.

In nearly every story printed about Pandora in radio industry trades, we see the same modus operandi of discrediting the power of Pandora. Each article is read only by people in radio who need reassurance that their lives are not as complicated as most every other general publication is reporting, and certainly as reported by nearly all publications aimed at readers 18-34 years old.

To trash competition has never been the way of winning, but radio industry writers seem to pull energy from pointing to the safety net of reaching 93% of the population, "and Pandora doesn't."

What's not acknowledged - except in that article by Ed Ryan - is that media buyers don't care about radio's reach. They care about reaching a specific audience, and then receiving documentation on what that campaign produced. The radio industry has the power to do this today, but it has put no energy towards doing so. That is your real story, the one not being reported by radio industry trades.

Another item to consider is displayed in a simple graph of growth for mobile listening to radio. It's pulled directly from Audio Graphics' RadioRow analytics (an online radio station portal). Here's what mobile listening to radio looks like over just seven months (Jan. 1-July 28, 2011) - a 94.7% increase.




The snipping by radio writers, and the blind following of faith that radio always was and always will be the predominant audio choice, is misplaced energy. In the midst of offering bitter accounts of what the world should be, attempts to understand why the shift is occurring are absent from what's written by radio publications.

The radio industry needs to move towards wrapping its arms around new media, metrics, analytics, and a more meaningful programming style (as defined by those who will be 34- 54 years old tomorrow).

This isn't the 1980s anymore. Choice and consolidation's cutbacks are what's eating away at the power of this once very powerful media. Radio's angst is showing.

To argue that Pandora is not radio, or that the numbers offered by it are not "true" reports of its audience's listening patterns, only falls on radio industry ears.

Young media buyers are looking closely at what new media offers, and Pandora is on the top of that heap. It's a shame that what they want is only a step away from from what the radio industry could offer - if it spent more time learning, and less on snipping at new competition.

Receive Newsletter
Search Archive

Radio Stations: