No, Pandora Is Not “Radio”

January 27, 2014

James CridlandI first saw James Cridland speak at “Convergence” a few years back and immediately knew that we had to get him on the Jacobs Summit roster the following December.  You may recall his mantra was that “radio needs to speak in one voice” in order to achieve true effectiveness in an increasingly cluttered and competitive media environment.  Last week, the Rubik’s Cube that is Pandora generated a great deal of discussion on this blog.  James weighed in with a great comment that appears in expanded form below.  It is always beneficial for us in the States to hear from passionate broadcasters from around the world.  So here goes… – FJ

We in the radio industry know what radio is.  It is companionship, it is emotional.  It is a human connection with the presenter and other listeners.  It is full of powerful stories, as Valerie Geller is keen to remind us.  That powerful story might be a hard-hitting feature on a local NPR station; but it could also be an equally powerful story from the local breakfast team about their day yesterday, inspired by a listener’s tweet.

Pandora is not radio.  Pandora is just a soulless, poorly-executed, music jukebox.  Pandora wants people to think they’re radio, because people love radio, and advertisers understand radio’s power and connection: but they are not radio.  Instead, they are attempting to redefine “radio” as some kind of music jukebox.  As Fred’s post showed, they have succeeded.

We, the radio industry, have sat idly by as companies like Pandora, Slacker, Apple and others have christened their inferior product “radio.”  They have stolen our brand.  It has already caused us immeasurable damage.  We are fools for letting that happen.

Rubik's Cube_PandoraSaying that “Pandora is not radio” is not a naive view.  It isn’t ignoring the challenge that companies like Pandora represent.  We should not shirk from challenging Pandora on why they wish to use our brand to sell their soulless jukebox: since by redefining radio, they are doing listeners a disservice.  They are promising something that they are not, and damaging radio’s brand in the process.

The sad truth is that many radio operators have, over the past ten years, already redefined “radio.”  Many stations operate as virtual music jukeboxes: devoid of any human connection other than a bright, breezy and voicetracked “personality” who has never lived in your community, has no connection with you or your life, and only seems eager to tell us the station name and promote the networked breakfast show.

“Radio,” according to these stations, is some kind of personal hell for the Pandora generation: forcing you to listen to someone else’s Pandora channel, but covering up the “thumbs down” button.  If the only thing “radio” stations offer is non-stop music, Pandora will win every time.

Pandora’s soulless music jukebox is teaching a generation of listeners that radio is just a jumble of songs, and nothing more.  But some in the radio industry are equally guilty of ruining radio’s reputation.  We are fools for letting that happen.

Pandora is not radio.  Is today’s radio industry truly “radio,” too?

James Cridland is a radio futurologist: a speaker and writer about radio’s future.  He lives in London, and will be speaking at the NAB Show in April.  His website is


Tags: ,

56 Responses to No, Pandora Is Not “Radio”

  1. Ric Hansen on January 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM

    So true. Radio stations have played into the hands of pure plays by competing on their terms. It will never work. Will they figure. That out before it’s too late?

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 8:32 AM

      Ric, James’ post should stir up some conversations in meeting rooms all over radio. As we love to say, stay tuned. Thanks for writing.

  2. John Ford on January 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM

    James Cridland is a voice of sanity in a wilderness of mostly mindless, zig-zagging trendies. Want a healthy dose of logic and well thought out opinions on the state of broadcasting? Read Cridland. He used to post on his web site, but not so much any more. Most of his stuff is on

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 10:34 AM

      Thanks, John. We’re big fans, too. Always great to hear his opinions and observations from “across the pond.”

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 1:12 PM

      Thanks, John! First time I’ve been called a ‘voice of sanity’.

      PLUG: If you visit you can subscribe to stuff I write by email. Which is easier for everyone. END OF PLUG

      • John Ford on January 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM

        Thanks. I do wish you had an rss feed though. I know, it’s so ‘old school,” kinda’ like radio. So I could include your postings on . Twitter feeds no longer work, as twitter killed off their rss api and honestly, I just don’t have the time to pipe twitter feeds. How I miss open standards!

  3. Bob Bellin on January 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM

    Radio should worry more about how to overcome its competition, not what to name it.

    Radio or not? A distinction without a difference. Whose financials, ratings, take home pay or sex life in impacted by whether Pandora, Spotify or even radio is “radio”.

    While I appreciate the passion behind this piece, if I were an exec at Pandora I would be thrilled to see anyone that mattered in radio taking any time to consider the “is it radio” question – because any time devoted to it is time that won’t be applied to becoming more competitive.

    Does anyone remember that guy in college who would rather argue with a girl than sleep with her? This topic reminds me of that.

    SmartPhone evolution proves the point. The first smartphone was a Blackberry and by today’s standards, it was a phone with text only email capability. The Blackberry was called a smartphone back when it was the only thing available, then the iPhone redefined the term. Then BlackBerry fell off the face of the earth – not because it did or didn’t fit a particular identifier (actually it still was a smartphone – just a bad one), but because it didn’t have app capability and the browser was terrible.

    Pandora is throwing sticks and stones at radio and radio is focused on names. A rose…and a radio, by any other name…………………………….

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 10:36 AM

      Bob, hopefully James will get back to you with his POV. We have tried in this space to move off of the semantics of the issue and focus on the substance of it. And I think that James’ goal was to further that by his “stick in the eye” post. Instead of debating it, why don’t we just be it? Thanks for the comment and the passion.

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      Hi, Bob – thanks, you’re right, we should be focusing on the product, not the name.

      If you were to brew a flavourless, boring beer and stick a label on it saying “Budweiser” then the owners of the Budweiser brand would, rightly, sue you out of all existence: because it damages their brand, and unfairly educates consumers that Budweiser is flavourless and boring. That’s a brand they’ve carefully nurtured since 1876: they would rightly control it. The same’s true of the ‘radio’ brand. Do we, as an industry, care if other people market an inferior product under the ‘radio’ name, and educate consumers that radio is a passionless, boring jukebox service?

      (This analogy falls apart for fairly obvious reasons if you know anything about beer.)

      • Bob Bellin on January 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM

        The problem with the beer analogy struck me right off the bat – your description sounds perfect for a Bud. That said, I think it fails in some other ways:

        First, many people, me included, feel that radio has become progressively flavorless and boring. Its predictable, contrived and void (for the most part) of the spontaneity that used to be its greatest asset. So you can’t rightly criticize Pandora for allegedly following radio’s lead and marketing it under radio’s name.

        Second, many people don’t agree that Pandora is flavorless and boring. True, there are no emailed (with pronunciation guides) local references from voice trackers thousands of miles away, but there’s real musical spontaneity. I’ve discovered so much music on Pandora, Soma FM, Spotify and others that I would never have heard on what you call radio. I find that interesting, not boring. And I would argue that radio hasn’t been “carefully nurtured” in over 20 years. Systematically dismantled is more like it IMO. It would be pretty easy to defend the idea that terrestrial radio IS in fact, a passionless, boring jukebox service.

        Third – and most important – what is or isn’t relevant, interesting, or even what to call it (radio or otherwise) is for consumers to decide, not execs or bloggers. This reminds me of when my older son was 8 years old and my wife didn’t want to buy him “war toys”. I pointed out to her that if we don’t, he’ll just pick up a stick and call it a gun. Same with Pandora users.

        Fourth – your analogy is more appropriate to the term “beer” than any brand name. Or bourbon. There are strict rules about what can and can’t be called bourbon – Jack Daniels is sour mash whiskey, not bourbon – it says so right on the label. But everyone thinks of it and calls it bourbon. A distinction without a difference.

    • Duane Christensen on January 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

      That was a beautiful reply, Bob.

  4. Lindsay Wood Davis on January 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM

    As Ziggy Marley sings, “So good, So right.” This is on-the-button thinking; Radio HAS “been a fool” for letting it happen. One key ingredient in this awful soup is the Radio industry’s failure to not only “speak with one voice,” as Cridland says, but our failure to have strong, experienced voices speaking on behalf of the industry as a whole. The leaders of the RAB and NAB used to be Broadcasters, but were replaced by those of a different stripe, just when we needed that experience and forcefulness the most. The arrival of Erica Farber at RAB was the right move; let’s hope she can gain the traction Radio needs to help spread the real word of Radio.

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 10:38 AM

      James is a passionate broadcaster, as is Erica and many others in the corner offices. Part of this dilemma is better recognition that the world has changed around us; that the tactics that created consolidation, higher margins, and better EBITDA are precisely the elements that hamper radio in its quest to get back to what made it great in the first place. Thanks for keeping this conversation going.

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      I don’t know enough about the NAB to comment (other than they’re FINE fellows, and I’m very much looking forward to the Wednesday conference session because I’ve heard there’s this very good British person speaking over lunch, and you really ought to come).

      In the UK, we’ve had a period where radio has been run by the money people, rather than by creative programmers. Part of that was a necessity to steer us through recession; and part of that is the unfortunate reality of appeasing shareholders who only care about the next dividend rather than an industry’s long-term future. Thankfully, we’re going back into private ownership rather than having to please the markets, and pulling out of that recession. Both are good reasons why the radio programmers are moving back into leadership: and long may that trend continue, for the health of the industry.

  5. Johnny Molson on January 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM

    The solution is so close… yet so far away.

  6. Thomas Anderson on January 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM

    Small Black-Owned radio stations are the ones who are creative. They operate on a limited budget, community – oriented and you have people at these stations trying to catch their “first ticket.”
    Frankie Crocker, Jack The Rapper, Petey Greene are just a few of Talents that Black Radio has produced. Hopefully, more will follow.
    Ownership, is the key. We at The LMB Network ( don’t cuff our Talent, don’t have playlist and have “partnered” with terrestrial and internet stations.

    Thank You,
    Thomas Anderson
    Operations Manager
    LMB Network

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM

      Thanks, Thomas – I’m grateful for your insight.

      I believe small-ownership frees up creativity: not least because there are less people who’ll say no. The key is to harness the enthusiasm to produce a consistent-sounding product that people will flock to listen to. Thanks so much for making that point.

  7. Jeff Schmidt on January 27, 2014 at 2:07 PM

    “Is / Is Not Radio” is pointless inside baseball – listeners don’t care.

    every minute spent on this is a minute you can’t focus on delighting listeners.

    speaking of which – i have to get back to freshening the production promoting our jockless 3 hour commercial free music midday “show”

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 2:31 PM

      Wow. I was told Americans don’t understand irony, but you’ve nailed it! ;)

      Thanks for the comment, Jeff!

  8. Tom Webster on January 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM

    The elephant in the room, folks, is spotload. Pandora and others have redefined “the ad bargain” as much as they have curation. The enormous penetration of Internet radio has changed consumer expectations of the ad bargain, and that’s not all about being a soulless jukebox. And while Jeff Schmidt is right that listener’s don’t care about the is/is not debate (hi, Jeff!) we cannot argue with the fact that Internet radio has rewired consumer behavior on MANY levels.

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM

      I’m appreciative of James Cridland giving me a day off by guest-blogging and bringing his great perspective to the table. But I especially appreciate him replying to the many great comments his post has elicited today – like this one. Tom, there are a lot of moving parts in this conundrum (OK, Rubik’s Cube) and spotload is clearly one of them. OK, maybe 12 elephants an hour! Thanks for chiming in.

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM

      That’s a great point, Tom.

      Internet services – whether radio or not – have rewired consumer understanding and expectations. I only hope that they don’t do damage while they do it.

      Over this side of the Atlantic, commercial radio has a large and fearsome competitor in terms of the BBC. 50 radio stations, all of which have a spot-load of precisely zero; and some as hits-led and music-heavy as any other. (Try a listen to BBC Radio 1 if you think the BBC is just fusty NPR-like programming). They have a 56% share. That, more than anything, regulates commercial radio’s spotload here: and has a beneficial impact on its quality.

      If Pandora does that to the radio industry (or iTunes Radio, or Slacker, or any others) then that’s a good thing.

    • Chris Stevens on January 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

      Hello – another Brit here, but one who lived in TX for 5 years and brought an American back with me.

      It’s not just the length of the spots… it’s the content. Listen to a couple of commercial breaks on a typical AC station in the states, and you’re led to believe that…

      1. All the listeners are stupid, and should be patronised.
      2. Men in ad “sketches” are particularly stupid.
      3. The only way to sell cars is to shout loudly.
      4. Repeating something four times must mean that it’s true.
      5. Advertisers should buy a 60″ and split it into two 30″ pieces to get any response
      6. It doesn’t matter if the music/voice/pace of the commercial is completely different to the format of the station.
      7. Did I mention that all listeners are stupid?

      If we treat people like idiots for 25% of the listening hour, is it any surprise that we can’t command their loyalty, and that they’re looking elsewhere? However good your announcers, music and features/contests are, you’re only as good as your weakest link… which is usually the ads.

      (Oh, and national advertisers rarely seem that much better. For every Geico, there’s at least 100 shoddy spots)

      Just my opinion, etc!


      • Fred Jacobs
        Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM

        Chris, I know that many in radio share your concerns. Philadelphia’s Jerry Lee is on a one-man mission to improve the quality of radio commercials. It is an industry-wide problem, and goes well beyond the “quantity” problem you mention. Thanks for the perspective.

  9. Soulless Radio? « Future of Radio Online on January 27, 2014 at 4:35 PM

    […] as we run up to our annual Future of Radio Conference, I’ve become a big fan of the JacoBlog. They have posted today James Cridland’s comments about the debate of what is radio. Cridland is a Brit who comments frequently about our business in the US with credibility. This time […]

  10. Peter Symonds on January 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM

    Instead of complaining how much is isn’t radio we could collaborate and make it more like radio. Stations could sell podcast, live news and weather and integrate it into the Pandora.

  11. Mike Anthony on January 27, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    What do vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, downloads (iTunes) and online streaming have in common? They represent the evolution of technology in reference to personal music collections. Everyone has a personal music collection and everyone makes time to listen to their personal music collection. Personal music collections and time spent listening to them have run parallel to radio since people started collecting music.

    This has been a complimentary relationship not a conflicting one. All the on-demand streaming services are just the latest iteration of the personal music collection. Streaming is the delivery channel of choice now.

    So yes I agree with James, Pandora is not radio.

    As for elephants in the room…radio has so many you’d think we bought a zoo. Commercials is a huge one but it won’t be addressed. Wallstreet radio is about getting the numbers up whatever it takes and that’s not fewer commercials…it’s only about the math not the magic radio could be…to quote Godfather 1, “it’s not personal it’s just business”. (It was a Godfather marathon this weekend)

    IMHO the problem Pandora is causing is not as a competitor for time spent listening but for revenue lost! That streaming personal music collection is now a monster ad revenue stream. Much of that spend used to go to radio.

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 27, 2014 at 6:33 PM

      Mike, thanks for introducing another elephant into this conversation. It’s getting crowded and expensive in here! Appreciate the comment & the perspective. So many of these comments circle back to the notion that I discussed in my original post, and James eloquently addressed in his – radio needs to simply do its job. Johnny Molson summarized the frustration that so many radio professionals share in his earlier comment.

      • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM

        Mike, absolutely – revenue is a big concern to all of us; since in most countries, revenue isn’t holding up as well as the audiences are. Globally, more money is still spent on radio than the internet (I posted a link on my Twitter/Google+/LinkedIn feeds to some research today – details at ) but many media planners are bright young things who may begin to fall out of love with radio soon; TSL for younger audiences is certainly falling, even if they still tune in.

  12. Peter Symonds on January 27, 2014 at 6:39 PM

    My follow up question is would it make any difference if the word radio was removed from Pandora or is this just a matter of pride?

    • James Cridland on January 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

      Peter – hopefully, consumers wouldn’t confuse a soulless jukebox service with what “radio” is. (“Should be”). But I think the damage has been done; and I am not really arguing that they should stop using it now. I guess I am arguing that they shouldn’t have been allowed, by us, to use it in the first place.

  13. Mike Anthony on January 27, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    Hi James / Fred, Sorry for the multiple comments but wanted to share one more thought…

    Labeling Pandora as a soulless, poorly executed jukebox is not a view shared by all. Let me give you a generational perspective. I have a 19 year old and a 25 year old in the house (millennials) and they don’t feel that way at all about Pandora.

    They think Pandora is improving their music selections for them personally. All their friends use Pandora or Spotify. They like the surprises it offers (though it’s the first reason they stop listening…too weird sometimes).

    They also like that they can have multiple lists that fit their mood or activity. They won’t pay for it but they will use it. They don’t mind commercials either…so many less than radio. The only time they use radio is in the car.

    Their biggest problem with radio is the amount of commercials. But they have the same problem with TV so they use Netflix, Hulu and YouTube to get what they want without crazy islands of inane commercials. The difference is they still listen to radio some…they have cut the cord on TV all together.

    To continue with my personal focus group observations this time with regard to what we should take seriously about competing against Pandora. My 25 year old daughter works on the mobile gaming platform team for a well known major media company with offices in SF. She is part of a group of three that determines where this huge company is going to spend its marketing budget to reach mobile gamers. Pandora, Spotify, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix etc. are in their office daily showing them why their platform is best to reach the online game players they are looking for.

    With these platforms they can see exactly the activity, the conversion or lack of that each campaign delivers. Traditional media can’t do this so they don’t consider buying it. They need real measurable metrics.

    I share all this because their marketing budgets are huge and in a recent conversation she indicated that she’s impressed with what Pandora is doing with their ad targeting. They reach very specific users by more than just age and sex but location, device used and by music taste,


    She referred to it as a game changer.

    We always say we want to know where the puck is going…

    Thanks for the discussion

    • James Cridland on January 28, 2014 at 3:35 AM

      Mike – a great comment. I’d agree that if all you want is music, then Pandora does a *much* better job than radio does. I think dumb music radio’s days are numbered. It’s interesting seeing those that offer more are those that do well. Edmonton’s NOW Radio is one such format that has a successful music proposition but it’s part of what the station does, not its raison d’etre. (Wow, I wrote something about Canadian radio and used a bit of French. I’ve even impressed myself).

      With respect to your daughter: there are broadly two types of advertising: direct response advertising and brand positioning. It is really easy to measure direct response advertising on the internet (number of clicks or purchases); and it is possible but harder to measure it from traditional media. However, brand positioning is what radio really excels at. I am not in the market for insurance, and won’t be for another ten months: but when I am, I’ll be sure to check out Geico, because they have spent the year with their silly-sounding lizard telling me about their brand and making it top of mind. Brand awareness is why we buy Heinz ketchup rather than the store’s own brand. Radio excels at this – yet this kind of advertising is almost impossible to measure in the same way.

      I used to write radio commercials, in case you wondered. I now love writing articles for great magazines about radio. Read one today! Book me now for your next radio conference! I’m normally more positive than this! And that’s guaranteed!! Call now – 0011 44 7941 251474! If lines are busy, please call later: but do call. That number again…

      • Fred Jacobs
        Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 5:56 AM

        So are we making a distinction between “dumb music radio” (which I think we all agree is screwed) versus “smart music radio” where DJs/presenters act as curators, guides, and entertainers? Do we start looking at radio markets in that light?

        I also appreciate your comments, James, about the different types of advertising. Too often, clients confuse brand advertising with direct response. But isn’t it often the case that without a solid, trustworthy brand, direct response will only take you so far? Radio’s (and TV’s) ability to paint that picture, build that brand, and make an emotional connection (as we’ll see once again on Super Bowl Sunday) is the difference. Now as Jerry Lee reminds us, we need to do a much better job with the quality, messaging, production, and entertainment value of radio advertising in order to prevent its further commoditization.

        So happy this space was used for a high level discussion. Thanks to all who have read these posts and offered their heartfelt opinions and comments.

        • Bob Bellin on January 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM

          Its interesting that radio is in the business of selling ads and only one person (Jerry Lee) has demonstrated any interest in improving ad quality. He’s even offered to share his methodology and results with anyone who wants them, yet few have taken him up on it.

          TSL is down 30% in recent years, revenue is flat, clutter complaints show up repeatedly in research (for those who still do it), marketing types are more and more focused on tracking the results of their spending and no one wants to improve the quality or listen-ability of their ads. That says it all IMO.

          Sorry, but the people making those decisions in radio are overpaid.

          • Fred Jacobs
            Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM

            Strange, isn’t it, how Jerry Lee somehow makes his way into this blog at least once a week? Thanks, Bob.

  14. Bruce Stevens on January 27, 2014 at 10:44 PM

    Nothing to add. Sadly he nailed it.

  15. Darren Saunders on January 28, 2014 at 6:51 AM

    Should we radio practitioners begin to covet the name ‘radio’ in the same way that producers of champagne do the name of their product? These services are not radio, and so it’s misleading to brand them as such.

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 6:56 AM

      The “R word” is everywhere, Darren. I can’t think of a better group to solidify its definition than broadcasters recommitting to the principles and services that helped them succeed in the first place. Thanks for the comment.

      • Darren Saunders on January 28, 2014 at 7:33 AM

        I absolutely agree. The term radio *should* be reserved for broadcast material, be that curated music playlists or speech, regardless of platform (internet radio is just as valuable to the medium as traditionally broadcast content). Pandora et al are nothing more than automated playlists being served directly to one user at a time; even by the most broad definition, that isn’t radio and doesn’t deserve the tag.

      • Peter Symonds on January 28, 2014 at 7:35 AM

        That is a bit of a slippery slope. The term Radio is not exclusive to the Broadcast/Entertainment industry. Radio Frequency, Radio Waves, Radio Spectrum, Two-way Radio, Amateur Radio etc…

        • Fred Jacobs
          Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 8:05 AM

          Peter, you are correct that the term is used in many different contexts. However, when people use a phrase like “listening to the radio,” I think we know what they’re talking about. Thanks again.

          • John Ford on January 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM

            if the word “candy” can be servicemarked by a company that doesn’t actually make “candy,” then surely a product that actually produces said product can. We Can Crush Them! ha!


          • Peter Symonds on January 28, 2014 at 1:05 PM

            The problem is that radio is a creative industry like art for instance. If you start putting boundaries on what should or shouldn’t be called art we wouldn’t have the Tate Modern Art gallery here in London. I am sure some people would say that some of the exhibits aren’t art. This is just like radio. If you restrict radio you would probably restrict it’s creativeness.

  16. Duane Christensen on January 28, 2014 at 8:39 AM

    Radio started being soulless because of greedy owners. Radio stopped being profitable when the sales staff / ad writers didn’t know how to create ads and plans that actually work for their clients. Instead of long-term radio ad contracts, it’s short-term with radio ads that have no chance of working for the advertiser.

    Solution: Live and local radio DJs and radio sales teams who have learned the craft of effective advertising and marketing.

    But of course, training a sales staff takes brains, time, and effort…

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM

      Doing anything well – marketing radio, creating compelling programming, building great brands, serving communities – takes time, money, vision, and effort. Radio is learning right along with other legacy industries that consumers and business will not automatically gravitate to them in a world where scarcity was once an advantage. It’s a whole new day. Thanks for the comments.

  17. Mark Gregory on January 29, 2014 at 5:57 AM

    Excellent piece James.
    I often feel as if I am swimming against the tide on the ‘Global Radio’ style issue local vs networked etc.
    Having a 13 year old daughter I know only too well however, how times and attitudes are changing – she genuinely couldn’t care less where Capital NE Broadcasts from 16 hours a day. Yet I was almost suspended from school in 1976 for ‘bunking off’ most afternoons, to listen to Alistair Pirrie on Radio Tees. How times have changed.

    • Fred Jacobs
      Fred Jacobs on January 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM

      Thanks for the comment, Mark. Those 13 year-olds provide the best “research” you can get.

  18. It’s My Station: 18 Months Later | Hello Curns on February 1, 2014 at 5:03 AM

    […] was a piece by James Cridland over on Jacobs Media Blog discussing the very use of the word radio: No, Pandora Is Not ‘Radio’ (which is totally worth reading for the way James can crowbar a beer reference into a […]

  19. […] digital platform. Michael Depp in NetNewsCheck. Radio Pandora is not radio. James Cridland in JacoBlog. Long time public television and radio executive, Dennis Haarsager is knowledgeable in […]

  20. […] was recently sprooking his wares over on the Fred Jackobs site on the back of a piece entitled ‘Pandora Is Not Radio‘. Which actually, despite my friendly ribbing, is recommended reading. However this piece is […]

  21. No, YouTube Radio isn’t Radio | on September 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM

    […] was recently sprooking his wares over on the Fred Jackobs site on the back of a piece entitled ‘Pandora Is Not Radio‘. Which actually, despite my friendly ribbing, is recommended reading. However this piece is […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *