Programming vs. Playlisting

Clear Channel's Bob Pittman (Chairman of Media & Entertainment) gave a speech at an investor conference in Miami last week, focusing much of his time on the differences between his company's radio and internet playlist sites that call themselves "internet radio."  The main difference appears to be programming in Pittman's mind.  He considers sites like Pandora and Spotify to be another stage of private "music collections," while Clear Channel's stations continue the tradition of actual programmed radio.  Pittman claims that terrestrial radio is "curated and dynamically changes," but neglects to remember that sites like Pandora allow their listeners to choose which songs they like, allowing for changes whenever the individual listener wishes, instead of the music director.  Pittman compares music programming to a miracle: "So as you’re getting tired of a certain song, it begins to disappear. As you discover a new song, miraculously it appears and starts being played more and more. And every week, every month, every year the station is constantly changing in reaction to changing consumer tastes."  He thinks that this is better than a Pandora-type service because internet stations are simply a playlist, and after a time everyone gets tired of any playlist, and simply make another one.  But Pittman complains that these sites shuffle playlists from "the same group of songs."  And while Pittman doesn't say he has anything against this system, he claims "it ain't radio."


Bob Pittman: Idiot, liar, or just another guy who doesn't listen to radio?
The way he describes internet radio services seems to better describe the radio stations that his company runs.  Especially in pop radio, even if the single is changing over the course of a few weeks, it is simply replaced by another one from "the same group of songs" performed by only a handful of artists.  It has little to nothing to do with "consumer tastes," but rather what hot single by the same tired artists is hot that week.  And the only reason that someone might get "tired of a certain song," is because radio stations play the hell out of the singles, embedding it into the consumer's brain until he or she cracks.   If Pittman wants to make programming the difference between his radio and the new wave from the internet, he should probably take a second look at his own system.


Pandora actually allows for more personal programming.  If you're sick of a song, you simply press the thumbs down button, and the program never brings it back to your stations.  Sure, this is the same concept as a playlist, but at least you don't get sick of a song and then the radio continues to pound it into your brain.  The consumer's taste are even more relevant in this situation.  Pittman shouldn't make claims that internet services are not radio when in reality, their programming format is a bettered form of radio.  The consumer has been left out of recent radio, even though radio was created as public service.  Pandora still aims to sell listeners to advertisers, but at least it attempts to give the listener a chance to put the music he/she wants on the station.  Pittman is right to be scared of Pandora and company, and the only reason I can see for this weak defense of Clear Channel is his fear.  Look out Clear Channel!