Should You Buy Pandora Today?

Pandora Media (NYSE: P  ) took the plunge and hit the public market. Now you, too, can own a piece of your favorite streaming music service. But Mr. Market has hated this stock so far -- if you were first in line to buy shares on Wednesday, you've lost 44% of your investment already.

Fellow Fool Rick Munarriz called it: Amid Pandora's scorching hot IPO, he told you to stay away from the launch. Though revenue is growing like gangbusters, costs are tagging along as well and the company hasn't figured out how to turn a profit. And the share offering price more than doubled from the initial plan as fellow online darling LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD  ) and others threw chum in the IPO waters. LinkedIn hasn't done much better, by the way. Just short of a month into its public life, the stock has taken a 25% haircut from where it opened on its first day.

I have publicly stated that I want to own Pandora shares, going so far as calling it a serious threat to Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) iTunes and Sirius XM Radio (Nasdaq: SIRI  ) . I still think that's true because Pandora out-Apples Apple itself in the user friendliness department, and that's worth a lot. But I'm not interested at any price, and the introduction prices looked too frothy even for me.

Where's the trigger?
So what's Pandora really worth? At what prices would I make good on my intention to buy in?

Well, like Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX  ) before it, Pandora is treading new ground in media-based business models. But Netflix has figured out how to turn its 23 million customers into profits and even stretching its income to cover the cost of buying more and better streaming-media licenses. This is a story I know well, a model that the market at-large is starting to appreciate, and it all just works.

By contrast, Pandora's prospectus is a bit ominous: "We offer our service to listeners at no cost and we generate revenue primarily from advertising. We also offer a subscription service to listeners." So advertising first and foremost, supplemented by premium subscription services. I'd be more comfortable the other way around, except Pandora would instantly lose millions of subscribers by imposing mandatory fees on everyone.

Of course, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) makes most of its billions in advertising, even monetizing media services like YouTube these days. So why not Pandora?

And that's a great question that I would like to see answered before buying in. You see, Pandora's a pretty light advertiser. The browser-based version sometimes goes hours between ad displays -- the company features less than one minute of advertising per streaming hour -- though I do see a new "buy" tab on each song nowadays that rips a page from Google's YouTube playbook by directing you to iTunes and the Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN  ) music store. On my Android phone, the ads are ubiquitous -- but it's almost always the same annoying LivingSocial spot obscuring the album art.

In short, Pandora needs a more varied set of advertisers and a better method for displaying the ads. What's going on right now just isn't working and probably annoys consumers more than it inspires them to click on the pretty picture of a frozen yogurt.

So I don't have a set price in mind but a corporate event: I'll take a serious look at Pandora shares when the company figures out the advertising game. Until then, this ticker belongs on my Foolish watchlist but not in my portfolio. Here's an idea: Why not partner up with online ad-space leader Google to manage the ad flow?

Everything you can do, I can do better
Oh, but Google is a wannabe competitor, right? I'm using the beta version of Google Music right now, and it's not a bad substitute for Pandora sometimes. The service gives me access to my own music library on the go without investing in multiple 32-gigabyte memory cards to store it all on. Google hosts my files and lets me listen anywhere. It's good if I know exactly what I want to hear and already purchased the media.

But then, Pandora is different. Like set-schedule radio services such as terrestrial radio or Sirius XM, Pandora stations often lead me to music I've never heard before. For example, I like Snow Patrol and spun up a Pandora station based on their haunting hit "Run." On my way to the grocery store, the station surprised me with an Armin Van Buuren trance mix of that song, and I hit "thumbs-up" because it was darn catchy. Now I'm a bigger fan of Van Buuren than of Snow Patrol, and went through a four-month spell of listening to nothing but progressive trance. And so we grow. None of that could have happened by using Google Music because I didn't own the trance mix of "Run."

For the record, the just-announced iCloud music service from Apple looks like the worst of both worlds. It's limited to the music you already own and will never lead you anywhere new, and it's reliant on iTunes versus the more open Web format seen in Amazon's and Google's offerings.

And Google does ad business with competitors all the time, so rivalry is no reason to stay away. Hey, Amazon's cloud services manage huge chunks of Netflix's online services. "Co-opetition" is the name of the game.

What do we do now?
Pandora is great, but its business model isn't. Don't invest a penny here until you can see and understand how the company plans to make money. The following model has been proposed many times and typically ends up in tears and disaster:

  1. Start an online service with millions and millions of members.
  2. ???
  3. Profit!

You need to know what the question marks in step 2 really mean. Right now, they don't mean much in Pandora's case. Just add the stock to your watchlist and walk away.

You could also watch this video that explains how Pandora-style cloud computing is changing the face of both media and business. You'll even find a cloud-focused business that's making money today and even more money tomorrow. It's fun, free, and informative -- why not watch it now?

Fool contributor Anders Bylund owns shares of Google and Netflix, but he holds no other position in any company mentioned. Click here to see his holdings and a short bio. The Motley Fool owns shares of Google and Apple. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Netflix, Google, Amazon.com, and Apple. They have also recommended buying puts on Netflix and creating a bull call spread position in Apple. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (29) | Recommend This Article (20)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 10:04 AM, IIcx wrote:

    "Here's an idea: Why not partner up with online ad-space leader Google to manage the ad flow?" <-- Cleaver idea.

    You're right about the business model and they're stuck with their current overhead until they can renegotiate in 2 years.

    They've already gotten a downgrade with a 2 year price target of $5.50 but the same investor that took it on the chin in the tech bubble is back for another round ; )

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 10:33 AM, waterinfo wrote:

    Pandora will disappear and take your money with it.

    A regular radio station has an FCC licensed channel, and has no further cost for delivery of its programming (beyond maintenance and electricity for its transmitter).

    SiriusXM has FCC licensed channels, government approved orbital slots, and has paid for satellites to provide the delivery mechanism for its programming. The costs, mostly sunk costs at this point, are known, predictable, and are essentially independent of the number of users. The company has complete control of its own delivery mechanism.

    Internet radio, as a separate service, like Pandora, is totally, TOTALLY, TOTALLY dependent upon a third party for delivery of its product. The Pandora customer must ALSO be a customer of a wireless internet service, with its own profit motive, and the Pandora customer is paying for that service many times more than the SiriusXM monthly cost.

    Moreover, the cost of the delivery mechanism, being far more than the cost of the content (which allegedly is free), is very likely to become totally volume dependent over the next year or two, especially for high volume users like radio listeners. this will result in an effective hourly cost to listen to "free radio" of somewhere, according to my calculations between 7 cents and 50 cents per hour, possibly much more in some scenarios. Home much money would Dominos make if the delivery cost of its $10 pizza were $100. In addition, the delivery mechanism for Internet radio from a fidelity, quality, and coverage perspective is far inferior to direct broadcast satellite.

    Pandora and its brethren are the dot.com bust companies of our current era. There were hundreds of such companies founded in the mid-to-late 1990's that raised millions and billions in IPO capital and promptly flushed it down the toilet. Pandora will join them.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Billiardman wrote:

    I have over 1000 songs on my iPhone. If I only wanted to listen to music, which I don't, why wouldn't I just dock my iPhone into my car.

    If anyone reading this had bought P on the first day of trading and still has the shares....they're clueless and shouldn't be buying individual stocks.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Gato337 wrote:

    I completely agree. I love Pandora's music streaming services, and love that it helps me discover new music. It was especially useful when I was commuting 1hr both ways to work for the past 6 months, I would get in my car, set up one of my fav Pandora stations on my phone, and drive. I don't have much time these days to compile good playlists in iTunes, so whenever I use my iPod in the car, i usually spend a lot of time fiddling with it to hear what songs I want that match my mood, not very good for safe driving while going 70 on a freeway. Pandora, I could just turn on and listen hands-free all the way to work.

    I have it on my watchlist because I think it is a game-changer, but I won't even consider putting real money on it until I can see some more concrete plans for making their business model profitable.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 11:42 AM, waterinfo wrote:

    According to Yahoo Finance, Pandora has 15.2 Million shares outstanding, and an average daily volume of 16.3 Million shares. Thus, on the average, every share is being sold every day. My question, who are the clueless investors that keep buying these shares over and over!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 11:53 AM, paulw268 wrote:

    Every piece of analysis on Pandora is focused on all of the wrong things, but that is understandable as Pandora has done a good job of disguising it's business. While almost every analyst is focused on advertising and subscription revenues, these numbers are in fact irrelevant. This is not an advertising company, despite everyone trying to make it one.

    Pandora is a record label. They have access and control to millions (and growing) of ears on a daily basis. If you were a new artist making pop music, how much would you pay Pandora to have your song play first or second on the 'Lady Gaga' station reaching X number of users? Now how about customizing those users further, by geography etc.? Isn't this the essence of what the label used to do, reach end users? The model is purely positional and dynamic for Pandora, not material (at least yet), with the idea of maximizing it's listener base.

    With today's technology, capabilities and bandwidth, the model is finally becoming scalable. I currently stream Pandora stations in my car on my hour commute to work through a Monster auxilliary cord hooked up to my Droid. I find new artists constantly, ones that radio wouldn't have led me to because they do not know me as well.

    Sacrificing user growth tomorrow for advertising revenue today would be a huge mistake. Be patient and allow the company to grow strong roots. One thing that most (even negative) analysis can agree on is that Pandora makes an incredibly smart product.

    Now, when everyone says how big of a threat license fees are for Pandora as they pick up users, it seems inaccurate. Pandora has the users, they own their ears and the monetization will come in due time. One thing that is always discounted is the ability for companies to evolve, like when Netflix signed a deal to exclusively stream a new series. It is the labels who will become dependent on Pandora, not the other way around. What, then, are the chances for Pandora to start signing it's own artists?

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 12:14 PM, waterinfo wrote:

    To Paulw268,

    Record labels signed unknown artists to contracts, paid them, and promoted their new releases. Your model is quite the reverse, that unknown artists will pay Pandora to post their music. Sounds a little like "payola" for those of you old enough to remember the payola scandals of years ago. I don't see starving artists paying any significant amounts of money to Pandora on the hope that their music will randomly show up, be recognized, and be remembered by the gaggle of Pandora subscribers.

    Sell your Pandora shares and buy SIRI if you want to play in this segment of the market.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Rut67 wrote:

    Pandora is stuck in the neutral zone with a terrible business model that does not work. It is a 50 cent stock with no hope. When the CEO with 10 years of losses states " We respect margin and cash flow" but has never made a profit, there's a significant problem. The advertising model and free subscriptions is a recipe for disaster. Bad stock, bad CEO, bad investment!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 12:45 PM, tgauchat wrote:

    When I first started using Pandora, I had the same theory as Paulw268 (i.e., payola ... revenue to support music promotion / discovery). But Pandora does not list this as a "major source of revenue", so they either do not know how to leverage it, or this opportunity does not exist.

    And I can't resist taking a "swipe" at Paul for saying he uses a Monster cable. Anyone paying for those 1000% overpriced pieces of wire is not likely to be skilled at valuation.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:17 PM, paulw268 wrote:

    @waterinfo: frank ocean, who you may or may not know, jumped the gun on his label (def jam) and released his nostalgia/ULTRA album via Tumblr (which the label then made him take down). Without any additional promotion, it took off because of it's quality and he's buzzing from underground to mainstream. Labels are not needed with the speed at which quality music can now spread. If Pandora is the preferred outlet for music (which I believe it will be), then artists will need to be a part of it. I am not foolish enough to think anyone could pay a provider to make them popular. However, the method by which we learn of new artists has evolved beyond what labels can now provide for. Take Pandora of leave it, my point is that for anyone trying to value this company based on subscription or advertising revenues, they are choosing the wrong metric.

    @tgauchat: Monster AUX cable was $15, which was $5 more than the generic brand. That's %50 assuming equal quality. However...it's sound quality is superior as I've used several, but that's just my and Dr. Dre's opinion.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:24 PM, JEFrank wrote:

    With the "end" of unlimited data on cell phones Pandora is likely in even more trouble.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:32 PM, MattZN wrote:

    That idiot keeps posting his 'FCC licensed' junk on every forum discussing Pandora. It's the same article every time, with no modification. I've seen it half a dozen times so far. Just ignore him.

    -Matt

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:34 PM, MattZN wrote:

    Unlimited data on cell phones is more of an issue for video. Audio takes virtually no bandwidth relative to cell phone limits. So, no, Pandora won't be impacted by telco data models.

    -Matt

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:37 PM, mikecart1 wrote:

    Pandora is the biggest joke on Wall Street since old GM.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:41 PM, MattZN wrote:

    I have to agree with paulw268 on the viability of the model. In 2000 there were simply not enough smart phones (were there even any at all beyond the Blackberry?). Today there are, with hundreds of millions of new phones coming on the market each year.

    People are seriously confused about Pandora's business model. They are going for critical mass and if it costs them another $100M to do it they will spend that money before they turn one dime of profit. Profit isn't what they need right now. It's eyeballs. They need enough eyeballs to have negotiating leverage with the labels. They are trying to be the Amazon of the internet radio space, and it could take them just as long to do it as it took Amazon (10+ years) to do it.

    In a sense, Sirius got a reprieve up until now, but with smart phones and internet connectivity ramping up so quickly there is no longer any market or reason for car makers to put satellite radio into a vehicle. All buyers want now is a dock for their cell phone or a stereo plug so they can run their internet radio (Pandora, iTunes, Sirius, whatever) into their car speaker system. So a company like Sirius is going to be forced to pretty much abandon the Satellite radio model in coming years in favor of the internet radio model, and compete with the half dozen other players in the internet radio space. Sirius currently has a good contract advantage with the labels, so they can in fact compete if they get their act together. If they don't... if they try to continue the satellite radio side of their business, then they are dead meat.

    -Matt

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 1:49 PM, waterinfo wrote:

    To MattZN -

    1. I am frequently reposting my comment that the future of Pandora is bleak because that fact that the daily turnover of Pandora stock exceeds the float, means that there are a lot of people who have not yet read my post. Read it carefully. I am a telecommunications engineer and executive, have been involved in the Internet since it was developed by the U.S. Defense Department in the 1960's, Pandora not only has an unprofitable business model, but is technologically incapable of providing a level of service that will satisfy users on a long term basis, especially when they have to start paying volume charges on their wireless data usage.

    2. You are correct that streaming video is a greater bandwidth issue over wireless than audio only. However, even the most efficient audio steaming will consume between 7 Cents and $0.50 per hour. Some of the pricing models that have been suggested are even higher. For any regular use, such as daily commuting, this model is untenable compared to a high quality, fixed price offering like SiriusXM.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 2:07 PM, MattZN wrote:

    waterinfo: your comments about FCC licensed spectrum are completely irrelevant. You seem to be under the misguided assumption that just owning the license gives the radio station the ability to play music for free, which isn't true. All radio stations whether FCC licensed or not have to pay royalties every time they play a tune. The only advantage they have are from contracts with labels.

    Internet radio stations are trying to garner enough eyeballs to be able to negotiate these contracts on similar terms. It is that simple.

    The audio streaming to my smart phone costs me nothing. I'm paying the same amount for my data whether I use Pandora or not. You are seriously confused over who is getting paid for what. Anyone with a smart phone is already paying for internet access (there's no point owning a smart phone without internet access), just as anyone paying for DSL or U-Verse or Cable Internet is paying for internet access. They are not paying any extra for Pandora or any other internet radio offering.

    Serving internet bandwidth costs money, but internet radio uses so little bandwidth relative to video that it is not a premium cost to a service provider. I should know, I run numerous colocated servers. The cost of serving internet radio is virtually nil, and much more controllable than the cost of maintaining a radio transmitter (particularly relative to the cost structure for companies owning thousands of radio stations).

    You are trying to make the argument that people are 'paying' for their internet radio by virtue of paying for their internet service. It's a rationalization that simply does not work. People are paying for internet access which they feel is now a requirement. Pandora and other internet radio stations are 'free' from the perspective of their customers. People are using their internet access for many things, not just radio.

    And not just a few people now. Hundreds of millions of people a year are jumping onto the smartphone bandwagon and happily paying for their internet access. That's a lot of eyeballs for Pandora (and other internet radio stations) to go after.

    -Matt

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 2:29 PM, DuncanMF wrote:

    Pandora is by far my favorite music service for the same reasons that Gato337 describes. For the last few years, I and my SO subscribe and have it installed on both of our cell phones, our Roku players, our laptops and our Tivo. We stream it in our cars. We listen to Pandora a large chunk of the day, everyday.

    So love the service - just waiting for a sign that management understands how to turn all of this almost free pleasure into a buck.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MattZN wrote:

    I should add here that Pandora prospects != Pandora stock. IMHO fair value is somewhere south of $10 right now, please don't misinterpret may postings as supporting a buy at currently absurd valuations.

    At the same time, nobody should believe that a drop in Pandora's stock price means squat to Pandora at this stage. They got their money, and plenty of it, to support their critical mass business model. The stock can go to $2 without effecting their current business model. I am a buyer of Pandora when the price is right.

    I would even buy into some Sirius if I thought they were going full-speed-forward to the internet radio model and abandoning their doomed satellite model. Right now Sirius's internet radio support is simply not sirius enough (pun intended).

    -Matt

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 5:41 PM, bottomfisherman wrote:

    Over analyzing plain and simple. Have lost 92.5 million dollars since 2000, staved off bankrutcy 2 in the past five years, lost 6 million last year using same failed am/fm terristial radio model. Management is saying they do not know when they will make a profit. Conclussion Pandora is garbage.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2011, at 9:53 PM, kcsag wrote:

    I have a personal subscription to Slacker radio. It is similar to Pandora in its offerings. I really debated between Slacker and Pandora, but Pandora received a lot of negative publicity for snooping into user's data that I decided to stay the hell away from this company. But I have to say that their product is of top quality. It will allow me to listen to (almost) commercial-free music and discover new artists all the time. Terrestrial radio does not offer any of this. It is only good for listening to stupid jokes RJ's make or try your luck competing for the ridiculous prizes they offer over the air. Did I mention ads? Yes, tons of them, especially the super-annoying ones from your local car dealership.

    Both Pandora and slacker offer multiple ways to access your music. One is to stream it, the other is to "cache" it. Listening to your favorite tunes that are cached does not require a data service to be in effect. I could drive from Chitown to KC and pass over miles and miles of corn-field without a single interruption of my music service. How many songs are loaded in a single cache session? I have no idea. During my daily commutes of 1 hour, there are hardly any repetitions. Suffice to say, this could always be expanded to last 3-6 hours. In short, the cap on data plans could be an issue only if you constantly stream Pandora music and not utilize its caching services.

    I have also listened to Sirius music for hours during my coast to coast plane rides. I love their product. But Sirius radio can differentiate itself from Pandora by continuing to focus on content. Content is king - this fact is evidenced by Comcast's acquisition of NBC and AOL's acquisition of HuffPost. They will need to come up with nifty ways to deliver live events such as sports, concerts, election debates, etc. over the radio. Also, not to mention, enable good RJs like Howard Stern (he is very entertaining on Sirius) to draw the crowd. They are evolving as a different breed and I am sure at some point, they will tinker with the idea of delivering their content over internet radio. Until then, Pandora should be able to get their act together and come up with a good business plan to keep their shareholders happy.

    PS: I really liked paulw268's independent analysis and his insights. Maybe Pandora should hire you!

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2011, at 12:17 AM, jekoslosky wrote:

    If you want to own Pandora and you like it's story, why not wait until the IPO dust has cleared and its business plan starts to show results?

    Consider how long it took Netflix to turn into a real moneymaker -- several years.

    But maybe for a better comparison, consider Priceline.com.

    Great stock now, sure, but what misery those who bought to early were left in.

    Read more here: http://bit.ly/lUWt2C

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2011, at 11:39 AM, hbofbyu wrote:

    And the Sirius-XM cheerleaders come out of the woodwork.

    RF antennas for cellular infrastructure will be ubiquitous with mesh and repeater capabilites - no towers needed. This will expand to support future throughputs with no problem. Unless you are trying to get Howard Stern on the high peaks of the Sierra Nevadas there will be no need for Satellite radio.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2011, at 4:27 PM, jordanwi wrote:

    I wish that I would have had the guts to short Pandora after it was bought up on the day of the IPO.... based on the fact that they're losing large chunks of money alone. I used Pandora when I was 16 years old, and haven't been back since. I just tried (again) to see what the hype is, and the content isn't even ALLOWED to be used in Canada. Is this a problem everywhere outside the U.S? If so, do they have a fair shot at growth/improving margins? Yikes.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2011, at 5:04 PM, vrpirata wrote:

    Pandora and Netflix and not a good comparison. Netflix went into a market with little competition and where most costumers rent movies. Consumers may buy the movies, but most will not do it online .

    Pandora is in a market with lots of competition, where most costumers don’t rent music and are not willing to pay a fee, costumers may choose to buy the music, but most won’t bother if they can access it for free.

    Netflix doesn’t rely on advertising, Pandora does. Even Facebook with all its advertising is not profitable. So much talk and wild guessing, but not real financial reports to back up the crazy estimates for all of this companies.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2011, at 2:42 AM, BHtoo wrote:

    How can Pandora make money on visual advertising when it's web page is covered up by the Fool, Schwab, Thunderbird and the other pages I scan while I'm listening?

  • Report this Comment On June 24, 2011, at 4:41 PM, ikkyu2 wrote:

    Paulw is correct; waterinfo's rebuttal would be right if he was right about how record labels work, which he is not.

    Courtney Love posted an essay about the real way that labels treat artists some years ago; she was rewarded for her honesty by an immediate and total change in the tone of her media coverage, so that she is now portrayed as an unreliable flake in the throes of a never-ending drug addiction. In fact, she is a businesswoman, and she and Paulw understand the business end of music.

    Pandora is not competing with the cloud. It is providing a different function, one that radio and MTV have about given up on; getting the word about good new music out to people who are interested in hearing it.

    Liberty Media, which owns most of SIRI's debt, and which also owns LiveNation, does a similar thing: if you listen to the specialty channels, you'll find a disproportionate amount of the artists played are currently on tour. Liberty gets a cut of those ticket sales.

    In other words, technology is providing vertical integration in the music biz, where it never was before. It's neat that common-stock investors can get a piece of this.

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2011, at 12:37 PM, VinoJim wrote:

    Glad I didn't listen you any of you "Fools"! Just walked away with a 44% gain on Pandora.

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2011, at 2:08 PM, feather70 wrote:

    Not too many people seem to understand that what Pandora is really trying to do is dissect musical interests into categories that can be classified and then marketed to specific groups. We, as users, are providing them with free market research.

    Did anyone notice that suddenly there are specifically designed sound environments in big stores that try to create a certain ambiance (like Whole Foods)? This is a big part of what they are doing. It's specially designed background music to put consumers into a certain mood.

    For ex: How many of us are approaching middle age who loved the English Beat when we were 16 (well, I still love them, but that's besides my point!) Anyway, we have a lot more disposable income now and are likely to be shopping for our family. We are so happy to hear music from our youth while doing this shopping chore... next thing you know you are talking yourself into a $6 basket of strawberries!

    This is sort of a dumb example, but hopefully it illustrates my point. They are not just trying to be a radio station. It's the "music genome project". My thinking is this is behind the ??'s in stage 2, and it's also why they are using minimal advertising. They want us to listen so we continue to provide data they need. You have been assimilated! (Um, kidding, sort of.)

    When they are teaching you about new music you love more than the music you have already, it's because they have sequenced your listener DNA! That is worth a lot to people who want to sell you a retail or other experience.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1509938, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/25/2014 5:47:24 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement