¿Quién controla y financia los medios de comunicación que nos informan?

¨Cuídate de los medios de comunicación porque vas a acabar odiando al oprimido y amando al opresor¨  (Malcolm X)

Nadie pone en duda que los medios de comunicación es el cuarto poder del Estado, por no decir que en muchos casos, debería ser el primero y más poderoso que el poder legislativo, ejecutivo y judicial.

Saber de donde viene la información debería ser tan importante, como la información en sí, ya que de este modo el receptor de la información podría en muchos casos estimar la intención, o los intereses que puede haber detrás de toda esos datos proporcionados.

Supongo que mucha gente en algún momento se haya hecho dicha pregunta, pero me apuesto que muy poca gente realmente lo sabe, entre otras cosas, porque dicha información no es en absoluto fácil de obtener, ni para nada transparente.

De hecho, solo hay dos países en Europa que tienen la obligación de proporciona dicha información a la sociedad, según lo exigido en sus legislaciones. Austria y Croacia. Todos los demás países no tienen esa obligación, por tanto el saber y conocer dicha información, implica un arduo trabajo de investigación y análisis para saber quien son las instituciones que controlan la información que recibimos en el momento en que encendemos la televisión, o sintonizamos la radio.

Han sido las nuevas tecnologías y plataformas como Internet, las que permiten a día de hoy, obtener información alternativa, y no sujeta a ningún poder fáctico que la pueda manipular en virtud a sus intereses. Como por ejemplo, periódicos y publicaciones online que tienen una financiación independiente, o blogs alternativos como este. ¨Muy probablemente este artículo no hubiese podido ser publicado si hubiésemos tenido que depender de los medios de comunicación mayoritarios¨

¿Quieren por tanto saber quién nos proporciona y controla la información que recibimos todos los días?.

Propaganda política y opinión pública

No hace demasiado tiempo que se empezó a utilizar la propaganda y el control de la información proporcionada a la sociedad, con el fin de controlar la opinión pública, e intentar generar un entorno de pensamiento único, tan necesario por los gobiernos. De hecho, la primera campaña seria que se elaboró para ello, fue exactamente hace un siglo en los E.E.U.U. en 1916 bajo el mandato de Woodrow Wilson. Por aquel entonces, Europa se veía inmersa en la Primera Guerra Mundial, y la sociedad estadounidense no veía ningún interés por una guerra que estaba ocurriendo tan lejos de casa. El presidente Wilson partidario de involucrarse en la guerra europea, intentó cambiar el modo de pensar de la sociedad a través de una campaña propagandística llamada ¨ComisiónCreel¨

Los resultados fueron extraordinarios, ya que en seis meses se pasó de una sociedad pacifista totalmente desinteresada por la guerra en Europa, a una sociedad plenamente enfurecida por el fenómeno bélico y totalmente contraria a los alemanes. La estrategia es muy fácil de entender, el gobierno primero intentaba convencer a los intelectuales de prestigio del país, a través de datos y ´pruebas´ de lo que los alemanes hacían, y apoyados por otros sectores económicos interesados en que el país entrara en guerra. Por ejemplo, imágenes de alemanes mutilando niños belgas, y otras atrocidades generadas por el Ministerio de propaganda británico (primeros interesados en que U.S.A. se unieran a la guerra), y emitidas al gobierno estadounidense. Posteriormente se supo que fueron generadas por los británicos de forma deliberada. Las pruebas eran facilitadas a estos intelectuales y periodistas influyentes con poder mediático, para que extendieran la información a lo largo y ancho del país. La campaña fue más que efectiva, y la estrategia se ha utilizado a lo largo de los años hasta nuestros días, no solo en U.S.A sino en todo el mundo.

Años más tarde y durante la segunda Guerra Mundial, Joseph Goebbels Ministro de propaganda Nazi, hizo suya el método de propaganda ideado por sus enemigos aliados en la Primera Guerra Mundial, e incluso lo mejoró con sus principios de propaganda y máximas tales como, ¨una mentira repetida mil veces, se convierte en una realidad¨. Hizo de la propaganda política y el control de la opinión de la sociedad, un arte en sí mismo.

Obviamente, se había descubierto un arma muy poderosa para el control de las masas, cambiando la opinión pública en virtud de los intereses políticos. Arma que sigue existiendo en nuestros días de forma más que habitual. Pero, ¿quién controla la industria de la comunicación a nivel mundial en la actualidad?.

Las cifras ponen de manifiesto que son cuatro los holdings de comunicación que controlan el 96% total del negocio a nivel mundial, y paradójicamente esos cuatro holdings multinacionales, están dirigidos por lobbies judíos. Vayamos un poco más allá, y analicemos en hecho con más detalle.

Estos conglomerados empresariales son Walt Disney, Time Warner Inc, Viacom/CBS controlados por la familia de banqueros judíosRosthchild, y 21st Century Fox (con su subsidiaria News Corporation liderada has ta 2012 por el carismático Rupert Murdoch, despúes de que dejara la empresa por las escuchas a grandes personalidades través de su medio ¨News of the World¨). 21st Century Fox está dirigida por lobbies sionistas y el sector bancario (JP Morgan, Elliot Associates L.P., Invesco Ltd, Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. y Deutsche Bank AG).

Todos esos medios de comunicación engloban en sus estructuras empresariales todo tipo de canales de televisión, radio, publicaciones, etc.... Pueden hacer una lectura rápida del hecho en este link. Merece la pena echar un vistazo.

No menos controvertida y conocida es la frase de la portavoz israelí, Tzipora Menache sobre el poder de dichos lobbies judíos en la información en U.S.A, y por ende, en el resto del mundo. Dicho comentario es debido a un bombardeo de Israel en la franja de Gaza en 2009, que impactó sobre bases de la ONU, y sobre la posible respuesta que Barack Obama tendría al respecto. La frase toma especial relevancia en los tiempos actuales, en plena carrera electoral en E.E.U.U. entre Hillary Clinton y Donald Trump.

“Ustedes saben muy bien, y los estúpidos americanos saben igualmente bien, que nosotros controlamos su gobierno, independiente de quién se sienta en la Casa Blanca. Ustedes ven, yo sé esto y ustedes lo saben que ningún presidente americano puede estar en una posición de desafiarnos aun cuando nosotros hacemos lo inconcebible.¿Qué pueden ellos (los americanos) hacernos a nosotros? Nosotros controlamos el congreso, nosotros controlamos los medios de comunicación, nosotros controlamos el espectáculo, y nosotros controlamos todo en América. En América usted puede criticar a Dios, pero usted no puede criticar Israel” (Tzipora Menache).

Existen otros casos curiosos y que no dejan de ser paradigmáticos de las dinámicas del sector de la información internacional, como empresas que siendo de sectores no relacionados con el de la comunicación, entran en el negocio a través de la adquisición de empresas de dicho sector, siendo éstas industrias bastante controvertidas, más si se vinculan a la industria de la información. Como es el caso de los grupos armamentísticos franceses Lagardère o Dassault Aviation, las empresas de armamento más grandes del país, y siendo Francia el cuarto exportador de armas del mundo, por detrás de U.S.A, Rusia y China.

Paradójicamente, dichas empresas controlan dos de los periódicos más importantes de Francia, Le Monde y Le Fígaro. ¿No les parece curioso?.  

¿Quién controla los medios de comunicación en España?

Una vez hecho un análisis previo sobre quién controla los medios de comunicación a nivel global, no menos interesante sería saber quién controla los más poderosos medios de comunicación en España, como Grupo Prisa, Grupo planeta, Mediaset, Vocento, etc...

Cómo he dicho, no es fácil encontrar información al respecto. Los datos obtenidos hacen referencia al 2012, aunque siguen siendo una referencia a día de hoy. Ha habido cambios en algunos casos, como por ejemplo el cambio del accionario del grupo Prisa debido a sus problemas económicos, que permitió que muchos de sus acreedores del sector bancario pasaran a ser socios del grupo, haciendo que la familia Polanco, pasaran de tener el 71% de la compañía a menos de un 20%.

Tómense su tiempo para ver el gráfico en este link, y así saber quien está detrás de cada unos de los medios de comunicación que nos informan en este país. Las conclusiones obtenidas no pasan desapercibidas.

¨En España, los grandes holdings de la información en la mayoría de los casos están controlados por el sector bancario, multinacionales y constructores (muchos de ellos involucrados en tramas de corrupción). Por aristócratas, la conferencia episcopal y el Opus Dei.¨

A tenor de la la información recibida, no es difícil pensar que la información recibida por los medios de comunicación públicos, ya sea en España o internacionalmente, están siendo tratados con un siesgo que obedece a los intereses de los grupos empresariales que hay detrás, y de la necesidad de controlar la opinión pública de forma concreta y en su provecho. Piénsenlo, cualquier medio de comunicación tiene intenciones claras y definidas. ´No olvide que saber quien le informa, es saber lo que le quieren decir, y saber lo que nunca le van a contar´.

Is the global economy gone mad?

If there is something absolutely true on theses days, is the global economy is going through an episode to be treated by macroeconomists, analysts or historians. The economic history will talk about these current times in the future, as it is already talking about other historical chapters, such as 1929 crisis, great depression, 1973 crisis or the soviet empire fallen in 1989.

Historical Background
It seems like the global economy is not the same since Lehman Brothers collapsed on 15th of September of 2008 and subsequently AIG bankrupcy two weeks later through CDS (Credit default swaps) issued to back up CDO's (Collateral debt obligations) launched by US Investment banks worldwide, hiding NINJA mortgages in those, which generated the famous "subprime crisis". This is the origin of global crisis as we know it. Crisis which has come through different phases in the last 7 years. From subprime crisis to housing bubbles burst, banking system downfall, banking capitalisation from Governments public expenditure, european public deficits issues, government bonds crisis through enormous borrowing rates on the Eurozone, austerity schemes imposed through fiscal policies (slashing public expenditure and increasing taxes), european bail-outs on Portugal, Ireland, Spain or Greece (three times already), deflation exposure and more austerity.  All those austerity schemes in Eurozone have had a strong impact on the global economy.

European austerity and international impact
When any eurozone state applies any restrictive fiscal policy to meet Eurozone requirements in terms of public deficit (by 3%) and debt to GDP ratio (by 60%), the internal demand on those countries is seriously damaged, (not to mention the social dimension of this affair) and going through a deflation spiral, what impacts negatively on Eurozone economy imports and international trading accordingly. The imports from ones, are the exports from the others, as simple as that. It is interesting to see how the wealthier countries in the eurozone like Germany, impose austerity to south european countries, when none of them fulfil 60% Debt/GDP target. See chart below 

That's why USA and China, for example, have seen as their economic growth have performed lower than expected in the last years. The European austerity has impacted on other countries. In global economy is all about strategy and games theory. Therefore, any action from ones may be followed by reaction from the others.

Chinese Yuan devaluation
China, whose economic growth has performed over 7% in terms of GDP (quite far from two digits-economy growth from the last decade) has decided to enhance its economic growth driven by Chinese exports. In response to European austerity.Therefore, Central Bank of China has made the decision to devaluate "Yuan" (Chinese currency)  three times in three days (August 2015). It has been an earthquake on the economy worldwide, which has brought consequences such as:

• Decapitalisation on Chinese economy. Massive capital and equities flow out of China and heading for appreciated currency-economies, like USA, after currency devaluation took place. China has on of the most currency reserves in the world. However, the last report shows capital outflows for 96,000 mill ($) setting down the total currencies reserves to 3.6 bn($), as well as the Chinese government had to spend over 200.000 mill ($) to avoid further devaluations.
• Commodities prices slump, impacting negatively on emerging economies, . which are China's suppliers. This devaluation raise imports prices from countries suppliers and reduce the global demand, what set commodities prices down. Special mention to Brazil that comes into technical recession though GDP reduction by 1.6%  afterward.
• Currency devaluation on emerging economies like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam or Brazil, in oder to maintain a competitive approach to their main client (China). On the other hand, some of those emerging economies got external debt in US dollars, which has increased their leverage, due to a stronger US dollar.
• Janet Yellen (FED's president) has not raised interest rate in USA, which is still over 0%. Interest rates strategy from FED depends on Inflation (by 2%) and unemployment targets (by 7%). Current inflation rate in USA is 0.2% and unemployment by 5.1%. Potentially, an increase on interest rates would lead an US Dollar appreciation (already strong enough) what would enhance imports from China impacting negatively on US employment. 

However, US Dollar and other currencies have become in a "shelter currency" bearing in mind currencies devaluation worldwide, as load of investors are putting their capital and equities in wealthier economies, and running away from devaluated ones. 
Just see the impact on Global currencies from Yuan devaluation on the chart below.

Oil Prices downfall and USA fracking.
On the other hand, oil prices have come down dramatically, due to Fracking oil and oil shale production in USA and other countries, what is providing a strong independence from oil imports and an increase on oil supply globally, as Saudi Arabia (main producer) has kept up the production to beat down oils prices overall. (over 50$/barrel) and be able to compete with prices from non-conventional oil production in USA.
Winners, oil importers. Losers, oil exporters. (See chart below).
This price reduction has stronger negative impact on OPEP countries where 90% of their incomes come from oil production like Nigeria, Venezuela, Ecuador and Angola. However, Saudi Arabia which production cost per barrel is over 5$, has margin enough to reduce prices and trying to dismantle oil fracking production in USA (It is well known, some fracking production areas in USA are waiting for oil prices to mark up to 60$ or 70$/barrel, as they start being profitable over those rates). Finally, Iran will launch oil production after getting off its "embargo" with USA, what will lead a oil production prices even lower.

Japan. Chronic economic stagnation
Finally, the Japanese impact on the global economy. Japan is the third biggest economy in the world, and remains on economic stagnation throughout two decades already. Neither monetary policy, nor fiscal policy stimulus have helped out to taking off from this "Status Quo". The main characteristic on its macroeconomy is the external debt accrued. It represents 230% of GDP. The highest ratio in the world (See chart below). Debt won't be probably reimbursed. Some analysis performed show the primary deficit to GDP in Japan (public deficit disregarding financial expenses from the external debt) should be over 5.4% (positive - surplus) in 2020, rather than the current 6% (negative- deficit) and keep it up of the whole next decade to repay debt obligations in 2030 easily. The only way to do so, should be through restrictive fiscal policy, increasing taxes and cutting public expenditure, what will lead further deflation and economic downturn. Well, the fiscal crisis in Japan is just around the corner.

On the other hand, Japanese monetary policy. Interest rates in Japan had come through rates close to 0% in the last two decades (over 0.10% currently) and fiscal policy stimulus like investing in public infrastructures and cutting taxes. Measurements to enhance an economic growth, that never comes over. It is basically "the liquidity trap" already exposed by John Maynard Keynes nearly one century ago. Nothing new. 

Also, Japanese "quantitive easing" applied by Bank of Japan to finance their public deficit and keep borrowing rates down to 0.33% (10 year-bond-rate) is devaluating Japanese Yen. 

Finally, Chinese economic downturn has reduced Japanese exports by 4.4% and a reduction on internal consumption (that represent 60% of Japanese GDP), have produced 1.6% GDP fallen in Q2 - 2015.

This is the current global economy, debt issues, bail-outs, currency devaluations, deflation, oil and commodities prices slump, stagnation, austerity.....what else?.....place your bets!!





   

What would happen if cash would be prohibited..?

This new post comes from an article on Financial Times, I read days ago. An interesting perspective which has made me think about this topic: "What would happen globally, if money in cash would not exist anymore..? ". Well, it is not any script of any science fiction movie, although it could be so. Financial times article talks about the new legislation in Denmark, where Danish government permits shops, retailers and outlets decide if cash is accepted or it does not, for current transactions. Read the article on Financial times here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/159b17ca-47f3-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz3kLBFVLC6.

The reason why this legislation in Denmark goes live, is because negative interest rates in Denmark, makes people keep cash at home, instead of allocating savings on commercial banks or financial markets...
It is well known, central banks in Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, have applied negative interest rates on deposits held (over - 0.20%), since ECB started off its "Quantitive easing" and its progressive monetary policy reducing interest rates (on 0.5% currently) and applying negative rates on deposits over - 0.10% to boost inter-bank transactions in the EuroZone. The response from the other central banks has been to apply negative rates accordingly, in order to avoid massive capital transfers from Eurozone to those countries, which would appreciate their currencies, impacting negatively on their exports. Negative interest rates mean investors and savers have to settle payable interests for their deposits, instead of receivable interest as it is normally done.

Gold used to be a payment method over 19th and 20th century, specially, when currencies globally were pegged to gold model. The "barbarious relic" as John Maynard Keynes used to refer to it. Global transactions are not being settled by gold anymore, (that's why gold is an asset, deemed as a "shelter" for investors on uncertain times at financial markets, as it is not related to currency fluctuations in the global economy).
As the gold was taken off from the economic system previously, cash money could be getting off as well, and moving on to electronic money instead, in the future.

The key question here, is if zero interest rates are set up for a long time (six years in a row in USA already) and an unstable economic scenario grows up, people will tend to keep savings "in cash" at home instead. This trend could become global, and governments and authorities will try to set up measures to get that volume of capital back to the banking system. One potential method to avoid it, could be abolishing "money in cash" from the system. In monetary theory, there are four types of money (MO,M1,M2 and M3).MO is cash itself (bank notes and coins). In current times, MO just represents 3% in USA and UK, and over 8.3% worldwide. 
This percentage is being reduced since decades ago. So, the trend is already there.   

I´ve started thinking of what would happen if cash would be withdrawn from the economy worldwide, moving towards electronic money instead. Throughout my analysis, I´ve drawn the following takeaways, (Pros and contras).

PROS:

   - Control. All transactions would be easily tracked back, from the beginning to the end, therefore it would be easier to detect anomalies, fraudulent transactions, etc..

   - A powerful tool to money laundering. Money laundering practices would be better implemented, and more effective, as all transactions could be analysed from the origin, and easily tracked back.....on the chained payment system.

   - Tax collection improvements.  More money picked up by tax authorities, as fraudulent transaction would be reduced dramatically. Impacting positively on public deficits.

   - Reduction on informal economy practices. It would be more complex to trade over black markets and underground economies, as all operations are recorded on data bases. Although, we have to consider loads of transactions regarding human or drug trafficking are being done by "bitcoins" worldwide, as bitcoins are not controlled or issued by any central bank.

   - Streamlining accounting practices. As Financial Times article says, VAT returns may be done automatically,  speeding up accounting closed-ends, and improving VAT collections to Tax authorities, and payment methods...

   - Transparency. From an entrepreneurial point of view, financial statements and data bases will be more reliable, as balances and figures would be completely verifiable from other data sources. Consistency would be applied to the whole economic system, and accounting audits would be more streamlined and realistic.

  - Money creation expenditure. Cash has to be created and printing money is not free at all. Through electronic money creation, this expenditure would be nearly zero.

  - Delinquency reduction. No chance to rob a wallet, or stealing any valueable and selling it out afterward, as it would not be feasible on black markets anymore. Delinquency, as we know it, will disappear, but other delinquent approach will come up, fitting with the new economic model, as hacking IT payments softwares, or similar approaches.   

CONTRAS:

 - Transactions traffic. The volume of transactions would be increased exponentially. Tiny payments are actually done by cash, therefore, all those should be processed electronically, increasing payments traffic worldwide, and increasing the likelihood of technical problems on those systems.

 - Technological dependence. Cash flows globally should be done by electronic systems. Strong dependence to this system which may be hacked, collapsed or coming down. If that happens. it would be impossible to buy any basic good or service, like water, food, or getting on a bus, or any other routine activity...
It would be like all the money disappears from the earth suddenly.

- Lay-offs. Dismissals would arise on commercial banks, and other jobs involved in cash management.

- Control over population. If all payments around the world would be made electronically, Governments, Banks and Data-bases management agencies could be getting full access to all info involved in "your payments". Analysing historical data, they would be able to know about your likes, priorities, personal tendencies, and other sensitive information. Great tool to "Big Data" for instance, but damaging your intimacy. 

- Social impact. Homeless and poor people would be totally dependant to NGO's and Government benefits, rather than tipping on streets, which would reduce their incomes. Simply, they would be poorer.  

 - Illegal immigration. Immigrants who are working and receiving their salaries on an illegal way, would be completely gone from the society and the economic system, as they could not receive their "cash in hand" wages anymore. No chance to buy groceries, basic goods, etc....It would be like taking off the oxygen to breath to all of them. The impact on countries which are harbouring illegal immigration, would be enormous and dramatic from a social point of view. Phenomenons like hunger, riots, social imbalance, or lack of public safety would take place. Also, immigrants might come back to their countries or other legal environment, where they probably won't get jobs to receive their salaries by electronic money. What that means, poverty will rise up, and subsequently further wealth imbalance. Special mention to drugs addicts who won't able to pay for their "stuff" by cash anymore. No chance to "feed the monkey" by MasterCard, Visa or American Express. That means more social instability.

-  Disable and elderly people. The world health organisation estimates about 285 millions of people suffering blindness, or visual impairments. Any blind person may distinguish bank notes easily to the touch. Something absolutely impossible, if cash would disappear from the global economy.
Also, elderly people would be on trouble to carry out their domestic economies, as they are not normally familiarised to new technologies.

They are my conclusions about this fictional scenario. Probably, if i would be thinking further, more potential consequences will come up.
Anyway, coming through this analysis, my corollary is "better off if cash remains as it is. It would be more costly, taking it off from the market in terms of social and economic perspective, rather than doing the otherwise". 

Digital music sales take over Physical music sales....and vinyls spinning more than ever...

If there is something completely sure is that the music is like an immortal mate, who always stands by you, when needed.
But also, what is absolutely truth, is music formats are like the same immortal mate, wearing in different clothes, moving around you in cyclical trends.  From acetate vinyls turning on gramophones to iTunes store sounding on your smart phone, or iPod, passing trough cassettes or cd's at 80's and 90's, moving through digital era and getting back to vinyls again.... 
Times are changing as Bob Dylan said decades ago, but now, more than ever.
Currently, digital music is getting stronger at every instant, through its main formats, "downloads and streaming services". Figures and stats don't lie. IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry), is one of the most prestigious and recognised institutions, who develop accurate stats and reliable metrics on Music industry worldwide, just published the following key milestone on the music history. "For the first time in the history, digitals sales take over physical music sales globally". Just check this graph below created by IFPI to prove this fact.

At this point, digital revenues have increased by 6.9%, up to 6.85 ($)bn, in 2014. If we breakdown this growth into the main revenues streams (streaming services and downloads), we got the following takeaways. Downloads decrease by 8% and streaming subscriptions are soaring by 39% to 1.59 ($)bn. in 2014.

In regards with Physical sales, revenues globally have dropped by 8% in 2014. Special mention to vinyls sales which have increased by 54.7% in 2014 worldwide, according to IFPI reports, and also increasing by 53% in Q1-2015 in relation to Q1-2014 in USA. See chart below from Nielsen, US. (Music industry leading data provider).

Another remarkable characteristic on vinyls sales, is just to know which albums are being best selling lately, bearing in mind the most artists are not releasing albums in vinyl formats anymore. 
Data is truly paradigmatic. Once again, Nielsen US provides the info. (See chart below).
Absolutely shocking to see classic albums like "Abbey Road" from the Beatles, which was originally launched in 1969, "Dark Side of the Moon" from Pink Floyd launched in 1972, or "Kind of Blue" from Miles Davis (1959) among others, as best sellers vinyls since 2010. 
Well, the trend seems to go in cycles..."Same mates, different timings". What will it be the next?

 

Streaming music industry. A growing market, growing revenue, growing losses and growing capitalisation!!

After having investigated and read further about Streaming music market, there are some aspects to be called out and analysed.
I am going to talk about two of the most leading companies at this economic sector. Spotify and Pandora Radio, as well as their business performances over 2014.
Spotify, the Swedish company started up the business in 2008 in Stockholm, the volume of users has increased incredibly over the time. If the company attracted over 10 millions of users in September 2010, business metrics show over 75 millions on 30th of June 2015.
Spotify is a subscription-based-model, therefore there are two types of users. Subscribers, who pay 10$ monthly fee to get access without advertising, and non paying users who get access for free, but getting ads every three or fours tunes played. Therefore, there are two revenues streams, subscriptions and advertising. On 30th of June, 20 millions of users of 75 millions in total, are paying theirs subscriptions on a monthly basis.
On the other hand, Pandora radio. An american company created in San Francisco in 2010, which operated in NYSE (S&P 500).
It operates in three countries, USA, Australia and New Zealand, in opposite to Spotify which is trading over 58 countries worldwide. The business model is pretty much the same, subscription without advertising, and free access with advertising. However, just 5% of users are paying the monthly fee to avoid ads. Well, at this point, we have two different companies, the same service provided, one business model, and two different responses from the audience when demanding the service. Spotify is getting the revenue from subscriptions mainly, and Pandora radio from advertising.
Just check out this graph below. Revenue streams breakdown belong to 2013 period, but those percentages are quite similar, currently.

Let's come through Financials in 2014 to see which option should be the best one.

Spotify reported an increase on year to year revenue by 45%, up to 1.08 bn. Surprisingly, net losses increased by 190%, from 68m to 197m in 2014. The reason is the increasing on operating costs, such as product development, international expansion, and personnel, as the head-counting went up by 43%. Also, royalties and distribution costs represent 82% of the total revenue.

Pandora radio: The company has increased its revenue by 40% from 2013, as well as gross margins by 12% (from 30% in 2013 to 42% in 2014) drawing an operating profit (EBIT) increasing by 62%. Great metrics initially. But the problem comes along. Research and development went up by 62%, and personnel costs has increased by 50%, both. (just note, under US GAAPS Research and development costs must be written off on the same accounting period, other accounting conventions allow capitalise those expenses over years, if specific criteria are met, like IFRS).
Once again, overheads are upsetting figures eventually.
However, Pandora radio has incurred in losses for three years in a row, 30.5 ($)m in 2014.

Under this scenario, it would be easy to understand, no investors will put any money in, but it is NOT like that at all!!. This kind of industries are utterly dynamic. New upgrades on the services, business internationalisation and implementation costs use to be expensive, but those investments (rather than costs) are completely needed to develop the service and going forward. However, those investments beyond the revenue, (what makes both business incur in losses), frame a promising market with great expectations. For example, Spotify has received a volume of capitalisation for 400 ($)M from different investors, among them, Goldman Sachs. Due to the launch of the new video network service (similar to Youtube), among other company plans still unknown publicly.
On the other hand, Pandora radio has increased its equity by 415% from 99($)M in 2012 to 508 ($)M in 2013, and other 15% in 2014, up to 583($)M in accordance with its balance sheets. What makes a capitalisation increasing of 430% in two years!!.

Also, Apple through iTunes will come on board shortly throughout its new adquisition Beats Music.

Great insights about one industry which is not still taking off, but it seems to be flying high in the future.