It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend.
Often, when looking through the search engine terms that have been used to find this blog, I’m confused. Why are so many people looking for information on ears? What is it with Eric Sykes? And crack babies?
Today however, two entries made sense, and one of them in particular revealed an interesting use for these terms.
Firstly, and unsurprisingly, Marion Jones. I posted about her yesterday. I would have expected some people to be looking for her.
But the other stood out, not least because it was the second highest term both today and yesterday: Doc Martens. I wrote about the beleagured boot brand some time ago, reacting to its tasteless advertising campaign and media backlash, so there is one post on this blog about it. Why should people be searching for it though?
Tasteless though the campaign may have been, it worked. Goes to show that perhaps any publicity really is good publicity.
You can discover trends by examining the search terms people use to find your blog. If, by definition, people are looking for it, then there must be some buzz about it. In this case Google Trends doesn’t back up the Doc Martens finding (there’s a slight upturn but nothing major). It could still be too early to plot and in any case is just a sanity check. Don’t discount it: you never know, you might get in on a developing trend at the beginning.
I predict a surge in Doc Martens sales. But then again, I was wrong about the ad campaign…
It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend.
Often, when looking through the search engine terms that have been used to find this blog, I’m confused. Why are so many people looking for information on ears? What is it with Eric Sykes? And crack babies?
Today however, two entries made sense, and one of them in particular revealed an interesting use for these terms.
Firstly, and unsurprisingly, Marion Jones. I posted about her yesterday. I would have expected some people to be looking for her.
But the other stood out, not least because it was the second highest term both today and yesterday: Doc Martens. I wrote about the beleagured boot brand some time ago, reacting to its tasteless advertising campaign and media backlash, so there is one post on this blog about it. Why should people be searching for it though?
Tasteless though the campaign may have been, it worked. Goes to show that perhaps any publicity really is good publicity.
You can discover trends by examining the search terms people use to find your blog. If, by definition, people are looking for it, then there must be some buzz about it. In this case Google Trends doesn’t back up the Doc Martens finding (there’s a slight upturn but nothing major). It could still be too early to plot and in any case is just a sanity check. Don’t discount it: you never know, you might get in on a developing trend at the beginning.
I predict a surge in Doc Martens sales. But then again, I was wrong about the ad campaign…
It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend.
Often, when looking through the search engine terms that have been used to find this blog, I’m confused. Why are so many people looking for information on ears? What is it with Eric Sykes? And crack babies?
Today however, two entries made sense, and one of them in particular revealed an interesting use for these terms.
Firstly, and unsurprisingly, Marion Jones. I posted about her yesterday. I would have expected some people to be looking for her.
But the other stood out, not least because it was the second highest term both today and yesterday: Doc Martens. I wrote about the beleagured boot brand some time ago, reacting to its tasteless advertising campaign and media backlash, so there is one post on this blog about it. Why should people be searching for it though?
Tasteless though the campaign may have been, it worked. Goes to show that perhaps any publicity really is good publicity.
You can discover trends by examining the search terms people use to find your blog. If, by definition, people are looking for it, then there must be some buzz about it. In this case Google Trends doesn’t back up the Doc Martens finding (there’s a slight upturn but nothing major). It could still be too early to plot and in any case is just a sanity check. Don’t discount it: you never know, you might get in on a developing trend at the beginning.
I predict a surge in Doc Martens sales. But then again, I was wrong about the ad campaign…
It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend.
Often, when looking through the search engine terms that have been used to find this blog, I’m confused. Why are so many people looking for information on ears? What is it with Eric Sykes? And crack babies?
Today however, two entries made sense, and one of them in particular revealed an interesting use for these terms.
Firstly, and unsurprisingly, Marion Jones. I posted about her yesterday. I would have expected some people to be looking for her.
But the other stood out, not least because it was the second highest term both today and yesterday: Doc Martens. I wrote about the beleagured boot brand some time ago, reacting to its tasteless advertising campaign and media backlash, so there is one post on this blog about it. Why should people be searching for it though?
Tasteless though the campaign may have been, it worked. Goes to show that perhaps any publicity really is good publicity.
You can discover trends by examining the search terms people use to find your blog. If, by definition, people are looking for it, then there must be some buzz about it. In this case Google Trends doesn’t back up the Doc Martens finding (there’s a slight upturn but nothing major). It could still be too early to plot and in any case is just a sanity check. Don’t discount it: you never know, you might get in on a developing trend at the beginning.
I predict a surge in Doc Martens sales. But then again, I was wrong about the ad campaign…
It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend.
Often, when looking through the search engine terms that have been used to find this blog, I’m confused. Why are so many people looking for information on ears? What is it with Eric Sykes? And crack babies?
Today however, two entries made sense, and one of them in particular revealed an interesting use for these terms.
Firstly, and unsurprisingly, Marion Jones. I posted about her yesterday. I would have expected some people to be looking for her.
But the other stood out, not least because it was the second highest term both today and yesterday: Doc Martens. I wrote about the beleagured boot brand some time ago, reacting to its tasteless advertising campaign and media backlash, so there is one post on this blog about it. Why should people be searching for it though?
Tasteless though the campaign may have been, it worked. Goes to show that perhaps any publicity really is good publicity.
You can discover trends by examining the search terms people use to find your blog. If, by definition, people are looking for it, then there must be some buzz about it. In this case Google Trends doesn’t back up the Doc Martens finding (there’s a slight upturn but nothing major). It could still be too early to plot and in any case is just a sanity check. Don’t discount it: you never know, you might get in on a developing trend at the beginning.
I predict a surge in Doc Martens sales. But then again, I was wrong about the ad campaign…
It’s been a few (painful) months since we had to begin blocking listeners outside the US. Many of you have been writing in for updates, so we thought it would be useful to post the latest news. Sorry for not having done so sooner. Sadly, our posting that “we are working hard on international licensing” remains the same.
We have been working intensively on bringing Pandora to the UK first and we were hopeful of doing so. The situation with regards to licensing took a bad turn a couple months ago with the issuance of a publishing rate in the UK which leaves total sound recording royalties and publishing royalties substantially out of whack with the realities of ad-supported webcasting/internet radio economics. So we’re back in the trenches trying to find an answer, working with the recording and publishing industries, that works for everyone. This has been an intense period of education and negotiation and it continues unabated.
As it stands now, there is still no affordable license for a webcaster to stream legally (ie. abiding by all standing copyright law and properly compensating performers and composers) anywhere outside the US, (actually, make that within the US too as we’re trying to work through a whole other mess here as well!) Paul (our Managing Director of Pandora Int’l) is working full time on the international business out of London.
We continue to be cautiously optimistic that a reasonable answer will be reached – largely because it would be so counter-productive for everyone not to do so. But we remain unable to make any solid predictions about timing – history has taught us that’s a fool’s errand.
You can trust that this remains at least as frustrating for us as it is for you.
Keep the faith…
Tim (Founder)
Can it really be true? Can they really have launched an entire service without really figuring out their contractual obligations? First by having problems with global users, and now with their existing setup? If this were a publicly quoted company there are so many phrases in this innocent blog posting that would give me cause for concern: a few painful months; situation took a bad turn; no affordable license; whole other mess; unable to make any solid predictions. It doesn’t sound good.
My take on it is that, in ‘blocking’ non-US residents, they screwed up bigtime and will never be able to recover (and I’ve said this before). How do you block non-US residents from an online service? In a similar act of naivety their answer is, only accept US zipcodes. So just find any US zipcode and use that. How can they prove you don’t live at the White House? Along with the (presumably) thousands of other people who cohabit with you at the seat of US democracy, or indeed at the Pentagon, or Beverley Hills 90210 for that matter.
It seems they cannot figure out a way to make online streaming radio pay. If so, how can Last.FM manage this? My hunch is that Last.FM didn’t totally screw up their marketing information so they’re sitting on a gold mine of information they can sell on, allowing them to overcome prohibitive licensing fees.
I hope Pandora make it, I really do. I prefer it to Last.FM. But I fear Last.FM may have done the right thing, and Pandora have not.
It’s been a few (painful) months since we had to begin blocking listeners outside the US. Many of you have been writing in for updates, so we thought it would be useful to post the latest news. Sorry for not having done so sooner. Sadly, our posting that “we are working hard on international licensing” remains the same.
We have been working intensively on bringing Pandora to the UK first and we were hopeful of doing so. The situation with regards to licensing took a bad turn a couple months ago with the issuance of a publishing rate in the UK which leaves total sound recording royalties and publishing royalties substantially out of whack with the realities of ad-supported webcasting/internet radio economics. So we’re back in the trenches trying to find an answer, working with the recording and publishing industries, that works for everyone. This has been an intense period of education and negotiation and it continues unabated.
As it stands now, there is still no affordable license for a webcaster to stream legally (ie. abiding by all standing copyright law and properly compensating performers and composers) anywhere outside the US, (actually, make that within the US too as we’re trying to work through a whole other mess here as well!) Paul (our Managing Director of Pandora Int’l) is working full time on the international business out of London.
We continue to be cautiously optimistic that a reasonable answer will be reached – largely because it would be so counter-productive for everyone not to do so. But we remain unable to make any solid predictions about timing – history has taught us that’s a fool’s errand.
You can trust that this remains at least as frustrating for us as it is for you.
Keep the faith…
Tim (Founder)
Can it really be true? Can they really have launched an entire service without really figuring out their contractual obligations? First by having problems with global users, and now with their existing setup? If this were a publicly quoted company there are so many phrases in this innocent blog posting that would give me cause for concern: a few painful months; situation took a bad turn; no affordable license; whole other mess; unable to make any solid predictions. It doesn’t sound good.
My take on it is that, in ‘blocking’ non-US residents, they screwed up bigtime and will never be able to recover (and I’ve said this before). How do you block non-US residents from an online service? In a similar act of naivety their answer is, only accept US zipcodes. So just find any US zipcode and use that. How can they prove you don’t live at the White House? Along with the (presumably) thousands of other people who cohabit with you at the seat of US democracy, or indeed at the Pentagon, or Beverley Hills 90210 for that matter.
It seems they cannot figure out a way to make online streaming radio pay. If so, how can Last.FM manage this? My hunch is that Last.FM didn’t totally screw up their marketing information so they’re sitting on a gold mine of information they can sell on, allowing them to overcome prohibitive licensing fees.
I hope Pandora make it, I really do. I prefer it to Last.FM. But I fear Last.FM may have done the right thing, and Pandora have not.
It’s been a few (painful) months since we had to begin blocking listeners outside the US. Many of you have been writing in for updates, so we thought it would be useful to post the latest news. Sorry for not having done so sooner. Sadly, our posting that “we are working hard on international licensing” remains the same.
We have been working intensively on bringing Pandora to the UK first and we were hopeful of doing so. The situation with regards to licensing took a bad turn a couple months ago with the issuance of a publishing rate in the UK which leaves total sound recording royalties and publishing royalties substantially out of whack with the realities of ad-supported webcasting/internet radio economics. So we’re back in the trenches trying to find an answer, working with the recording and publishing industries, that works for everyone. This has been an intense period of education and negotiation and it continues unabated.
As it stands now, there is still no affordable license for a webcaster to stream legally (ie. abiding by all standing copyright law and properly compensating performers and composers) anywhere outside the US, (actually, make that within the US too as we’re trying to work through a whole other mess here as well!) Paul (our Managing Director of Pandora Int’l) is working full time on the international business out of London.
We continue to be cautiously optimistic that a reasonable answer will be reached – largely because it would be so counter-productive for everyone not to do so. But we remain unable to make any solid predictions about timing – history has taught us that’s a fool’s errand.
You can trust that this remains at least as frustrating for us as it is for you.
Keep the faith…
Tim (Founder)
Can it really be true? Can they really have launched an entire service without really figuring out their contractual obligations? First by having problems with global users, and now with their existing setup? If this were a publicly quoted company there are so many phrases in this innocent blog posting that would give me cause for concern: a few painful months; situation took a bad turn; no affordable license; whole other mess; unable to make any solid predictions. It doesn’t sound good.
My take on it is that, in ‘blocking’ non-US residents, they screwed up bigtime and will never be able to recover (and I’ve said this before). How do you block non-US residents from an online service? In a similar act of naivety their answer is, only accept US zipcodes. So just find any US zipcode and use that. How can they prove you don’t live at the White House? Along with the (presumably) thousands of other people who cohabit with you at the seat of US democracy, or indeed at the Pentagon, or Beverley Hills 90210 for that matter.
It seems they cannot figure out a way to make online streaming radio pay. If so, how can Last.FM manage this? My hunch is that Last.FM didn’t totally screw up their marketing information so they’re sitting on a gold mine of information they can sell on, allowing them to overcome prohibitive licensing fees.
I hope Pandora make it, I really do. I prefer it to Last.FM. But I fear Last.FM may have done the right thing, and Pandora have not.
It got me to thinking: how do the numbers really shape up? What would my ‘number’ be? And are they already too scary to contemplate given that the pioneers of broadcast media promotion would have started with much smaller numbers? Or is it just perception – was the risk still there even with smaller multiples?
She’s a model and she’s looking good
There are three models. I’ll try and summarise quickly so I can get to my point.
The first, for broadcast, is one-to-many and named after the broadcasting legend David Sarnoff. It takes the relationship between viewers and possible interactions as parity: a broadcast to 20 recipients as a point value of 20. In other words, 20 people would receive the broadcast but that’s where the interaction, and possible number of connections, ends.
The second, for email or telephone, is one-to-one. Named after Bob Metcalfe, it takes the number of participants and raises them to the power of two. This is because all the participants are singly interconnected. A network of 20 yields a Metcalfe score of 400.
Then there is the web. This many-to-many relationship goes another order of magnitude higher. Because everyone can talk to everyone else, this network – named after Professor David Reed – calculates the number of connections as two raised to the power of the number of participants. So a network of 20 has a Reed value of…
… and this is where the article piqued my interest. “Over a million,” it said. “How many over a million?” thought I. So, in my slightly geeky, probably autistic way, I opened a spreadsheet, saved it under the name ‘netwroks.xls’ (sic – I have a headcold), and figured it out. Precisely, it’s 1,048,576. So, just over a million then.
The point of the article was that this is essentially the same interaction we see everyday but in the Web 2.0 world the constraints of time, geography and cost are removed. That is why these numbers are so real and so scary. They hold potential for huge gain or huge loss, and thereby huge risk.
Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht
But what exactly are these numbers? Let’s employ netwroks.xls to find out.
Friendly Ghost, at time of posting, has 162 subscribers. Let’s chuck it into the spreadsheet and see what comes out. The maths states that I have a Sarnoff score of 162 – one to one – and a Metcalfe score of 26,244. In other words, if all my subscribers could email each other, they could have 26,244 separate interactions. Cool.
But my Reed score would be – stretch that column out and change the format so I can see the figure because those funny scientific notations don’t mean much to me - 5, 846, 006, 549, 323, 610, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
That’s an awful lot of zeroes. So many it even starts to spell ‘ooooOOOoooo’.
Let’s look at some of the more popular on the PowerPR index. Of those that advertise their subscribership, Neville Hobson is rated highest. His Sarnoff/subscription figure is 1,704. So, his Metcalfe score is 2,903,616. His Reed figure is – oops, here we go, Excel can’t handle it. We get a NUM! error. So, Neville Hobson is off the scale.
So are the Online Marketing blog (Sarnoff 8,983, Metcalfe 80,694,289) and PRSquared (Sarnoff 1,143, Metcalfe 1,306,449). Excel is borked.
Let’s down the ante. Wagner Comms has a Sarnoff of 334 and Metcalfe of 111,556. This gives it a more manageable Reed figure. It’s a mere 34, 996, 011, 596, 528, 200, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
Canuckflack is lower on the PowerPR index but has a higher subscribership (an object lesson in the weakness of the index if ever there was one). Sarnoff 535, Metcalfe 286,225 and Reed of 112,472, 844, 863, 580, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
Wow. This webpage would be borked too if I hadn’t put those spaces beween the zeroes.
Time. Travel. Communication. Entertainment.
I need to stop going ‘wow’. We’ve had a bit of number-related fun. Let’s think for a second. It’s hardly surprising that we’ve yet to embrace Web 2.0. These numbers scare the willies out of us. They are astronomical. But then, when newspapers came about, there must have been some brave soul who put the first ad in there. Same for broadcast: who put out the first commercial on radio, or TV? Who had balls enough to dip them in the cold waters of what was then ‘new media’? I’m talking advertisements here because, well, PR is probably more difficult to quantify in terms of who was influencing the influencers, so to speak.*
The first paid-for British TV ad was for Gibbs toothpaste – and, by the miracle of YouTube, here it is!
Its style is jerky and uncertain. Hardly surprising. It was after all a step into the unknown.
These were all the acts of people with the foresight to see that the new media was simply another vehicle for promotion. And yet, even though they ramped up through the multiples of network numbers, they all started at a very early time in every media. Was the risk any less? The numbers were certainly smaller.
Web 2.0 is here now. It’s massive, and massively interactive. Quantitatively and qualitatively it is different. I cannot deny that the other day I read some broadsheets and the thought crossed my mind that the high quality of journalism displayed was a strong argument simply to concentrate on the industry-strength solutions, that is, the huge influence and comparatively low popularity of more traditional media. Perhaps we really shouldn’t get involved with the amateur rumour-as-fact blogosphere, and just let them talk amongst themselves while we get on with real jobs in the real world.
We’re charging our battery
But then, what would we lose? Action could provide us with so much. It could even cause us to lose so much. Inaction will certainly cause us to lose out. Perhaps we should stop worrying about the figures, get our heads down and just go for it.
* Advertising and PR are difficult to categorise anyway. Who’s to say what the first examples were? Signs painted on walls in Babylonia could have been the first adverts, but then again so could any cave paintings, which probably said “This is our domain” or “We have magic” or “Ouch, I wish I’d been more careful with that axe.”
It got me to thinking: how do the numbers really shape up? What would my ‘number’ be? And are they already too scary to contemplate given that the pioneers of broadcast media promotion would have started with much smaller numbers? Or is it just perception – was the risk still there even with smaller multiples?
She’s a model and she’s looking good
There are three models. I’ll try and summarise quickly so I can get to my point.
The first, for broadcast, is one-to-many and named after the broadcasting legend David Sarnoff. It takes the relationship between viewers and possible interactions as parity: a broadcast to 20 recipients as a point value of 20. In other words, 20 people would receive the broadcast but that’s where the interaction, and possible number of connections, ends.
The second, for email or telephone, is one-to-one. Named after Bob Metcalfe, it takes the number of participants and raises them to the power of two. This is because all the participants are singly interconnected. A network of 20 yields a Metcalfe score of 400.
Then there is the web. This many-to-many relationship goes another order of magnitude higher. Because everyone can talk to everyone else, this network – named after Professor David Reed – calculates the number of connections as two raised to the power of the number of participants. So a network of 20 has a Reed value of…
… and this is where the article piqued my interest. “Over a million,” it said. “How many over a million?” thought I. So, in my slightly geeky, probably autistic way, I opened a spreadsheet, saved it under the name ‘netwroks.xls’ (sic – I have a headcold), and figured it out. Precisely, it’s 1,048,576. So, just over a million then.
The point of the article was that this is essentially the same interaction we see everyday but in the Web 2.0 world the constraints of time, geography and cost are removed. That is why these numbers are so real and so scary. They hold potential for huge gain or huge loss, and thereby huge risk.
Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht
But what exactly are these numbers? Let’s employ netwroks.xls to find out.
Friendly Ghost, at time of posting, has 162 subscribers. Let’s chuck it into the spreadsheet and see what comes out. The maths states that I have a Sarnoff score of 162 – one to one – and a Metcalfe score of 26,244. In other words, if all my subscribers could email each other, they could have 26,244 separate interactions. Cool.
But my Reed score would be – stretch that column out and change the format so I can see the figure because those funny scientific notations don’t mean much to me - 5, 846, 006, 549, 323, 610, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
That’s an awful lot of zeroes. So many it even starts to spell ‘ooooOOOoooo’.
Let’s look at some of the more popular on the PowerPR index. Of those that advertise their subscribership, Neville Hobson is rated highest. His Sarnoff/subscription figure is 1,704. So, his Metcalfe score is 2,903,616. His Reed figure is – oops, here we go, Excel can’t handle it. We get a NUM! error. So, Neville Hobson is off the scale.
So are the Online Marketing blog (Sarnoff 8,983, Metcalfe 80,694,289) and PRSquared (Sarnoff 1,143, Metcalfe 1,306,449). Excel is borked.
Let’s down the ante. Wagner Comms has a Sarnoff of 334 and Metcalfe of 111,556. This gives it a more manageable Reed figure. It’s a mere 34, 996, 011, 596, 528, 200, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
Canuckflack is lower on the PowerPR index but has a higher subscribership (an object lesson in the weakness of the index if ever there was one). Sarnoff 535, Metcalfe 286,225 and Reed of 112,472, 844, 863, 580, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
Wow. This webpage would be borked too if I hadn’t put those spaces beween the zeroes.
Time. Travel. Communication. Entertainment.
I need to stop going ‘wow’. We’ve had a bit of number-related fun. Let’s think for a second. It’s hardly surprising that we’ve yet to embrace Web 2.0. These numbers scare the willies out of us. They are astronomical. But then, when newspapers came about, there must have been some brave soul who put the first ad in there. Same for broadcast: who put out the first commercial on radio, or TV? Who had balls enough to dip them in the cold waters of what was then ‘new media’? I’m talking advertisements here because, well, PR is probably more difficult to quantify in terms of who was influencing the influencers, so to speak.*
The first paid-for British TV ad was for Gibbs toothpaste – and, by the miracle of YouTube, here it is!
Its style is jerky and uncertain. Hardly surprising. It was after all a step into the unknown.
These were all the acts of people with the foresight to see that the new media was simply another vehicle for promotion. And yet, even though they ramped up through the multiples of network numbers, they all started at a very early time in every media. Was the risk any less? The numbers were certainly smaller.
Web 2.0 is here now. It’s massive, and massively interactive. Quantitatively and qualitatively it is different. I cannot deny that the other day I read some broadsheets and the thought crossed my mind that the high quality of journalism displayed was a strong argument simply to concentrate on the industry-strength solutions, that is, the huge influence and comparatively low popularity of more traditional media. Perhaps we really shouldn’t get involved with the amateur rumour-as-fact blogosphere, and just let them talk amongst themselves while we get on with real jobs in the real world.
We’re charging our battery
But then, what would we lose? Action could provide us with so much. It could even cause us to lose so much. Inaction will certainly cause us to lose out. Perhaps we should stop worrying about the figures, get our heads down and just go for it.
* Advertising and PR are difficult to categorise anyway. Who’s to say what the first examples were? Signs painted on walls in Babylonia could have been the first adverts, but then again so could any cave paintings, which probably said “This is our domain” or “We have magic” or “Ouch, I wish I’d been more careful with that axe.”
It’s easy to overlook the search terms people use to find your blog. But instead of discarding the ’weird’ entries, take another look: you might pick up on an emerging trend. 
It seems they cannot figure out a way to make online streaming radio pay. If so, how can 
Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht
We’re charging our battery