Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Aug 2004 16:58:49 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote: I'm not sure I agree with your count, Rich. I'm not disputing the subscriber number, but isn't it fair to say that anyone listening to any Sirius or XM program ISN'T listening to coventional radio. Thus, there's radio listening, and not-radio listening (XM and Sirius). Point being that it's of no particular significance as to WHAT program is being listened to, just that it's not radio. And using that criteria, 3 million subscribers equates to more than 1% of the U-S population - even more when considering only those who use radio. Isn't it fair to say that this, assumed to be uniformly distributed, also means that Sirius and XM (assuming all subscribers are listening at once...a big assumption, certainly) would be similar to an in-market radio station with a 1 share, a level that many stations in densely-served markets would consider to be a success? If this share grows by just one order of magnitude, it's going to start hurting traditional broadcasting. Since you're using the percentage of population figure, it wouldn't be share. It would be rating, a much smaller figure. The percentage of the total population listening to anything is far less than the percentage of persons using radio at a given time. I'm also not convinced that satellite subscribers are regular radio listeners. If they are, they're probably not listening to satellite exclusively and are sharing the time with conventional radio. Remember, the traffic and weather channels serve only a small segment of the population and fewer within that population actually listen to it or know it exists. I believe most satellite listeners left radio some time ago and are sampling the new medium. Unfortunately for me much of what I disliked about terrestrial radio has been taken to the sky: mindless, yelping jocks on some channels mispronouncing the names of local cities I got XM and SIRIUS to get away from the Party Martys of the world (there are many others) only to find they're there. I turn it off just as I turned off my FM radio before it. But Sirius' and XM's business model doesn't require advertisers....it's subscription, and the subscription model is more efficient than the advertiser-supported model (as XM seems to have found out). We don't got to show you any stinkin' ad agencies, and could care less what numbers they're looking for! Approximately 40 of the 100 channels are commercial. I assume they hope for some ad income. How will they convince an agency that people are listening to commercials? There's no reverse data stream that monitors what I listen to. Except, you've noted, when you listen to NPR. And NPR's programming on Sirius does do underwriting announcements, too, you know. Not exactly being deluged with advertising matter, true, but it's still a far cry from being an advertiser-free zone. So considering how desireable NPR listeners are, it might just be the bleeding edge on where satellite "advertising" dollars starts seeping to. Neither service claimed to be advertiser free. Both said that non-music channels would carry spots. Until recently, even some music channels did. I've always expected News, Talk and entertainment channels would be commercial. Part of what terrestrial radio sees as competition involves listeners moving to some other service and advertisers doing the same. I haven't heard any broadcaster complain that satellite radio is siphoning ad dollars away. Rich |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Deciding XM or Sirius ? Here's a review. | Broadcasting | |||
wHATS BETTER sirius OR xm AND PRICING | Broadcasting | |||
Review: Amateur Radio Companion 3rd Edition | Antenna | |||
Review: Amateur Radio Companion 3rd Edition | Equipment | |||
Review: Amateur Radio Companion 3rd Edition | Equipment |