• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

2 New Studies: 1. 82% of people won't go satellite 2. Listeners like localism

Maybe this should say 18% will go to XM or Sirius, ask any OM if he want to lose 18% of his listeners. As for local- duh.

> Sorry for the long subject line:
>
> Both from R&R this week.
>
> SATELLITE:
http://ww> w.radioandrecords.com/NewsRoom/2006_01_27/surveyexamines.asp
>
>
>
> LOCALISM:
http://www> .radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2006_01_27/listenerspraise.asp
>
 
But note that once most people take the sat radio plunge they are happy with it and are very likely or somewhat likely to renew.

Regarding the localism issue, I'd say this is more proof that if traditional FM and AM are going to survive, the only way is to be local. But that hasn't exactly been the trend has it? Voice-tracking, satellite-fed formats, corporate cookie cutter programming that makes stations sound virtually the same in every market. Small town radio stations like CC's stations in Washington C.H., Hillsboro, Chillicothe, etc. that have practically no local programming anymore. Why not move to XM or Sirius and at least get a wider variety of programming and far fewer commercials?

When I listen to traditional radio, it's WLW and WSAI for the local talk, news, and sports. WKRC in the mornings...again, local. Sometimes Hannity and Rush.

Some might say that in this day and age it's impossible to staff little stations in small markets with live DJs and news staffs. For that matter, they can't even afford to do it in large markets. I realize that's the way it is and I'm not trying to unrealistically live in the past. But it would seem that corporate radio has grown so large and leveraged themselves so deep, that they likely cannot afford to do what it's going to take to save themselves from satellite radio, iPods, Internet radio, and so on.
 
> Sorry for the long subject line:
>
> Both from R&R this week.
>
> SATELLITE:
http://ww> w.radioandrecords.com/NewsRoom/2006_01_27/surveyexamines.asp
>
>
>
> LOCALISM:
http://www> .radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2006_01_27/listenerspraise.asp
>

Your titles are misleading. The survey didn't ask if they'd subscribe to satellite radio. It asked if they'd subscribe to sat radio because of Howard Stern. The question was loaded and I'm curious to see the demographics of the sample. If you asked 1000 people over the age of 35 then I believe it is accurate, if you ask 1000 people 18-34 the numbers would probably be reversed. Also what percentage of the sample were Stern listeners before he moved to satelite.
 
> Maybe this should say 18% will go to XM or Sirius, ask any
> OM if he want to lose 18% of his listeners. As for local-
> duh.
>
> > Sorry for the long subject line:
> >
> > Both from R&R this week.
> >
> > SATELLITE:
> http://ww>
> w.radioandrecords.com/NewsRoom/2006_01_27/surveyexamines.asp
>
> >
> >
> >
> > LOCALISM:
> http://www>
> .radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2006_01_27/listenerspraise.asp
>
> >
>

The survey didn't ask if they'd subscirbe to sat radio, it simply asked if they'd follow Howard Stern there. Not sure that Stern had 18% of the entire nation so this survey is tragically flawed. Only a Bill O'reilly or (since we are being local) a cincinnati.com survey would be more inaccurate. Sat radio already has penetrated approximately 10% of households and the radios are dirt cheap now, some costing as little as 30 bucks compared to 300 bucks when I first subscribed to XM in Feb 02.

I'm not saying terestrial radio will die, I still listen to WLW and always will, though its just going to have to share the audience more than in the past. Sat radio competition and quality internet radio competition will be good for traditional radio the same way Southwest & Jet Blue has been good for the airline industry, it may cause some problems with traditional companies but will create better service for the end user in the long run.
 
Tito. Read the WHOLE article

If you read past the first line you'd see in the second paragraph that 82% are NOT VERY LIKELY to purchase satellite radio and 69% said they were NOT AT ALL LIKELY.

Now read it again and respond.
 
I read the whole study

Inside Radio had a link to the whole study, but the story dropped to the bottom and out of the FREE web site section.

Tito...you obviously didn't read the study or even the whole R&R article I linked to. If you had, you would have seen that, regardless of Howard Stern, the study shows that an average of 75% of AVERAGE listeners do not want to pay for radio.

You see, most people use radio like we use a Wendy's Drive-Thru. It's there for them when they need it. They don't obsess over it like we do. That's why, in our little world the numbers will be higher. But out there amongst the civilians, they don't want to pay for something they don't really think they need to.

If you read the other study even more closely, you'll see that the largest group of people - the 33% - say they use radio for local information like traffic and weather. The biggest negative to them wasn't music selection or formats, it was spot load.
 
Re: Tito. Read the WHOLE article

> If you read past the first line you'd see in the second
> paragraph that 82% are NOT VERY LIKELY to purchase satellite
> radio and 69% said they were NOT AT ALL LIKELY.
>
> Now read it again and respond.
>

I still question the validity of the survey especially after reading the local one that flies in the face of what Arbitron is showing. If I saw the entire survey with how the questions were asked and the demographics of the sample then I might give it more credence. Especially when the same survey company found that 62% of respondents were aware of HD radio. That flies in the face of every marketing theory that exists today.

Again if you ask my parents if they will buy sat radio or even HD radio they will say no. If you ask someone in my demo the same question you will see greater positive results. Will XM & Sirius have 20% of the households covered by year end..no but by 2010 they will, as long as they continue to run more efficient and create new products that meet customer demands.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> Inside Radio had a link to the whole study, but the story
> dropped to the bottom and out of the FREE web site section.
>
> Tito...you obviously didn't read the study or even the whole
> R&R article I linked to. If you had, you would have seen
> that, regardless of Howard Stern, the study shows that an
> average of 75% of AVERAGE listeners do not want to pay for
> radio.
>
> You see, most people use radio like we use a Wendy's
> Drive-Thru. It's there for them when they need it. They
> don't obsess over it like we do. That's why, in our little
> world the numbers will be higher. But out there amongst the
> civilians, they don't want to pay for something they don't
> really think they need to.
>
> If you read the other study even more closely, you'll see
> that the largest group of people - the 33% - say they use
> radio for local information like traffic and weather. The
> biggest negative to them wasn't music selection or formats,
> it was spot load.
>

People said the same thing about cable TV in the early 80s, now the Cable universe is almost equal to the OTA TV market. The future of radio will include both subscription based services and internet services, and possibly HD service but I honestly don't see that actually being that succesful or lasting without mandate for terrestrial stations to give up their analog signals they way TV will have to.

Since you read the whole study what were the demographics of the sample? Also what were the specific questions that were asked.

As far as my little world of radio it is very little. Most XM & Sirius subscibers I know are not into radio at all, the enjoy the service that both companies offer, whether its Stern, NFL, MLB, Nascar, or commercial free music they choose to pay for the radio service they don't receive from terestrial radio. The survey however is very questionable and seems to lean towards the NAB's point of veiw.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> Inside Radio had a link to the whole study, but the story
> dropped to the bottom and out of the FREE web site section.
>
> Tito...you obviously didn't read the study or even the whole
> R&R article I linked to. If you had, you would have seen
> that, regardless of Howard Stern, the study shows that an
> average of 75% of AVERAGE listeners do not want to pay for
> radio.
>
> You see, most people use radio like we use a Wendy's
> Drive-Thru. It's there for them when they need it. They
> don't obsess over it like we do. That's why, in our little
> world the numbers will be higher. But out there amongst the
> civilians, they don't want to pay for something they don't
> really think they need to.
>
> If you read the other study even more closely, you'll see
> that the largest group of people - the 33% - say they use
> radio for local information like traffic and weather. The
> biggest negative to them wasn't music selection or formats,
> it was spot load.
>

Satellite radio will grow as auto companies cut deals with Sirius and XM to have the radios and a one-year subscription included as standard features (not options) on new vehicles. Many people will reason that they might as well listen because it's already paid for.

It was the same with FM. Up until the late 1970s (maybe even later), FM radios were still optional on most vehicles. FM exploded in the 1980s when AM/FM radios became standard features in vehicles.

The one advantage that FM had over satellite was that home receivers, boom boxes and other radios began to include FM as a standard feature as well. This started happening in the 1970s. Because XM and Sirius radios are proprietary, that won't happen.
 
Re: Tito. Read the WHOLE article

> > If you read past the first line you'd see in the second
> > paragraph that 82% are NOT VERY LIKELY to purchase
> satellite
> > radio and 69% said they were NOT AT ALL LIKELY.
> >
> > Now read it again and respond.
> >
>
> I still question the validity of the survey especially after
> reading the local one that flies in the face of what
> Arbitron is showing. If I saw the entire survey with how
> the questions were asked and the demographics of the sample
> then I might give it more credence. Especially when the
> same survey company found that 62% of respondents were aware
> of HD radio. That flies in the face of every marketing
> theory that exists today.
>
> Again if you ask my parents if they will buy sat radio or
> even HD radio they will say no. If you ask someone in my
> demo the same question you will see greater positive
> results. Will XM & Sirius have 20% of the households
> covered by year end..no but by 2010 they will, as long as
> they continue to run more efficient and create new products
> that meet customer demands.
>

Exactly what "NEW" products are they creating? The Jukebox was invented in the 50's. This is just a new Jukebox, except Sat Radio adds bad liners (and I cannot wait for the advertisements!).

If you read the article, it is pretty clear that customers are not really DEMANDING the likes of Sat Radio.

Let me guess, you must be about 24? Maybe less? When you see a "Ask my parents" line, you kind of figure.... (no offense intended)
 
Re: I read the whole study

>
> Satellite radio will grow as auto companies cut deals with
> Sirius and XM to have the radios and a one-year subscription
> included as standard features (not options) on new vehicles.
> Many people will reason that they might as well listen
> because it's already paid for.
>

And then stop when they get the first bill......


> It was the same with FM. Up until the late 1970s (maybe even
> later), FM radios were still optional on most vehicles. FM
> exploded in the 1980s when AM/FM radios became standard
> features in vehicles.
>

But FM was and is FREE.

> The one advantage that FM had over satellite was that home
> receivers, boom boxes and other radios began to include FM
> as a standard feature as well. This started happening in the
> 1970s. Because XM and Sirius radios are proprietary, that
> won't happen.
>
 
Another study said...

...that XM and Sirius are only getting 50% re-up with dealer installed sat-radio. The obvious ploy is to get new drivers hooked on the service, but only half are biting.
 
Re: Another study said...

> ...that XM and Sirius are only getting 50% re-up with dealer
> installed sat-radio. The obvious ploy is to get new drivers
> hooked on the service, but only half are biting.
>
If they get 50% to re-up every year, that will be a significant increase over time.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> >
> > Satellite radio will grow as auto companies cut deals with
>
> > Sirius and XM to have the radios and a one-year
> subscription
> > included as standard features (not options) on new
> vehicles.
> > Many people will reason that they might as well listen
> > because it's already paid for.
> >
>
> And then stop when they get the first bill......
>
>

Research shows that 50% renew, which is a significant number of people.

> > It was the same with FM. Up until the late 1970s (maybe
> even
> > later), FM radios were still optional on most vehicles. FM
>
> > exploded in the 1980s when AM/FM radios became standard
> > features in vehicles.
> >
>
> But FM was and is FREE.
>
I didn't say that satellite radio will grow as much as FM did. I just said it will grow if the radios and subscriptions are standard items on future cars.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> Tito...you obviously didn't read the study or even the whole
> R&R article I linked to. If you had, you would have seen
> that, regardless of Howard Stern, the study shows that an
> average of 75% of AVERAGE listeners do not want to pay for
> radio.
>

So that means 25% of the people out there DO want to pay for XM or Sirius...which comes to 75 MILLION PEOPLE! (U.S. is going to be 300 million people later this year). If you were a GM, you would be really worried losing 25% of your listening audience to the satellites.

I am a XM subscriber, have been since December 2001 because no one out there is programming what I want to listen to (i'm in the 25-54 demo, married with a kid), and live in an area that radio service sucks (somewhere in southern Ohio, far enough away to get only the high power stations from Columbus and only a few stations from Cincinnati)!
 
Re: I read the whole study

> > >
> > > Satellite radio will grow as auto companies cut deals
> with
> >
> > > Sirius and XM to have the radios and a one-year
> > subscription
> > > included as standard features (not options) on new
> > vehicles.
> > > Many people will reason that they might as well listen
> > > because it's already paid for.
> > >
> >
> > And then stop when they get the first bill......
> >
> >
>
> Research shows that 50% renew, which is a significant number
> of people.
>


Umm not really. 50% of <3% of the total audience is not even a blip.
 
Yet,..

...the doomsayers say that radio and HD will flop and everyone will go satellite. Since when is the minority everybody?

And again, you're frequenting a radio chat board.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> > > >
> > > > Satellite radio will grow as auto companies cut deals
> > with
> > >
> > > > Sirius and XM to have the radios and a one-year
> > > subscription
> > > > included as standard features (not options) on new
> > > vehicles.
> > > > Many people will reason that they might as well listen
>
> > > > because it's already paid for.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And then stop when they get the first bill......
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Research shows that 50% renew, which is a significant
> number
> > of people.
> >
>
>
> Umm not really. 50% of
>
As more people become exposed to the new medium, it will grow. Maybe not right now, but in a few years, it will start to catch on as people trade in their old vehicles for new ones. These deals are already being cut, so as this technology is rolled out, subscribership will increase. Watch. It will happen. Class dismissed.
 
Re: I read the whole study

> As more people become exposed to the new medium, it will
> grow. Maybe not right now, but in a few years, it will start
> to catch on as people trade in their old vehicles for new
> ones. These deals are already being cut, so as this
> technology is rolled out, subscribership will increase.
> Watch. It will happen. Class dismissed.

What is the cost of "cutting these deals"? Just because someone's using a product doesn't mean the company is turning a profit. Sat radio could have 100% penetration but it wouldn't matter if they were losing money. Which they're doing now.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom