Being that The Zone is a Free FM station...

[fromtheinsideout]

I believe the saying goes that there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics. The thing about sattelite subscriptions is that far too often the number is skewed, numbers will reflect "new" subscribers without stating how many previous subscribers continue to subscribe versus the number that dropped the service. Many people today will by cars with sattelite radio preinstalled, they are considered new subscribers as well, even though they paid nothig for the service, much like Onstar in that regard. The trick is to keep them.

AOL used to (and may still do) send out free disks for their service, you would get 3 months or something along those lines. The reason they did this was they could tweak their advertising rates by saying they had X number of subscribers, even if the subscriber paid nothing for the service and had no intention of keeping it after the free trial.

The thing that would trouble me about the number of subscribers increasing is that if it were the case, and there were a huge demand for sattelite radio, one would think more people would be looking to get into the business, rather than the only two major players in the market looking to merge into one.

 

[Radio_Realist]

First, some links:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5334391

http://www.journalism.org/node/836

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3443101

http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/ndbradio2.asp

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2005/06/decline-in-radio-audience-due-to-mp3-players.php

http://www.bostonglobe.com/advertiser/datacenter/datacenter.aspx?id=1404

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/narrative_radio_audience.asp?cat=2&media=9

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/12/in_decline_tv_radio_.html

I usually don't like to post links to support what I say. For one thing, anyone can find a link to a website somewhere that "proves" anything. I found a website once that "proved" eating your own boogers is good for you. For another, most times someone posts links, the response is "you only posted a select group of links that agree with what you say". This time, I made an exception.

there were a huge demand for sattelite radio, one would think more people would be looking to get into the business, rather than the only two major players in the market looking to merge into one.

You overlook the overwhelming expense of starting up a new satellite service. Launching a bird is an expensive proposition. What's more, since each bird is using proprietary technology, whoever joins the market third has to not only convince people to subscribe to their service, they also have to sell them new equipment. Launching a new satellite service would be a task as difficult as launching a third video tape format at the time when VHS and Beta were still slugging it out.

There will be new players getting into satellite broadcasting, but they will be content providers and licensed, third-party hardware makers.

 

[fromtheinsideout]

I am not ignoring the cost of starting up sattelite radio, quite the opposite, I recognize it as being cost prohibitive and therefore not worth doing for almost anyone for the return on the investment dollar, including the present providers who have yet to turn a profit doing it which is the major reason they are looking to merge.


According to the data provded, over 93% of Americans 12+ listen to commercial radio during the week, I would consider that to be a pretty big number though it is down and it would be foolish to not recognize that fact. That being said, sattelite radios two providers combined for 13.6 million subscribers in 2006 according to their numbers, a number that is slightly more than half of the 26 million Americans who claim to listen to public radio each week. If you can barely draw the listenership that is half of the NPR crowd, then I don't consider that a huge demand.

I do agree with you that more players will probably jump into the providing content end of things, but will it be new and original content or will it be simulcasting that which is heard over commercial radio now? Are we going to get new, innovative programming, or will we get better coverage of existing programming or both? If I am an Air America fan (god forbid) and I travel alot, then an investment in a sattelite radio may be worth it, but if I am a fan who lives in an Air America market why would I plunk down money for something I can get for free? In that regard I am not sure sattelite has done a good job marketing itself, it has failed to tell me the consumer what makes it different and special from terrestrial radio. I get that it is a better signal, but it has failed to tell me what it does from a programming perspective that is better than what is currently offered, other than to say they have Howard Stern and he swears now. We have had the argument on this board from time to time about the quality of the programming that is provided on terrestrial radio, but I would hope that sattelite radios argument isn't that it just brings me a higher sound quality of the same crap. That isn't going to compel many people to plunk down money every month.

Interesting that you should mention the VHS and Beta comparison, in that technology and the market did not agree, the lesser of the two formats won because it was more business savvy. Beta had the edge from being able to provide a better product, but because Sony was unwilling to license it so that others besides themselves could produce Betamax players, they were left out in the cold while the VHS technology was left to the market to determine who could make VHS players and for how much. Likewise it very well may be that technology may not be the be all and end all of the competition between terrestrial and sattelite radio, it may be which one approaches it with more business acumen.

 

[kenhawk1160]

I believe the saying goes that there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics. The thing about sattelite subscriptions is that far too often the number is skewed, numbers will reflect "new" subscribers without stating how many previous subscribers continue to subscribe versus the number that dropped the service. Many people today will by cars with sattelite radio preinstalled, they are considered new subscribers as well, even though they paid nothig for the service, much like Onstar in that regard. The trick is to keep them.

AOL used to (and may still do) send out free disks for their service, you would get 3 months or something along those lines. The reason they did this was they could tweak their advertising rates by saying they had X number of subscribers, even if the subscriber paid nothing for the service and had no intention of keeping it after the free trial.

The thing that would trouble me about the number of subscribers increasing is that if it were the case, and there were a huge demand for sattelite radio, one would think more people would be looking to get into the business, rather than the only two major players in the market looking to merge into one.

The practice of signing up for a paid service like satellite radio or television and then dropping it a spell later is known as "churn", and as you pointed out, that does affect the number of so-called "new" subscribers. The churn rate for satellite radio is enormous, particularly because many new car dealers offer six months to a year of the service for free, with the hope of getting the new "subscriber" hooked.

Most people I know don't spend that much time in their cars to warrant paying for this service. They'd rather listen to their CD's for free on their car stereos, CD's that they can make through downloaded music...which they wouldn't know exists without terrestrial radio.

 

[feeball]

Here was an idea I had for satellite radio years ago. In all reality, it would never work for many reasons and I am sure somebody on here will list those reasons. But anyway my idea went along these lines:

Satellite radio operators should have looked for an opportunity to broadcast stations from particular markets (let's say the top 10 markets for all intent purposes). This would benefit those individuals who live in those markets that happens to be travelling outside of his or her market on business and could also be used by any number of individuals who would want to hear something different than the regurgitated vomit thrown at them by the stations in their market.

Let the criticism, legal fluffery talk, and other jargon begin...

 

[Radio_Realist]

Gentlemen:

I do not dispute that at this point in time, terrestrial radio still has more listeners than all of the alternative technologies combined. Nor do I dispute that satellite radio has it's share of problems to overcome. I would expect that you would acknowledge that satellite radio is only one of the many alternatives media for listening to the music of one's choice. To refresh your memories, my contention was that "Talk format shows existed on radio for a long, long time. But, with the competition from new technologies for the music fan's attention, it's time for all talk formats to enjoy the same kind of growth that music formats enjoyed in the 1950's." Note the plural technologies. Earlier I mentioned "Top 40 won't come back unless the recording industry goes through some really major changes. And with internet delivery of recorded music, MySpace, iPods and all the other technologies, betting on the recording companies to turn back time is not a very smart bet."

I have been saying that the cumulative effect of these technologies, over time, will lead to the end of formatted music as the dominant mode of programming on terrestrial radio. I never said radio would go away or die. I never said that music format radio would go away or die. I simply said it would no longer be dominant.

If 9 out of ten broadcast stations devote the overwhelming bulk of their broadcast time to formatted music, I think one could say that formatted music dominates broadcast radio. If that were to change to only five out of ten stations using formatted music to fill their airtime, while the other five switch to some alternate programming, such as some form of spoken word content, then the situation would be that formatted music programming would no longer be the dominant mode of programming.

I believe that if one extrapolates current trends, taking into account not only the growth of all the combined alternate technologies, but also the rate of acceleration of that growth, one can clearly see that radio is in for some changes. And combine that with the fact that the new alternate technologies are being aggressively marketed by innovative entrepreneurs while formatted music radio is being lackadaisically marketed by those who reject any idea for programming innovation that isn't at least two decades old, and those changes become a near certainty.

Here's a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about.

According to the data provded, over 93% of Americans 12+ listen to commercial radio during the week, I would consider that to be a pretty big number though it is down and it would be foolish to not recognize that fact. That being said, sattelite radios two providers combined for 13.6 million subscribers in 2006 according to their numbers, a number that is slightly more than half of the 26 million Americans who claim to listen to public radio each week. If you can barely draw the listenership that is half of the NPR crowd, then I don't consider that a huge demand.

What is missing from your own words is this simple observation. If radio listenership is down from what it used to be, and goes down some more next year, and some more next year, etc., where will it be in ten or twenty years? And if satellite radio had 13.6 subscribers in 2006, and no subscribers at all in 2000, what difference does it make how well it is doing right now compared to NPR? If it grew to 13.6 subscribers by 2006, how many will it grow to in 2007? In 2008? In 2012? Do you contend that satellite radio has peaked and won't grow any larger?

And what of the other technologies that siphon music fans away from terrestrial radio? If terrestrial radio loses some listeners to satellite, and some more to internet downloads and sites like MySpace, then what? Music fans can now get their favorite songs when they want them on their cell phones! That wasn't even a pipe dream in 1997. What other new technologies or improvements on existing technologies will we see in the next few years that will give music fans even more optional alternatives to terrestrial radio as their source of musical entertainment?

What innovations has the broadcast industry introduced to counter or compete with any of these new alternatives? I can name only one -- spoken word formats. Various kinds of talk formats are the only innovations that the broadcast industry has added to terrestrial radio. Never mind that most of them are throwbacks to much older formats. The 'DVE Morning Show is nothing but the old Breakfast Club redone for the current decade. "The Zone" is little more than NBC's "Monitor" with a Gen X spin and attitude. But what else is there? What has any Pittsburgh broadcaster put on the air that's new, innovative, or mildly exciting?

 

[feeball]

The Record Industry has too many clouds over it these days. For one, stations do not like the idea of playing any groups that would be considered "outside the box'. That's what leads to so many stations playing Pink Floyd to death. I am using that as an example.

The industry has leaned too long on American Idol and other such reality talent shows (remember Making the Band) to try and find new talent. There are hundreds of thousands of groups out there who are just as deserving of airplay throughout the United States and we still get stuck with the "Hollywood" version of a group. It is getting worse when marginal celebrities like the cheerleader from the TV show "Heroes" and Scarlett Johanssen are talking about coming out with albums.

No argument about the spoken word format. My gripe with it is that Free FM is all over it like a drunken sailor all over a prostitute. Same formula which has yielded terrible ratings all over the country.

If music formatted stations want to be daring, bold, and different they might want to look for a local appeal. Seemingly in every market in the United States, a station will only devote about and hour or sometimes two hours of airplay for local bands. Start putting some of the local bands in rotation along with all of the successful beaten to death hits of the past 30 or so years. A big controlling factor as to why FM music stations are in a lull is because there is too much industry yackety yack regarding who gets airplay and who does not. The industry would rather play Nickelback to death, but would keep the airplay of Black Label Society to a minimum. How do I know this? Talk to anyone out there that works in a rock station in the United States. But it happens in other formats as well. To shorten this diatribe, the industry shoots itself in the foot yet again!

 

[fromtheinsideout]

I agree that nobody owned a satellite radio in 2000, simply because they didn't exist. Just as nobody owned a Betamax player before they existed. Some people went out and bought them and much to their dismay, they were on the losing end of that equation.

If satellite radio were the be all, end all of the next great thing in radio, more people would be doing it, rather than the hoped for downsizing of two providers to one, both of which still lose money and missed their targeted projections for how many subscribers they would have. Terrestrial radio has proven it can be cost prohibitive as well, one needs only look at Clear Channel looking to dump stations rather than buy them, partially because radio listenership is down, though it should be noted that it is not at it's record low, which occurred much earlier than the advent of sattelite radio or Ipods, or MP3s, you would have to go back further than those inventions to find it. That being said, I have no doubt that they are contributing to today's decline in some degree.

From a comsumer perspective, I just haven't seen what it is that satellite is offering that is new, or innovative save for the cleaner signal, but a polished turd is still a turd nonetheless. They may very well be doing things that are innovative and failing to market them properly. Personally, I am still at a loss why they never mention that they do a very good job on local road and weather conditions, a practical application of the technology that most people who drive could use and instead are more excited about the radio cast off du jour that they have signed to an over priced deal as if signing Don Imus might be the next great panacea for what ails them.

I still thing that in the end it will come down to who does the better job selling what it is they have to offer to the general public, moreso than the technology behind it and I just haven't seen all that great of salesmanship from either side of the divide.

 

[clangham]

Informational writeup on CBS and FREE FM/ZONES. Starts in the first paragraph,

http://nerw.com/nerw.html

 

[Radio_Realist]

If satellite radio were the be all, end all of the next great thing in radio, more people would be doing it,

No one said that it was the "be all, end all of the next great thing in radio". Why do you respond to assertions that several different new technologies combine to provide music fans with multiple alternatives to terrestrial radio as their source for musical entertainment by harping on satellite radio not quite meeting expectations?

From a comsumer perspective, I just haven't seen what it is that satellite is offering that is new, or innovative

How about the ability to listen to exactly the kind of music you want to hear without having to listen to songs you don't like? How about instead of having a choice of two radio stations that offer music you like, having a choice of five or six? How about if your mood changes and you want to hear a different genre of music, you can change the station and hear that different genre? How about not being limited to a tight little playlist of only 300 songs played over and over and over and over until songs that used to be your favorites have been turned into sonic spinach?

Maybe to you, those things aren't important. To a music fan, those are a very big deal.

 

[fromtheinsideout]

How about the ability to listen to exactly the kind of music you want to hear without having to listen to songs you don't like? How about instead of having a choice of two radio stations that offer music you like, having a choice of five or six? How about if your mood changes and you want to hear a different genre of music, you can change the station and hear that different genre? How about not being limited to a tight little playlist of only 300 songs played over and over and over and over until songs that used to be your favorites have been turned into sonic spinach?

Really? I have yet to meet a single person whose musical taste is so genre specific that they have no liking of any music outside of that genre at all, nor have I yet heard a station on terrestrial or satellite that is so good at programming that they have played only the music I like, so do I want to plunk down money for the chance that I may get three or four more music stations? If that is the case they are making, I'll stick with internet radio, which is free and offers more options, many of them commercial free as well. Neither terrestrial or satellite radio has done a good job selling me yet, and satellites job in inherently tougher in that they want me to part with money on a monthly basis so I can listen to it, and I haven't seen yet anything they are doing that is innovative that I can't get for free elsewhere.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I have yet to meet a single person whose musical taste is so genre specific that they have no liking of any music outside of that genre at all,

Then you need to meet more people, if you're going to work in a field where understanding public taste is an important requirement. Go back and read what I wrote, particularly, "How about if your mood changes and you want to hear a different genre of music, you can change the station and hear that different genre?"

Most people I've encountered who enjoy different kinds of music still prefer one kind or another at any given moment. If they're in a mood for country, then they want to hear country. If their mood shifts, and they want to hear classical music, then they want to listen to classical music. Just because someone might like multiple genres of music doesn't mean they want all those genres thrown at them at random.

I like Italian food. I like Chinese food. But I don't want to be served Moo Goo Ravioli.

I'll stick with internet radio, which is free and offers more options, many of them commercial free as well.

Good luck listening in your car.

And you still don't get it, do you? This is about the plethora of different options for music fans to hear the music that they want to hear, not the benefits or problems of any specific one of them.

 

[fromtheinsideout]

Perhaps I should go meet the 6 people you surveyed regarding Pirate braodcasts, maybe then you would be happy.

I am well aware of the fact that this thread covers many different technologies involved, I even stated as much when I said that I have no doubt that they probably are effecting listenership to terrestrial radio., but I am quite sure you skipped over that part. I just don't see them as the demise to terrestrial radio. Listenership's lowest numbers occurred prior to any of the technologies you mention, not after their advent and yet radio found a way to bounce back from that.

Satellite radio suffers from the simple fact it can't make a buck. You don't need a business degree to know that spending a buck to lose two more isn't a good business strategy and satellite radio hasn't found a way to distinguish itself from terrestrial radio other than to say we can offer you more of the same but for a price.

Internet radio is busy being attacked by the artists and record companies that want them to pay higher royalties for playing songs, which if it comes to pass, will make a large number of internet radio stations no longer profitable.

Portability of music isn't a new problem for radio, whether it be walkmans, discmans, and now MP3 players/Ipods and radio has done a poor job addressing that problem in the past and I grant you that I don't see a bright and shining light out there that will find a way to address it any time in the near future. To this point, radios answer seems to be cutting costs to maintain the bottom line, rather than giving the public a reason to tune in and that is something that comes with diminishing returns, eventually it will reach a point where cutting costs is no longer an option because there will be little or nothing left to cut. The only thing terrestrial radio has going for it is that it is where a large number of people get their first exposure to artists, but even that has it's limits with file sharing these days.

Then again, maybe there just isn't money in music in general. After all, one needs only look at MTV and see that music is at best an afterthought there and all of the other music channels that followed on TV (VH1, BET, CMT) are following suit in relegating music to a secondary role.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I just don't see them as the demise to terrestrial radio.

Who said anything about any demise of terrestrial radio? I certainly didn't. I said that terrestrial radio would change in order to survive. I presented arguments and evidence of why it would need to change, and then predicted how it would change.

But I never said that terrestrial radio would not survive. I said that "juke box & DJ" music formats will lose their position of dominance.

 

[feeball]

I don't think anyone in here would be bold enough to say the demise of terrestrial radio is coming. I got to think that a lot of changes are needed in order to sustain any type of loyal support. With Pittsburgh, I really can't see any station overthrowing WDVE, KDKA and WDSY. Those three will continue to be at the top in some order. How much longer will the listeners have to wait until WDSY overtakes KDKA? They were very close in numbers not too long ago.

 

[corporateradiosucks]

How about the ability to listen to exactly the kind of music you want to hear without having to listen to songs you don't like? How about instead of having a choice of two radio stations that offer music you like, having a choice of five or six? How about if your mood changes and you want to hear a different genre of music, you can change the station and hear that different genre? How about not being limited to a tight little playlist of only 300 songs played over and over and over and over until songs that used to be your favorites have been turned into sonic spinach?

Maybe to you, those things aren't important. To a music fan, those are a very big deal.

That's called "having a record/tape/8 track/cd player in your car or home." And it's been going on for quite a while now.

I don't care what station it is on satellite, EVERY station is going to have a song or two a listener doesn't like. There are people (like me) who would on the whole love Sirius' First Wave station, but still say "if I have to hear Depeche Mode one more time I'm going to find Dave Gahan and smack him with a tube sock full of wood screws." Maybe you didn't mean it to that degree, but the only way to 100% know you will only hear songs you like is to control it yourself.

Not only that, but what they define as a genre is not set in stone and there are some things that will set real hardcore music wonks off. "I can't BELIEVE they think the Clash are a punk band!" Plus I think repetition will eventually set in to the individual formats, especially if they get more and more specific. As younguns, we used to complain about this with WAMO - "it's different songs, but it's the SAME different songs."

I don't know, I just think that satellite radio is eventually going to go the way of cable TV....remember when cable subscribers subscribed to it partly because there weren't any commercials? Because they had "specialized" channels? Now, of course, there are commercials galore, and every other channel has a schedule consisting of home decorating shows. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Radio_Realist]

That's called "having a record/tape/8 track/cd player in your car or home." And it's been going on for quite a while now.

But, thanks to the new technologies, it is now cheaper and easier.

I don't care what station it is on satellite, EVERY station is going to have a song or two a listener doesn't like.

ARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

I keep talking about how the cumulative effects of multiple alternatives to juke box & DJ radio will lead broadcasters to change to alternate formats, and still the responses are nit-picks over why they don't like one of the alternatives. Did you look at any of the laundry list of article links I posted that all said that music fans are switching over to one or another alternative source for musical entertainment?

 

[corporateradiosucks]

I hate laundry.

No, seriously, I do think it boils down to satellite radio just being another cable TV...ditto with bands on MySpace and such. If a lot of eyeballs or ears are somewhere and they're not having commercials pumped into them, this country has shown that will be remedied quickly. Does the majority of the populace feel strongly enough about music to pay for a radio service? Sadly, I think the answer is no.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If a lot of eyeballs or ears are somewhere and they're not having commercials pumped into them, this country has shown that will be remedied quickly.

What does the presence or absence of commercials have to do with anything in this discussion?

I do think it boils down to satellite radio just being another cable TV

How so? Cable TV has seriously cut into network television's audience.

Does the majority of the populace feel strongly enough about music to pay for a radio service?

This isn't about majority or minority. If 90% of the populace shares an opinion, that's a majority. If 35% change their minds, and as a result only 55% share that same opinion, that's still a majority. It's just not as big a majority. The real issue is how many people care enough about wanting to hear the music that they want to pay a small sum of money to hear it. Very few people would spend $100 a month to hear their favorite music. A much larger number of people might be willing to spend $10 a month for it.

Ten years ago, who would have believed that people would pay as much as they pay for a cup of Starbucks coffee? One can brew enough coffee at home to fill a travel mug for one's commute to work for less than 50¢. Or, one can fill one's travel mug at a convenience store for 89¢. Or, one can get a fancy cappucino from Starbucks for $2. Guess what? Lots of people are willing to shell out a ridiculous amount of money to have a cup of Starbucks coffee.

Do the majority of coffee drinkers choose Starbucks? Of course not! But is there a significant niche market for overpriced coffee? You bet there is!

So anyway, are you saying that because satellite radio charges a small subscription fee and iPods are just a passing fad that will never catch on, "juke box & DJ" format radio will continue to dominate terrestrial radio forever, and we'll never see any increase in the number of stations broadcasting something other than formatted music?

 

[Boss Radio]

See, Starbucks is successful, therefore satellite radio can or should be, too.

Of course, if you compare satellite radio to quadrophonic sound systems, then it can or should be a dismal failure, too.

Back to cataloging my Betamax tapes now....