How much satellite listening among Arbitron diary users in Pittsburgh

[rho01]

http://ftp.media.radcity.net/ZMST/insideradio/keymarket11-03-05.pdf

Fresh Research About Satellite Radio Listening
Regardless of how Arbitron proceeds with the proposed change to include language prompting
diarykeepers to write down their listening to satellite or internet radio, it's important to understand
how much satellite radio listening is actually being reported right now. This information is helpful
to put into perspective the far-reaching claims of the XM and Sirius PR flacks who have pretty
much convinced the mainstream press that terrestial broadcasting is over the hill.
While examining Pittsburgh Summer 05 diaries in Columbia this week, I calculated how much
time Pittsburgh diarykeepers were reporting listening to satellite radio. The results should get the
attention of any person or organization who has invested money in XM or Sirius. These findings
may also provide insight as to why Arbitron, in its quest to develop new revenue streams,
feels compelled to prompt diarykeepers to report satellite listening.
Of the 3340 in-tab diaries for Pittsburgh's Summer survey, a grand total of 42, or 1.26% of the
sample, report any type of satellite listening. These 42 diaries include every mention of XM (21) ,
Sirius (17) or "other" (5) satellite channels. The individual service numbers add to 43 because
one diarykeeper reported switching from XM to Sirius in the car, which I'm not sure is technically
possible.
Based on the glowing reports from mainstream media, you might assume people were in love
with their satellite radios and spent most of their day listening to all these wonderful options. In
reality, they spend relatively few quarter-hours with any kind of radio. Here are the details:
XM -- 895 quarter-hours, or .0037 of all radio listening (.37%).
Sirius -- 412 quarter-hours, or .0017 of all radio listening (.17%).
Other -- 73 quarter-hours, or .0003 of all radio listening (.03%).
Total Satellite Usage -- 1380 quarter-hours, or 0.57% -- barely one half of one per cent -- of all
radio listening in the market.
These percentages were derived by dividing each service's unweighted quarter-hours by the
Summer market total of 242,335 quarter-hours. They are not "shares" in the traditional sense,
but do provide a real-world perspective on how listeners are behaving.
Strictly for comparison, KQV-am, a local news/talk station, generated 2512 raw quarter-hours, or
.0104 (1.04%) of all radio listening. In the Summer 05 market report, their quarter-hour audience
is 2700 persons, worth a 0.9 share.
My suggestion is that any broadcaster examining diaries should take a moment and get the facts
about what is actually happening with satellite radio in their home market. It would also be helpful
if Arbitron would provide the percentages on a market-by-market basis so we know what the
baseline is before they modify the current diary language. Then terrestial broadcasters can start
generating their own press releases!
Frank Bell, VP/Programming
Keymarket Communications LLC
100 Ryan Court
Pittsburgh, PA 15205
phone 412 489 1001, ext. 104
fax 412 489 1002

 

[bree]

While I applaud your effort to begin to discuss and shed light on this issue, the reality is that it is not possible to draw any conclusions whatsoever about satellite radio listenership and its impact on terrestrial radio at present.

One of the main items I would like to put forth is to relate these early days of satellite radio and the diary method to the early days of cable tv and the diary method. many people have already made the comparison of sat radio to catv--and on some levels it's a good comparison to examine.

Initially, as the number of cable tv sources/channels expanded -- local cable systems attmepting to generate ad revenue were forced to make "concept" sales. that is to say, when an ad rep for a cable system approached a client, they had numbers of subscribers, but due to the fragmentation of the audience it was not possible to capture any kind of detailed rating result for individual channels (without spending a lot of money and doing a census). In order to gain a clear picture, one of two (or both) things had to happen: 1. a larger sample and/or 2."shadowing" technology (the ability to know more specifically what people are watching/hearing).

As technology developed, and diaries were replaced by people meters, one might argue a "truer" picture began to emerge about the way people really watch(ed) TV. Now, I understand that the old guard prefers status quo and that we can debate the merits of ratings systems until we are blue in the face; but my opinion is that while the current ratings systems may be considered reliable - they certainly are not valid. the reason it all works: stations and advertisers simply "agree" to accept the way figures are aquired and read.

while everyone is entitled to their opinion -- not everyone is entitled to their own facts. the fact is: the industry is not capable of truly understanding satellite listening in the aggregate yet. eventually, an agreement will need to be reached about what method is used and how reliable it is (imho, it's not ever going to be valid, unless teams of researchers are consulted/employed and major dollars are spent or each sat radio keeps tabs on each individual person's use - not likely).

i look forward to a discussion.