> > >
> > > Unfortunately for terrestrial radio, that 1% represents
> > the
> > > cream of the crop of consumers with disposable income.
> >
> > No, it does not. It represents mostly people who were long
>
> > uninterested in terrestrial radio and who were light or
> > non-listeners. There is nothing upscale about stern's
> > listeners or those of the gangsta rap channel.
>
> Absolutely incorrect and Bob Moore woud tell you the same.
> Lets start with Stern. If you wanted a one-stop to buy the
> 25-54 male listener in Los Angeles, KLSX was the place buy.
> How much did KLSX bill last year on those non-upscale males?
The one stop place to buy 25-54 males in LA was not KLSX, it is KSCA.
Pure male demos are a nice sale, as the low rated 12+ sprots stations will show.
Stern is hard to replace on the individual stations he was on, and KLSX will have a hard time replacing the revenue. But you may have noticed, a lot of Stern revenue was from bail bondsmen and similar stuff that did not mind the controversial environment.
But to use Stern as an indication of the entire industry is a bit limited form my perspective.
>
>
> XM and Sirius listeners were not "light" terrestrail radio
> listeners. Not unless you're reading from a terrestrial
> radio (un-true) fact sheet.
Much research has been done on XM subscribers at the local level. Most tended to be persons who did not find what they wanted on terrestrial radio, and were non or light users. In fact, all the instructions to programmers at the XM start up meetings had to do with getting the light and dissatisfied users that were the low hanging fruit... about 20 million of them over 18. So far, satellite has not even got half of them.
>
> I don't think anyone has written about a gangsta rap-channel
> here.
Sorry, attempts at sarcasm on the web often fall flat. My intent was to point out that channels like the reggaeton one appeal to groups that are small locally but may be significant nationally and who have no station anywhere to settle on.
> I doubt that has been a compelling reason for most
> anyone to subscribe. But being able to listen to the Fox
> News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, all 40's/50's/60's/70's/80's/90's
> channels, dance music channels, various r&b channels for me
> is.
Here you have a great example. The 50's and 60's channels offer music terrestrial radio can or should not play due to demos. The 55 plus listener is pretty much ignored on terrestrial, and there is a fertile field in serving that group on satellite. It is no loss to terrestrial, though, as we are not, by choice, serving it to begin with.
>
> And one that faces more downgrades from Wall Street this
> year. How will it be in bad economy?
Actually, the fairly beatten up stocks are getting buy recommendations now.
>
> That's exactly what the execs at CBS Radio said about "Free
> FM". And what a loser it's going to be.
we don't know that. Give it 2 years. No talk format matures fast. It took KFI the better part of a decade to beat KABC, remember.
>>
> No, it is not "FREE". They must invest in a new receiver.
> With more poor quality programming that isn't isn't driving
> them to their main product today.
Radio has lost less than 2% of its cume in 40 years. I suggest you are exaggerating the state of terrestrial radio.
As many who have analyze Arbitron diaries, the 8 million satellite receivers do not register enough listening to even get a half a share in any market yet. So, even if they double by the end of 2007 as they believe, that is less than a 0.8 share. Most comes from fixed, in car systems, and in car is less than 30% of radio listening nationally.
> So what's that incentive?
> Besides, we already know broadcasters won't know how to
> market it. The tuners out on the market now, in the few
> places you can find them, aren't user friendly either. Quad
> meets AM Stereo meets HD-2.
The receivers for the mass market are not even manufactured yet. The design specs just went out 60 days ago, and ther eis further chipset design going on. the industry is following these steps: build the facilities, introduce programming, wait for receivers to start to arrive from China, and then market.
>
> "Several" years is too long. Please fill us in on which car
> manufacturers have signed contracts and starting in which
> model year. Then I'll fill in who has signed contracts with
> XM and Sirius for in-dash car radios. That's an easy one.
> None vs. all.
HD is free. I was asked $650 for the satellite option on my car. I turned it down.
HD is in the tail end of the equip-the-staitons phase now. There is no marketing going on, and it is on purpose.
> >
> Stop making me laugh! Yes, I'll be waiting for 4 dance
> channels on L.A. HD-2!
Actually, the idustry has carfully made sure that there are not duplicated formats from main channel to HD 2 and that the broadest interest non-availble formats are on HD2... things like country andoldies in NY, for example.
>
> HD-2 will never be able to deliver the amount of formats and
> areawide/nationwide signal coverage that XM or Sirius can.
> How far could an HD-2 format on a Class A in Los Angeles
> really serve me.
Farther than the usable main channel analog audio, per our tests on KSCA and KLVE.
>
> Now, shall I get my order in for the new Sirius/Sprint PCS
> phone? Where is that HD-2 phone? Nothing like being BEHIND
> the times (as always). That is the strength behind today's
> terrestrial radio executive now isn't it?
Agian, 94% of the people use terresrial radio. Many do not want to pay, and will not. You have made a choice. I am guessing you are over 55 if you like 50's oldies. That puts you right in the perfect range for satellite as terrestrial radio does not serve you on purpose.
>
