Michael Smerconish Leaving Terrestrial Radio

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This whole idea of syndication and the practice of S/XM is beyond the limits of my knowledge/comfort zone. But, why let that stop me? ;D

Ed Schultz has a gig on S/XM and yet he apparently has some traditional radio stations that carry his broadcast also.

Looking at the long haul, what is to keep Smerconish from developing this second audience also. He could end up with a larger audience than the recent past?

 

[TheBigA]

Looking at the long haul, what is to keep Smerconish from developing this second audience also. He could end up with a larger audience than the recent past?

Dome of these guys sign exclusive deals that prevent them from doing OTA radio. That's what Stern has.

My sense is Smerconish is done with OTA. He's getting enough money from SXM, so he's happy. Less work, less aggravation, and he can concentrate on his TV career.

 

[MDefl]

Go back and look at the number of subscribers Sirius had before Stern and the # they had 1.5 years after they joined him. Those are easy numbers to find. Basically XM was the big boy until Stern went with Sirius. He basically forced XM to merge with Sirius on unfavorable terms. Those are pretty much facts now.

Howard will leave. Reports have his net worth at close to $100m. He is 58 years old. He now HATES the management at Sirius and truly believes they reneged on a promise to as he calls it "bonus him" in the event of a merger. I don't know what is true or not and have no position on that. It is clear to me that he is leaving at the end of his contract due to his unhappiness. The entire industry rest on his shoulders. He already appears on AGT and could have numerous specials in the future.

Just to make some happy, I will find the numbers and post a link.

 

[MDefl]

Oh, and sorry to get a little irritable with this. I realize it is not life or death. We are talking about radio here!

Anyway, I enjoy this forum.

 

[jnkiii]

HGN2001 is 100% correct as to what happened. 

For almost 10 years (after listening mostly to WMMR in the 80's and WIP in the 90's interspersed with on and off moments with Stern who I came around to late due to my loyalty to DeBella), I listened to the great lineup on 1210.  This included Smerconish whose show at that point was a nice change of pace due to supplying a local flavor that replaced what I missed from Angelo Cataldi who had became boorish to me by that point.  However, I really liked listening to Rush and Beck.  And obviously, as a Phillies fan, I would listen to the games on 1210.

But all of that changed when Beck and Hannity were let go in early 2010.  Ironically, a Philadelphia Magazine report indicated that the Phillies were not comfortable sharing a station with some of the right-leaning hosts.  From a fan's perspective, it seemed like 1210 was turning up its nose to its listeners and it knew better. 

Well, there were options and I had purchased Sirius for the car when Stern started.  Plus, I discovered the Patriot channel on Sirius that had Beck and Hannity.  Although, for one year at work, my only option was 1210, so I listened to Stigall and Giordano and listened to Beck on delay via iTunes podcasts.  Then IQ came on the scene, and with the Phillies on WIP, I stopped listening altogether to 1210 (except for some nights to listen to Coast to Coast - a most interesting show to be sure).

But since 1210's change (and a switch in jobs), I am all over the place with so many options to listen to whoever I want - i-Heart radio; Sirius; Tunein - I can find any of my favorites almost anywhere.  And I will still listen time to time to terrestrial radio, but instead of following a station like I did for a great lineup (MMR - DeBella, Robert, Bonadonna, Tearson, etc; WIP - Cataldi, Mac & Mac, S&M, Eskin, etc; and WPHT - Smerconish, Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc), I just create my own lineup from whatever source I choice. 

 

[MDefl]

OK, an old WSJ article on the impact Stern had with Sirius:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116834575673671311.html

Further, I think (this in just an opinion) that internet radio is ready to supplant sattelite.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Further, I think (this in just an opinion) that internet radio is ready to supplant sattelite.

That is an answer to takes us down the sidewalk and right into the tension that creaks and groans in talk radio every day.

If only the rich, if only the movers and shakers, if only the healthy deserve to listen to radio/things/commentary/news, then the Internet is THE ANSWER and we should move EVERYTHING there NOW!

On the other hand, if the young families who haven't financially arrived yet, if the elderly, if the disabled, those who do tasks at work which allow them to listen while they work, and a lot of other people we could name, if all these people should be served up with a full plate of audio, Internet Radio is NOT the proper answer. The cost of being able to take the Internet with you, and for some people to even have it function well at home means society will have created a media that only the "well to do" can consume.

Let me think... oh, yes. Was it Marie Antoinette, when told that the masses had no bread to eat famously said: "Well, let them eat cake!"

Radio came along, give or take, in the 1920s. American was STILL a rural population country, and it was radio that made if possible for little lads like me, growing up among the tumble-weeds that there was another world out there I might want to learn about, I might want to find, I might want to join.

Today we have little lads growing up in places where there are curbs and street signs and traffic signals as far as you can see. (But no tumble-weeds.) Why would we take the kind of programming material that might open the minds of little lads and lasses of what they might want to seek out and achieve, and (rush too soon) to put it on media they don't have access to?

Oh, once again I lost my head! We should insist that they eat cake if they are going hungry.

 

[MDefl]

Uh, Okay.....sorry to have bothered you. I did NOT imply that regular radio would be going away. Far from it. I was talking about satellite radio which, ironically, carries the same issues you were ranting about with internet radio.

Free radio is not going away. Rest easy and take a deep breadth.

 

[MDefl]

Further, I think (this in just an opinion) that internet radio is ready to supplant sattelite.

That is an answer to takes us down the sidewalk and right into the tension that creaks and groans in talk radio every day.

If only the rich, if only the movers and shakers, if only the healthy deserve to listen to radio/things/commentary/news, then the Internet is THE ANSWER and we should move EVERYTHING there NOW!

On the other hand, if the young families who haven't financially arrived yet, if the elderly, if the disabled, those who do tasks at work which allow them to listen while they work, and a lot of other people we could name, if all these people should be served up with a full plate of audio, Internet Radio is NOT the proper answer. The cost of being able to take the Internet with you, and for some people to even have it function well at home means society will have created a media that only the "well to do" can consume.

Let me think... oh, yes. Was it Marie Antoinette, when told that the masses had no bread to eat famously said: "Well, let them eat cake!"

Radio came along, give or take, in the 1920s. American was STILL a rural population country, and it was radio that made if possible for little lads like me, growing up among the tumble-weeds that there was another world out there I might want to learn about, I might want to find, I might want to join.

Today we have little lads growing up in places where there are curbs and street signs and traffic signals as far as you can see. (But no tumble-weeds.) Why would we take the kind of programming material that might open the minds of little lads and lasses of what they might want to seek out and achieve, and (rush too soon) to put it on media they don't have access to?

Oh, once again I lost my head! We should insist that they eat cake if they are going hungry.

Just curious - do you have the same issues with satelite and if not why not?

 

[TheBigA]

I think (this in just an opinion) that internet radio is ready to supplant sattelite.

I don't think so. Otherwise why would John Malone have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in buying Sirius XM stock? He ain't no dope.

One of the problems with OTA radio is that limited range of a transmitter. It's very inefficient. You need a whole new system to cover every population area. It's even worse with cellular phones. But one or two satellites can cover the entire country. Far more efficient. You can hop in a car, turn on Sirius, and listen uninterrupted from coast to coast. You can get Sirius in places that don't have OTA radio or cell service. Plus it offers traditional-styled radio stations, and uses a traditional style radio (at least in the car). So sociologically, it's more transferable to the public than internet radio. And still, it has a customer base of 20 million. That's pretty small, but it's enough to run a business. And now they have a solid cash base from Liberty Media. I think they'll survive just fine.

 

[TimeIsTight]

My point is that a majority subscribe to satellite for Howard Stern.

Spoken like a true Stern fan, but very very far from what the actual Arbitron and subscriber numbers would indicate.

While these Arbitron numbers I found on the Stern fan website, and other places, go back to 2007, they do indicate a kind of ratio between the total number of satellite listeners and the number of Stern fans.

In 2007, satellite radio had a total of about 17-million listeners, and Stern had a cume of 1.2-million listeners and an average quarter hour of 96,000.


More recently, as of last fall Sirius XM had about 23-million subscribers, and in 2009 Arbitron reported a total of 35-million listeners to satellite radio since there are more than one listener in each subscriber's family.

Unfortunately, those old numbers are the best easily available, but the point is that even if Stern has doubled his audience since, it hardly represents a majority of satellite radio listeners, and while Stern fans may be the largest group, they still only represent a small fraction of the total. Stern's departure wouldn't doom satellite radio, and many of his listeners wouldn't stop subscribing if he left.

Talk show hosts like Smerconish are far less significant to the total satellite radio business.

I know about a dozen satellite radio subscribers, and they have it for the music. Not one of them ever listens to Stern. Most new subscribers now sign up because the satellite receiver is built into their new car, not because they want to hear Howard.

In the early days Howard's arrival did give Sirius subscription numbers a boost, but the early days are long since over.

 

[TheBigA]

Talk show hosts like Smerconish are far less significant to the total satellite radio business.

I agree with that, but he didn't go to satellite to expand his audience. That's why he does TV.

At POTUS, he'll be left alone to say whatever he wants, with no PD complaining or affiliate threatening to drop or advertiser pulling out. If you're a talk show host, that sounds like heaven. Even if no one listens, it's a great no-pressure work environment.

 

[MDefl]

In regards to Stern, I actually did not renew my subscription when the free year ran up. I think he is entertaining but I am not in love with him. The link I posted from the WSJ contained the evidence that Stern had a huge impact on the growth of subscribers. It is my honest opinion that the industry is headed for the same garbage bin as some other technologies from the past when Stern leaves Sirius. He did say he would work for $100m a year though. I doubt Sirius woul pony up for that.

Internet radio will have infrastructure costs that will be much lower than satelite. This trend is already happening. As for Smerconish, maybe he won't be so boring on Satelite. From what I can tell this move was not precipitated by any desire for free speech. From a common sense perspective, I just don't see how having a political talk show on Sirius helps him.

 

[MDefl]

Time - you are mixing issues. Listening and subscribing are 2 different things.

 

[TheBigA]

From a common sense perspective, I just don't see how having a political talk show on Sirius helps him.

I think I gave you the reasons: No PD, no affiliates to please, no advertisers to deal with, plus no need to be either live or local.

And because he doesn't have to be live anymore, it frees him up to devote more time to TV.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Uh, Okay.....sorry to have bothered you. I did NOT imply that regular radio would be going away. Far from it. I was talking about satellite radio which, ironically, carries the same issues you were ranting about with internet radio.

Free radio is not going away. Rest easy and take a deep breadth.

Just curious - do you have the same issues with satelite and if not why not?

I guess I hammered that philosophical point pretty hard.

Reality is that people who "do well" are entitled to go to the store and purchase some goodies that some people can't buy

In reviewing what I wrote... and the reaction that resulted when you read it, I probably need to add a bit of fine-tuning to what I posted.

As a matter of government policy (what the FCC licenses and refuses to license) and as a matter of societal values, I have a mildly liberal view that we are a tribe, and we take care to not run off and leave some members of the tribe laying on the road for their bones to bleach. Some people can't make the trip and we have to accept that. But decent place and time to live is one where the people out in front of the pack do have a scout go to the back of the wagon train and report when things back there are "going to hell in a hand-basket!"

I think what I am reading in this thread is that Smerconish and I could remain on speaking terms if he and I were members of the council that was responsible for running the tribe.

To use another figure of speech, there are some participants in the field of talk radio that I "vote off the island" or vote to be tokens we left laying on the side of the road, or humanely park them at some trading post... as the tribe, the wagon train moved forward.

 

[tce]

Clarity is over-rated.

 

[TimeIsTight]

Time - you are mixing issues. Listening and subscribing are 2 different things.

I grabbed whatever verifiable figures were available, and identified subscriber figures, and listener figures as I found them.

Because more than one person can listen to one subscription the listener figure is always likely to be higher. You can have six family members in one car listening to the same radio, and each counts as a separate listener.

The main point really is that Stern's audience may represent about one listener in 17, which is not out of the ballpark with how large his share was in any given terrestrial radio market. If he got a 7.1 then about 93 out of every 100 listeners in that market were listening to something else. And there may have been times and markets where he did better than that, but it is very safe to say that 80-percent of the local audience was always listening to something else.

In satellite radio, he may have a 1.2-million weekly listener cume, but there may only be half a million subscriptions involved because, on average, there is more than one listener per subscription. The bottom line is, that Stern is not as important to the survival of satellite radio as some believe. (The WSJ report is behind a paywall and not aces-sable to most of us.)

As far as the internet ultimately taking over from satellite and terrestrial radio, I couldn't agree more, and have been saying so for years. I also listen more online than I do terrestrial. That said, it's going to be a long time before either regular terrestrial radio or satellite radio goes away. Most broadcasters now have their stations available online, and people will listen both ways for years to come, but for mobile listening free regular radio will still be available in areas where cell coverage is spotty or congested, and satellite radio can also become free "anywhere radio" at the switch of a business model.

 

[DToTheJ]

Smerconish does an audio interview further explaining why he's bolting regular radio:
http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2625737

 

[MDefl]

Uh, Okay.....sorry to have bothered you. I did NOT imply that regular radio would be going away. Far from it. I was talking about satellite radio which, ironically, carries the same issues you were ranting about with internet radio.

Free radio is not going away. Rest easy and take a deep breadth.

Just curious - do you have the same issues with satelite and if not why not?

I guess I hammered that philosophical point pretty hard.

Reality is that people who "do well" are entitled to go to the store and purchase some goodies that some people can't buy

In reviewing what I wrote... and the reaction that resulted when you read it, I probably need to add a bit of fine-tuning to what I posted.

As a matter of government policy (what the FCC licenses and refuses to license) and as a matter of societal values, I have a mildly liberal view that we are a tribe, and we take care to not run off and leave some members of the tribe laying on the road for their bones to bleach. Some people can't make the trip and we have to accept that. But decent place and time to live is one where the people out in front of the pack do have a scout go to the back of the wagon train and report when things back there are "going to hell in a hand-basket!"

I think what I am reading in this thread is that Smerconish and I could remain on speaking terms if he and I were members of the council that was responsible for running the tribe.

To use another figure of speech, there are some participants in the field of talk radio that I "vote off the island" or vote to be tokens we left laying on the side of the road, or humanely park them at some trading post... as the tribe, the wagon train moved forward.

You have completely lost me. Sorry