• 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

Rumor: Howard Stern to xxxleavexxx Stay At SXM

Theater of My Mind said:
As usual, people are discussing this as if it's a binary decision. But how many people subscribe to SXM solely to listen to Howard, who is already being heard on a very light schedule with a lot of reruns, and nothing else?

As a longtime SXM subscriber and Stern fan, I hardly listen to him anymore, even though I'm subscribed (at a steep discount) to the plan that includes him. So when my renewal date comes up later this year, I will consider whether the service offers enough all-around value to keep it. Access to Stern is just one factor to be considered, but not necessarily the main one anymore.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty disappointed with SXM overall these days. I've found streaming music sources that I now like better than my former SXM favorites, and I have little to no interest in SXM's expanded streaming music channels. I'm tired of hearing the same voice tracked jocks all the time on SXM, especially when it sounds like they're coasting, tired, and don't have anything interesting to say. The music mix has become too repetitive and I find it completely uninspiring. The sound quality sucks. I don't listen to sports. The main talk channels I listen to are the cable news channel simulcasts and I can definitely live without them considering the multitude of podcasts to choose from on free streaming platforms now. And I have serious concerns about SXM's new, disproportionate focus on pushing commercials, while failing to innovate its content.

In short, I see very little value proposition from SXM anymore whether Stern is there or not. That's just my perspective, but I suspect I'm not alone with how I see it.
Click to expand...

I got rid of SXM for many of the same reasons. The music channels were boring. I really wasn't into talk. I can't stand cable "news" pundit fights. And my job shifted me closer to home, so no more 40 minute commutes.

I also found that I could get pretty much anything I wanted via the various streaming apps (IHeart, Audacy, AccuRadio, TuneIn, etc.). The only channel I even remotely miss is Underground Garage.

Finally cancelled it and just got commercial-free Spotify instead. Created my own playlists for whatever musical mood I happened to have. I like it better.
 
Don CT said:
Do you think the monthly bill goes down if Stern isn’t there? I’d highly doubt it.
Click to expand...
My bill is zero; subscribed once in twenty years. Learned my mistake when I cancelled two years later.

Seems like a LOT of others feel the same. Plenty of other media out there these days.
 
Fighting Irish said:
Finally cancelled it and just got commercial-free Spotify instead. Created my own playlists for whatever musical mood I happened to have. I like it better.
Click to expand...

I think that's really what people want, and why Sirus is having similar problems as FM radio. People want to control the music themselves.

Apple Music offers linear radio stations, and nobody listens.
 
TheBigA said:
I think that's really what people want, and why Sirus is having similar problems as FM radio. People want to control the music themselves.

Apple Music offers linear radio stations, and nobody listens.
Click to expand...

I've also discovered a number of small-market stations via streaming that feature unique playlists (or no playlist), good jocks with decent personalities that are tied into the community (even if I'm not familiar with the communites), and a bit more vibrant presentation. I find that quite a few of these stations are owned by veterans of large market stations that got tired of the uninspired voice tracking, bland imaging and nonsensical national playlists that have taken over the large markets. They do radio the way they rember it being done. I should compile a list of stations like this and post it somewhere.
 
TheBigA said:
It's all factored into the bulk fee.

The people who do playlists aren't involved in royalty negotiations.
Click to expand...

Or, to put it into terms that may be more understandable to the (obviously) non-professional questioner:

The royalty covers all of the publishing rights groups and all applicable performance rights. It is not a menu where the "price" is different for individual songs, nor is there a limit on how many times you can play a song, or some kind of discount for playing one song more often than another.

And I would think, after the number of times this has been explained over the years, in multiple threads, that those who have been here for a while -- especially those who have been here over a decade, as is the questioner -- would know and understand this by now.
 
K.M. Richards said:
It is not a menu where the "price" is different for individual songs, nor is there a limit on how many times you can play a song, or some kind of discount for playing one song more often than another.
Click to expand...

If there was, that might result in legal action. There were discussions about that with broadcasting. Offering a discount is considered payola.
 
Fighting Irish said:
I've also discovered a number of small-market stations via streaming that feature unique playlists (or no playlist), good jocks with decent personalities that are tied into the community (even if I'm not familiar with the communites), and a bit more vibrant presentation. I find that quite a few of these stations are owned by veterans of large market stations that got tired of the uninspired voice tracking, bland imaging and nonsensical national playlists that have taken over the large markets. They do radio the way they rember it being done. I should compile a list of stations like this and post it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Some of my favorites currently:

80s - KRKE
AAA - KVYN, WEHM, WKZE, WRSI, WRLT
Americana - KRSH, WCOO (Americana influenced AAA) WMOT, WNEX, WUIN
Album/Deeper classic rock - KOZT, WKIT, WDNS, WXYG "The Goat"
Chill - KRKQ "Mountain Chill"
Variety Hits - KKHK, WMJZ & WMTE, WZBD
 
TheBigA said:
If there was, that might result in legal action. There were discussions about that with broadcasting. Offering a discount is considered payola.
Click to expand...
That is not the definition of payola as established in the court cases in the late '50's and early '60's. Payola occurs when a staff member of a broadcast station causes something to be done that promotes a product or service without the consent and knowledge of station management.

When management does such things, the issue is whether the promotion is logged, and whether the on-air action has sponsor ID.
 
davideduardo said:
That is not the definition of payola as established in the court cases in the late '50's and early '60's.
Click to expand...

Offering a discount in royalty is an incentive. Offering incentives in exchange for airplay is illegal.

Mitch Bainwol of the RIAA tried to offer a royalty discount on new releases to radio stations. The lawyers told him it was illegal.
 
TheBigA said:
Offering a discount in royalty is an incentive. Offering incentives in exchange for airplay is illegal.

Mitch Bainwol of the RIAA tried to offer a royalty discount on new releases to radio stations. The lawyers told him it was illegal.
Click to expand...
And neither is "payola" which is the term you used.

And it is perfectly legal to buy airplay of songs, as long as sponsor ID is given.
 
TheBigA said:
That's not what this was.

Back to the main point, programmers don't make music decisions based on royalty payments.
Click to expand...
Sure they do, if it affects airplay. I know of a number of PDs who were told not to play certain songs because of the licensing organization their authors and composers belonged to.
TheBigA said:
Therefore they wouldn't know who would get sponsor IDs,
Click to expand...
At most commercial stations,, doing that would involve management, programming and traffic / billing.
 
davideduardo said:
I know of a number of PDs who were told not to play certain songs because of the licensing organization their authors and composers belonged to.
Click to expand...

That was a blanket do not play decision affecting all songs by that PRO. As opposed to selectively playing certain songs based on royalty incentives.
 
TheBigA said:
That was a blanket do not play decision affecting all songs by that PRO. As opposed to selectively playing certain songs based on royalty incentives.
Click to expand...
Still, the same thing that would require traffic/billing, management and programming to all coordinate... if it had been found legal.

I can't even start to envision the accounting headache that quantifying and creating affidavits for the "discount" would have produced.
 
Don CT said:
I think he will take a pay cut just to stay relevant. Or do some side gigs to make money.
Click to expand...
He only works 3 days a week and he doesn’t need side gigs to make money.
Theater of My Mind said:
Is he still with the Buchwald Agency though? Who is his agent now?
Click to expand...
If it was Mariann from Brooklyn or Jeff the Drunk, the Sirius negotiators would give up whatever Howard wanted, just to get either of them off the phone!
 
K.M. Richards said:
Let's face it ... Stern is a shadow of his former self. What made him a successful "shock jock" back in the day is content that is considered tame in this era.
Click to expand...
And that's only half the issue. There's also the sobering reality that the other half of what his listeners once loved him for would be viciously condemned as "wildly inappropriate" by modern, humor-intolerant audiences. Yet that stuff was always his very best material. Today, I would hesitate to even give the names or descriptions of many of those old skits and stunts. :(
 
newsbot2 said:
Now the New York Post weighs in
Click to expand...

Another a Murdoch rag piling on the same unsourced tale the Sun ran.

newsbot2 said:
if Howard's audience has really shrunk as much as the story alleges, that's quite a hit to SiriusXM's bottom line
Click to expand...

" an audience that’s apparently dwindled from 20 million a day to 125,000"? Oh please, tell us more. I didn't realize SiriusXM published audience numbers. (It doesn't).

Consider the source. Right wingers hate Stern and never miss an opportunity to smear him.
 


Back
Top Bottom