• 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

Satellite Radio study

O

OldiesCat

Guest
From www.radioink.com:


Study Reveals 80% Of Americans Still Have Little Interest In Satellite Radio

According to a new Eastlan study, 80% of Americans still have little interest in satellite radio and the same percentage remain unlikely to subscribe to satellite radio in the future.

This new data seems to echo the findings of an Eastlan study in the spring of 2001 in which 80% of American questioned would have no interest in purchasing a new satellite delivered radio service that offered dozens of commercial-free radio channels for a monthly fee of around $10.00.

In the new study, Eastlan found that 5% of those surveyed are currently subscribing to satellite radio while another 9% are likely to subscribe to satellite radio sometime in the future.

Five percent of those participating in the study had never heard of satellite radio.
 
> From www.radioink.com:
>
>
> Study Reveals 80% Of Americans Still Have Little Interest In
> Satellite Radio
>
> According to a new Eastlan study, 80% of Americans still
> have little interest in satellite radio and the same
> percentage remain unlikely to subscribe to satellite radio
> in the future.
>
> This new data seems to echo the findings of an Eastlan study
> in the spring of 2001 in which 80% of American questioned
> would have no interest in purchasing a new satellite
> delivered radio service that offered dozens of
> commercial-free radio channels for a monthly fee of around
> $10.00.
>
> In the new study, Eastlan found that 5% of those surveyed
> are currently subscribing to satellite radio while another
> 9% are likely to subscribe to satellite radio sometime in
> the future.
>
> Five percent of those participating in the study had never
> heard of satellite radio.
>

The thing is, a lot of people don't want to pay for it. You can listen to good old AM/FM radio for free. Out of dozens and dozens of people I know (family, friends, relatives) I only know one person who has satellite radio. And trust me, I know a lot of people.
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
The thing is, a lot of people don't want to pay for it.
You can listen to good old AM/FM radio for free.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The above is quite true.

You also get what you pay for...<P ID="signature">______________
"Be seeing you..."</P>
 
Wonder who paid for the study? You can tweak the questions on attitude surveys and make the numbers come out almost any way you want.

FTR: I remember a bunch of surveys in which people said they had no interest in paying for TV. Cable/satellite penetration is now pushing 90%. I didn't do those studies but I did do a bunch for banks in which most people said they did not want to use bank machines, they preferred dealing with a real person.

Surveys are b* sh*. Statistically projectable b* sh* but still b* sh*.
 
> The thing is, a lot of people don't want to pay for it. You
> can listen to good old AM/FM radio for free. Out of dozens
> and dozens of people I know (family, friends, relatives) I
> only know one person who has satellite radio. And trust me,
> I know a lot of people.
>

As people buy new cars that come with the service, they'll decide to keep it. Getting auto manufacturers on the bandwagon is far more important to the long-term success of satellite radio than individual sales.

Of course, combine declining new car sales, insane gas prices, and the growth of wireless Internet service and there's still no way satellite radio will be anything more than a flash in the pan.

If they made their big push 10 years ago, it would have caught on. It won't happen now.
 
Put another way, 20 per cent of Americans ARE interested in satellite radio and the same percentage remain likely to subscribe to satellite radio....

Even if the study is dead on accurate....20 per cent could easily translate into 40 million potential subscribers. That ain't shabby.




> From www.radioink.com:

>
> According to a new Eastlan study, 80% of Americans still
> have little interest in satellite radio and the same
> percentage remain unlikely to subscribe to satellite radio
> in the future.
>
 
> Put another way, 20 per cent of Americans ARE interested in
> satellite radio and the same percentage remain likely to
> subscribe to satellite radio....
>
> Even if the study is dead on accurate....20 per cent could
> easily translate into 40 million potential subscribers. That
> ain't shabby.

40 million isn't something to laugh at, but there will still be more AM/FM listeners if what you say is true.

>
> > From www.radioink.com:
>
> >
> > According to a new Eastlan study, 80% of Americans still
> > have little interest in satellite radio and the same
> > percentage remain unlikely to subscribe to satellite radio
>
> > in the future.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
>
> 40 million isn't something to laugh at, but there will still
> be more AM/FM listeners if what you say is true.
>

Much depends on how many installs are car-only vs. portables.

Based on current mix, where most installs are in cars and not removable, it takes about 12 to 14 million subscribers to get a 1 share across the US. A 40 million install base would be capable of getting around a 3 share for all satellite listening nationally.

40 million is a nice number for the satellite business model, but it is a bit insignificant considering that there are somewhere between 800 million and one billion radios in the US that get free radio.
 
> The thing is, a lot of people don't want to pay for it.
> You can listen to good old AM/FM radio for free.
----> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The above is quite true.
>
> You also get what you pay for...
>
lol lol So True!
 
> As people buy new cars that come with the service, they'll
> decide to keep it.

Funny you should say that, as just yesterday I was having a conversation with an old friend here in L.A. (one of the market's remaining legends, you figure out who) and he said he had XM in his new SUV because it came with it, but after listening to it for the free three months he decided not to renew it because -- in his words -- the stream quality was as bad as a MP3.

There is no guarantee that people will keep the service even if it comes with their new car. A good question to ask would be if XM and Sirius subtract subscriber "churn" when they report subscriber totals. My friend suspects he is still counted as a XM "subscriber".
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Satellite Radio Won't Make It

Here is my take on satellite radio. First let’s go back a few years, well now many years ago, when someone came up with the idea of paying for television. The response was, “what me pay for TV when I can see it for free”? Thus began the birth of cable television.

Before you say I’m comparing apples to oranges, I will agree with you. People who watch TV are not riding in their cars. They are sitting home after a long day at work hoping to be entertained. Radio meanwhile is listened to mostly by people on their way to or from work. How many people listen to radio at night and turn off the TV? Be honest now.

So here is my point. The only way that I believe satellite radio will gain any audience is if terrestrial radio continues to program to the lowest common denominator. What I mean is putting on these “Jack, Fox, Fickle” jukebox formatted stations that are targeting a younger audience.

Wake up and smell the roses consultants and programmers, young people today are not listening to the radio! They have their CD’s and I Pods. Its people my age and younger that turn on the radio to either hear our favorite song or news and weather and even we are getting tired of the crap that is being shoved down our throats.

However, being as cheap as I am, I’m not about to spend hundreds of dollars for a satellite radio, then have to pay a monthly fee, just to keep entertained for 30 minutes going to work mornings.

Satellite radio, for all of its hype, is swimming in billions of dollars of red ink. Howard Stern alone will cost Sirius 500 million dollars over a five year period. Those proponents of satellite radio keep on clinging to this idea that millions of people are going to rush out and subscribe to satellite radio because of a variety of music, unique personalities, and sports. I wish them well. But in my humble opinion they are living in a fantasy world.

What will happen in five years, or when ever satellite radio lifts off (pardon the pun) is that either XM or Sirius will merge into one company, or both of them will have to make drastic cuts in order to keep shareholders happy while paying for these high-priced announcers.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
 
Re: Satellite Radio Won't Make It

> What will happen in five years, or when ever satellite radio
> lifts off (pardon the pun) is that either XM or Sirius will
> merge into one company, or both of them will have to make
> drastic cuts in order to keep shareholders happy while
> paying for these high-priced announcers.
>
A merger won't happen. The regulatory comission won't approve it because it would create a monopoly. Remember when Echostar (parent company of Dish Network) tried to buy DirecTV? That merger didn't happen because in most rural areas, Dish Network would have been the only choice for programming. That's why I don't see a Sirius/XM merger happening. Just like with the networks, the 4 major networks will never be allowed to merge with each other.
 
Music Quality

> ...after listening to it for the free three months he decided not
> to renew it because -- in his words -- the stream quality was
> as bad as an MP3.

I have a couple of friends with satellite radio - one with XM and one with Sirius. After listening to music on both receivers, I have to agree with "the legend". The audio quality is poor - and even worse for talk streams. Given the choice between FM or satellite on the 7 speaker factory stereo, I'd rather push the button when a commercial set comes on than put up with the crappy quality of satellite. BTW, XM is better than Sirius for music quality. Consider that as being "damned with faint praise".
 
Re: Music Quality

> > ...after listening to it for the free three months he
> > decided not to renew it because -- in his words -- the
> > stream quality was as bad as an MP3.
>
> I have a couple of friends with satellite radio - one with
> XM and one with Sirius. After listening to music on both
> receivers, I have to agree with "the legend". The audio
> quality is poor - and even worse for talk streams.

I don't understand... Are you people hearing something I'm not? I've listened to my XM in three different ways: In the car, on the boombox, and routed through the home stereo. The sound quality is BEAUTIFUL!!

What am I missing here? People are describing satellite radio sound quality as if it's a 16kb internet stream. That is FAR from true.

What's the deal?<P ID="signature">______________
dstroyernepa (at) yahoo (dot) com
www.exposedfm.com

"Forget Aristotle, and f*** Socrates... Here comes Professor Anthony."</P>
 
> Surveys are b* sh*. Statistically projectable b* sh* but
> still b* sh*.
>

I think you mean, "figures lie when liars figure"

Twenty percent is not a bad start, lets re-do that survey in a few years.<P ID="signature">______________
_____________________________________________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology</P>
 
> Wonder who paid for the study? You can tweak the questions
> on attitude surveys and make the numbers come out almost any
> way you want.
>


Uh the NAB? LOL

I suspect some posters on here with their "FM/AM is free" stance are pro terrestial people anways. We've seen these surveys before, same stupid comments from the pro terriestrial people. But the numbers don't lie, and they keep growing. Word of mouth about better content than terriestial and lower hardware costs will increase potential subs in the future.

And anyone who thinks it sounds like a bad mp3 needs to get their radio checked.





> FTR: I remember a bunch of surveys in which people said they
> had no interest in paying for TV. Cable/satellite
> penetration is now pushing 90%. I didn't do those studies
> but I did do a bunch for banks in which most people said
> they did not want to use bank machines, they preferred
> dealing with a real person.
>
> Surveys are b* sh*. Statistically projectable b* sh* but
> still b* sh*.
>
 
Two Observations...

I recently bought a car. Two dealers and two salesmen and no mention of sat rad. After the deal was done, I asked why the option was never mentioned and it was because CAR SALESMAN MAKE NO MONEY OFF OF IT! Spiff these guys $25 bucks per and they'll sell plenty more.

Secondly, once they get out of the content end of the business, they'll do fine. Few people are going to subscribe to listen to "world music" or "deep folk cuts". Right now, it seems their biggest draw is MLB/NASCAR/NFL etc. all provided by the tradional providers - OTA broadcasters - thank you very much.
 
> > Wonder who paid for the study? You can tweak the
> questions
> > on attitude surveys and make the numbers come out almost
> any
> > way you want.
> >
>
>
> Uh the NAB? LOL
>
> I suspect some posters on here with their "FM/AM is free"
> stance are pro terrestial people anways. We've seen these
> surveys before, same stupid comments from the pro
> terriestrial people. But the numbers don't lie, and they
> keep growing. Word of mouth about better content than
> terriestial and lower hardware costs will increase potential
> subs in the future.
>
> And anyone who thinks it sounds like a bad mp3 needs to get
> their radio checked.

Uhh, you're wrong. I know that a lot of people aren't willing to pay hundreds of dollars for satellite radio when you can get AM/FM for free. You know and I know that XM/Satellite radio will continue to grow, but not to the length of listeners for AM/FM. There are MILLION AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people listening to regular radio. The issue on sound quality is just a matter of opinion.


>
>
>
> > FTR: I remember a bunch of surveys in which people said
> they
> > had no interest in paying for TV. Cable/satellite
> > penetration is now pushing 90%. I didn't do those studies
>
> > but I did do a bunch for banks in which most people said
> > they did not want to use bank machines, they preferred
> > dealing with a real person.
> >
> > Surveys are b* sh*. Statistically projectable b* sh* but
> > still b* sh*.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
Re: Music Quality

I don't have satelite radio but I rented a car on a business trip a few weeks ago and got Sirius. I listened a bit out of curiosity. THEN the next day, the plane I had to catch was cancelled, the only others were sold out, so I drove 14 hours to my next scheduled stop.

I can't put my finger on it, but there is simply something wrong with the audio quality. After about 7 hours of listening, I HAD to turn on the FM radio and as soon as I did, my ears went "ahhhhh".

I don't know what the deal is, but for some reason Sirius made my ears "tired".

I'm sorry, that's the best way I can describe it.
 
Just thought I'd chime in on this one. This is one of the most interesting threads that I have ever read.

While sat radio is not necessarily a bad idea, it is simply not realistic for the long term. Sure, XM and Sirius have made it to the airwaves, but how long can they stay there? My guess....maybe five more years. Maybe! The truth is that both companies are still well in the red, and no one can do that for very long.

Of the two sat radio companies, which will be the first to go? My pick is XM, and the reason is their CEO, Hugh Panero. He claims that his company will be THE ONE in radio in the forseeable future, and that XM will eventually bury terrestrial radio. Not only is he living in a dream world, but his giant ego will eventually cancel itself out. Huge, unfounded egos always do. Panero will fall, and he will take XM with him.

Terrestrial radio will survive. The reason....it is localized (or should be) whereas sat radio can never be. The problems with the survival of terrestrial radio are the fault of megagroups which remove the local flavor and programming of interest to the specific areas wherein the stations are located. It is NOT because of sat radio. Those guys can't touch us!

Do I believe that sat radio can survive? In a word....NO! But, hey, let 'em have their fun while they can.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom