• 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

Sirius Surpasses 4 Million Subscribers

So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect" was minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than doubled the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
 
> So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect" was
> minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than doubled
> the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
>
Howard doubled the subscriptions? You are saying that EVERYONE who subscribed since 10/03 subscribed because of Howard? Sure he is responsible for many but dont you think they're are lots of people who just subscribed for the comercial free music or the house wives for the martha channel?
 
I agree. I actually told my friend that I would never subscribe to Sirius because of Stern's presence. I relented when I saw they had overall better and more well-known talk and entertainment programming than XM like NPR, etc.

> > So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect" was
>
> > minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than doubled
>
> > the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
> >
> Howard doubled the subscriptions? You are saying that
> EVERYONE who subscribed since 10/03 subscribed because of
> Howard? Sure he is responsible for many but dont you think
> they're are lots of people who just subscribed for the
> comercial free music or the house wives for the martha
> channel?
>
 
So its purely coincidental that Sirius was an also-ran in a two man race until Stern announced? To quote Martin Landau's Bela Lugosi: BullShyt! :)

Certainly I won't suggest all of that 2 mill explicitly signed on for Howard but one cannot reasonably argue that Howard didn't singlehandedly raise Sirius in the public's consciousness.

I rode with XM for 6 months and then switched prior to Howard and I will attest that Sirius has far superior music programming but you can't convince me that all of a sudden people just happened to arrive at the same conclusion after all these years of overwhelmingly choosing XM.
 
Sorry Chalupa, but the argument was that Howard doubled the number of subscriptions and that EVERYONE subscribed because of him (read previous threads). You have two people in this thread who did not subscribe because of Howard, one of whom (me) subscribed in spite of him.

I never said that Howard did not raise the public consciousness for Sirius. I only said that I don't care what service he's on, I chose Sirius because I am truly tired of terrestrial radio and it's lowest-common-denominator programming. There are many who subscribe for programming.

> > So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect" was
>
> > minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than doubled
>
> > the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
> >
> Howard doubled the subscriptions? You are saying that
> EVERYONE who subscribed since 10/03 subscribed because of
> Howard? Sure he is responsible for many but dont you think
> they're are lots of people who just subscribed for the
> comercial free music or the house wives for the martha
> channel?
>

I agree. I actually told my friend that I would never subscribe to Sirius because of Stern's presence. I relented when I saw they had overall better and more well-known talk and entertainment programming than XM like NPR, etc.

> So its purely coincidental that Sirius was an also-ran in a
> two man race until Stern announced? To quote Martin Landau's
> Bela Lugosi: BullShyt! :)
>
> Certainly I won't suggest all of that 2 mill explicitly
> signed on for Howard but one cannot reasonably argue that
> Howard didn't singlehandedly raise Sirius in the public's
> consciousness.
>
> I rode with XM for 6 months and then switched prior to
> Howard and I will attest that Sirius has far superior music
> programming but you can't convince me that all of a sudden
> people just happened to arrive at the same conclusion after
> all these years of overwhelmingly choosing XM.
>
 
Ok, clearly I was incorrect to assume that all of the 2 million subscribers joined because of Howard. But there is no denying that a large portion of those 2 million subscribers, signed up because of HOWARD ALLEN STERN.

Say what you will, but Howard's impact on the rise of Sirius subscriptions CANNOT be disputed or underestimated!

No way does Sirius surpass 4 million without signing Stern...NO WAY!!!!
 
Dont know what a "Chalupa" is but you clearly did not read what I said moron. In fact I said quite the opposite of what you just wrote.


> Sorry Chalupa, but the argument was that Howard doubled the
> number of subscriptions and that EVERYONE subscribed because
> of him (read previous threads). You have two people in this
> thread who did not subscribe because of Howard, one of whom
> (me) subscribed in spite of him.
>
> I never said that Howard did not raise the public
> consciousness for Sirius. I only said that I don't care
> what service he's on, I chose Sirius because I am truly
> tired of terrestrial radio and it's
> lowest-common-denominator programming. There are many who
> subscribe for programming.
>
> > > So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect"
> was
> >
> > > minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than
> doubled
> >
> > > the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
> > >
> > Howard doubled the subscriptions? You are saying that
> > EVERYONE who subscribed since 10/03 subscribed because of
>
> > Howard? Sure he is responsible for many but dont you think
>
> > they're are lots of people who just subscribed for the
> > comercial free music or the house wives for the martha
> > channel?
> >
>
> I agree. I actually told my friend that I would never
> subscribe to Sirius because of Stern's presence. I relented
> when I saw they had overall better and more well-known talk
> and entertainment programming than XM like NPR, etc.
>
> > So its purely coincidental that Sirius was an also-ran in
> a
> > two man race until Stern announced? To quote Martin
> Landau's
> > Bela Lugosi: BullShyt! :)
> >
> > Certainly I won't suggest all of that 2 mill explicitly
> > signed on for Howard but one cannot reasonably argue that
> > Howard didn't singlehandedly raise Sirius in the public's
> > consciousness.
> >
> > I rode with XM for 6 months and then switched prior to
> > Howard and I will attest that Sirius has far superior
> music
> > programming but you can't convince me that all of a sudden
>
> > people just happened to arrive at the same conclusion
> after
> > all these years of overwhelmingly choosing XM.
> >
>
 
> Ok, clearly I was incorrect to assume that all of the 2
> million subscribers joined because of Howard. But there is
> no denying that a large portion of those 2 million
> subscribers, signed up because of HOWARD ALLEN STERN.
>
> Say what you will, but Howard's impact on the rise of Sirius
> subscriptions CANNOT be disputed or underestimated!
>
> No way does Sirius surpass 4 million without signing
> Stern...NO WAY!!!!

Exactly.
 
> > Ok, clearly I was incorrect to assume that all of the 2
> > million subscribers joined because of Howard. But there
> is
> > no denying that a large portion of those 2 million
> > subscribers, signed up because of HOWARD ALLEN STERN.
> >
> > Say what you will, but Howard's impact on the rise of
> Sirius
> > subscriptions CANNOT be disputed or underestimated!
> >
> > No way does Sirius surpass 4 million without signing
> > Stern...NO WAY!!!!
>
> Exactly.
>
Nobody said he wasn't responsible for more subscriptions. It's the bizarre rationalization that every single subscription is owed to him. That was the argument. With the subscriptions you CAN attribute to this one show, what about the potential subscribers that are lost simply because they don't want to spend money on this man who has caused so much controversy. I know personally I have talked to my older family members and the conclusion is that the name Stern is equal to Trash. Is the show that is being sold now capable of keeping Subscribers? Is there so much satisfying material that a person would pay a given amount of money every month to hear the daily updates? I have no final opinion, these are questions I am honestly asking myself as a subscriber.
 
That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in my life. I highly doubt that there is a significant increase in cancellations because Howard is on Sirius. That is like saying people will stop paying for cable TV because you can order pornography.

No true...bad argument..good day
 
Not before you, Chalupa, failed to carefully read the posts above yours. I hope you're not a lawyer.

> Dont know what a "Chalupa" is but you clearly did not read
> what I said moron. In fact I said quite the opposite of what
> you just wrote.
>
>
> > Sorry Chalupa, but the argument was that Howard doubled
> the
> > number of subscriptions and that EVERYONE subscribed
> because
> > of him (read previous threads). You have two people in
> this
> > thread who did not subscribe because of Howard, one of
> whom
> > (me) subscribed in spite of him.
> >
> > I never said that Howard did not raise the public
> > consciousness for Sirius. I only said that I don't care
> > what service he's on, I chose Sirius because I am truly
> > tired of terrestrial radio and it's
> > lowest-common-denominator programming. There are many who
>
> > subscribe for programming.
> >
> > > > So much for that article that said "The Howard Effect"
>
> > was
> > >
> > > > minimal. It seems to be that Howard has more than
> > doubled
> > >
> > > > the total number of subscriptions since 10/03
> > > >
> > > Howard doubled the subscriptions? You are saying that
> > > EVERYONE who subscribed since 10/03 subscribed because
> of
> >
> > > Howard? Sure he is responsible for many but dont you
> think
> >
> > > they're are lots of people who just subscribed for the
> > > comercial free music or the house wives for the martha
> > > channel?
> > >
> >
> > I agree. I actually told my friend that I would never
> > subscribe to Sirius because of Stern's presence. I
> relented
> > when I saw they had overall better and more well-known
> talk
> > and entertainment programming than XM like NPR, etc.
> >
> > > So its purely coincidental that Sirius was an also-ran
> in
> > a
> > > two man race until Stern announced? To quote Martin
> > Landau's
> > > Bela Lugosi: BullShyt! :)
> > >
> > > Certainly I won't suggest all of that 2 mill explicitly
> > > signed on for Howard but one cannot reasonably argue
> that
> > > Howard didn't singlehandedly raise Sirius in the
> public's
> > > consciousness.
> > >
> > > I rode with XM for 6 months and then switched prior to
> > > Howard and I will attest that Sirius has far superior
> > music
> > > programming but you can't convince me that all of a
> sudden
> >
> > > people just happened to arrive at the same conclusion
> > after
> > > all these years of overwhelmingly choosing XM.
> > >
> >
>
 
If by "good day" you mean that that's your final contribution (thank you!), then I'll accept that you have lost the argument but refuse to acknowledge it.

> That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in my
> life. I highly doubt that there is a significant increase in
> cancellations because Howard is on Sirius. That is like
> saying people will stop paying for cable TV because you can
> order pornography.
>
> No true...bad argument..good day
>
 
Older people are less likely to get satellite radio, anyways. The audience that Stern does appeal to, namely young men, are early adopters and more inclined to engage new technology and love new toys.

I think it runs the same for Oprah and Martha Stewart. The vast majority of soccer moms don't even understand what satellite radio is, let alone that you need separate receivers, home/car kits, long external (from the receiver) antennas. I think it's fair to say most don't/can't grasp the concept of anything other than terrestrial radio. They're far from being technophiles. They're awash in the old media guard of radio being free, and subscription satellite radio is a foreign concept that they won't want to comprehend.

My mom is in her 50s and got a CD changer with a new car she bought in 2001. I burned her a CD of oldies music right away. 5 years later, that's still the ONLY CD in her changer.

I don't think either brand (Martha/Oprah) will drive any significant amount of subscriptions.
 
First, what do you consider older to be? I just turned 49 last week. I've had my XM subscription for just shy of 2 years. I grew very weary of cry-baby Stern, so I subscribed to XM in the light of the coming of Opie and Anthony. I'm also looking to purchase an MP3 player with greater capacity because I realized that the one I have now is not sufficient. Conversely, my best friend, who is a year younger than I, lusted after McIntosh audio for most of his youth. Today, I can't even get him to consent to letting me wire his livingroom up for surround sound, because his wife may not like all the speakers. He was given a beautiful Sony digital surround receiver when his Mom sold her house. It sit's there pumping out 2 channels of stereo. Technology not fully realized. Women, historically, never embrace technology. They accept it if it is thrust upon them, but they don't pursue it.

The point I'm driving at, is that age/gender is not neccessarily the deciding factor. If I embrace new technology at my age, there must be more out there like me. Maybe not in as great a number as the younger generation, but were still here. I believe that we carry our preferences and want's through our entire life. My quest for greater technological advancement will never die. It's not a generational thing, it's strictly personal.

> Older people are less likely to get satellite radio,
> anyways. The audience that Stern does appeal to, namely
> young men, are early adopters and more inclined to engage
> new technology and love new toys.
>
 
And a 12-year-old kid may watch 60 minutes every Sunday. Companies as a business have to play the odds. Cap'n Crunch isn't going to run an ad during the CBS Evening News for that small percentage of teenagers who are really into the news. You have to market yourself where you have the largest potential for the audience to be converted into sales.

And hey, in terms of terrestrial radio, 49 is young!
 
This certainly is not the last you will hear from me on this issue! Howard Stern IS the majority of the reason why Sirius' subscriptions have rapidly picked up!
 
> Dont know what a "Chalupa" is...
>

I think he said that you are cheesey shreded meat and he will have you for an appetizer...LOL
From <a target="_blank" href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chalupa>Here!</a>

1 entry found for chalupa.
Main Entry: chalupa
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: corn tortilla dough fried in a boat shape and filled with shredded meat, vegetables, or cheese as an appetizer
Etymology: Spanish `boat, launch'
Usage: cooking

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
Stern invented Sirius.

> This certainly is not the last you will hear from me on this
> issue! Howard Stern IS the majority of the reason why
> Sirius' subscriptions have rapidly picked up!
>
Stern invented Sirius. Hell, he's done it all.

I'm still looking for a bandana to put around my car. LOL
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom