The Decline Of Public Radio Listeners and Satellite Radio's Impact, If Any.

[Mark_Giardina]

http://www.rrconline.org/reports/pdf/Audience 2010-XM & Sirius.pdf

Very interesting report that discusses the decline of listeners to public radio and what impact, if any, satellite radio is having on audience loss to NPR affiliates.

<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>

 

[network]

> Very interesting report that discusses the decline of
> listeners to public radio and what impact, if any, satellite
> radio is having on audience loss to NPR affiliates.

Quickly tearing through that (and I didn't read all of it), it just seemed they were throwing around possibilities, but they had nothing concrete (as they admitted they have no proof that the decline is due to XM/Sirius). They also threw the internet factor in there as well. Also, podcasting is becoming the next big thing, so many people could simply not be worried about hearing something because they can download it (or, again, go to the internet and hear it).

I don't see any reason for them to sound the alarms. Any public radio manager should realize that, eventually, listenership will peak. I believe, in many aspects, it already has -- or will be very soon.

 

[johnnyd2]

Decline?At a recent NFCB conference, the trend seems exactly the opposite in most markets.Sure satellite is attracting market-share. NPR's class of broadcasting will not be breached by it, however. FM & Sirrius are Besides, Public Radio is acquiring new listeners who are finally fed up with commercial radio dreck - some discovering it's variety for the first time. I heard from my peers that they are getting more inquiries for rate-card info than ever before, some from very big advertisers. Apparently media buyers are getting the word from their customers that advertising on commercial radio is not paying off.With the far-larger market share NPR has in some markets, it's gratifying the money is finally beginning to follow the better product - and the population at large.What are you seeing in your area?

 

[fred flintstone]

NPR fighting satellite radio is like the movie studios fighting television (after the movie studios had to spin off their theater chains).NPR produces programming.Satellite radio distributes programming.Satellite radio is a better distribution system than terrestrial radio.Trade conventions are opportunities cheer leading, wishful thinking and the wearing of rose colored glasses (besides the less savory activities associated with conventions). People don't like "variety." That's why there is no longer anything like vaudeville or the Ed Sullivan Show - or block time programmed radio. People like what they like. They want to hear what they like when they want to hear it. People don't get satellite radio because it has a hundred or more channels, they buy it because it has the (very few) channels that program exactly what they want to hear. Thanks to satellite radio, there is no longer any real need for public radio classical, jazz, folk, alternative (or any other music format) stations. Satellite does those better, with better sound quality and NO PLEDGE DRIVES.Public radio's only unique selling point is NPR/PRI/APM news and talk programming. And that's available via satellite and podcast. The sooner NPR et al stop catering to local stations and start looking for the best way to get their product (programming) to the end consumer (listener) - and focus on the wants, needs and interests of listeners rather than statons - the better for everybody.Public radio STATIONS are local fund-raising bureaucracies which new technology has made obsolete.And what "far large" market share are you talking about? Most public radio stations get one or two shares - in the same league as Salem and Air America Radio. Some of the top stations get three or four shares, which is fair to middlin'. Public radio gets good overall numbers in a few college towns, but that's about it. And media buyers are getting word for their "customers" that advertising on commercial radio is not paying off? And so they want to switch to public radio? I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous statement.

 

[DJKraze]

Personally, I find that since I got my Sirius, I've been listening to more Public Radio.

 

[fred flintstone]

Personally, I find that since I got my Sirius, I've been listening to more Public Radio.

Via Sirius or via terrestrial radio?

 

[DJKraze]

Via Sirius, I know, it's a strange thing, seeing as there's at least 12 stations in this area that are part of NPR in one way or another.

 

[fred flintstone]

Thanks, just wanted to make sure.Satellite radio, podcasts, Internet, WiFi, wireless telephone and TNBT (the next big thing).All sorts of ways for public radio's producers and distributors to get programs to listeners besides public radio stations with their pledge drives, underwriting announcements, bloated and over-paid management, prime real estate, and fancy new equipment. And the newer technologies let us, the listeners, chose what we want to hear and when we want to hear it - not some local program director.

 

[johnnyd2]

Mr. Flintstone,I'm not talking about a tsunami here. NPR and non-NPR community stations in large markets reported an increase in queries from major advertisers and their media buyers to such a noticable extent that it was worth mentioning at the conference. It was THOSE ADVERTISERS who expressed the malaise in commercial radio and were happy to re-direct their money to non-profit radio for various advantages. In my market, my contacts in commercial radio say they can only dream of having the ratings our NPR station has. Your apparent "facts" on your post are what's ridiculous and frankly, hysterical. Back them up if you want any credit, or I'll have to sadly maintain that the quality, accuracy and representation of posters on this site is still dubious at best. Life's too short.

 

[fred flintstone]

Before you ask me to back up what I post, you should do the same. Hearsay anecdotes from a community radio conference do not qualify as documented "fact." I have looked at RRC website. Outside of a few small college town markets, only one (possibly two when numbers for remaining markets come out) public radio radio stations would rank as number one in its market. If public radio is doing so well in sales/corporate underwriting, how do you justify the continued use of pledge drives? Further, public radio sponsorships are typically handled by corporate promotion or PR departments, not ad agency media buyers. Maybe you are unaware of that.

 

[johnnyd2]

As a rule, I don't post trash on the internet. You can believe me, or not. If you are interested in discussing what I heard, fine. If you are going to dump on it, that's your choice. Public Radio is not doing "so well" in underwriting. "Justifying" pledgedrives is particular to each station and not my business. Assuming I have no knowledge of the manner in which sponsorships are put in and out of effect is demeaning and rude.Going over your posts, I don't think there is anything anyone can say that would satisfy you. You are posting language that is not conducive to mature debate or respectful of other posters. I've been in radio for thirty years and it's people like you who waste my time.

 

[fred flintstone]

Your apparent "facts" on your post are what's ridiculous and frankly, hysterical. Back them up if you want any credit, or I'll have to sadly maintain that the quality, accuracy and representation of posters on this site is still dubious at best.

You demand proof from me and you act insulted when I am unwilling to take your word for it. You called my comments "ridiculous" and "hysterical," yet you accuse me of using "language that is not conducive to mature debate or respectful of other posters."I discussed what you say you heard. I did not find it credible but that's not what you wanted to hear.