WAS: CC to axe REAL real oldies in Chicago; Now Satellite Radio

[fred flintstone]

[And if baby boomers are as free-spending as some claim and as open to new products as some claim, how come so few have signed up for XM or Sirius - with multiple Oldies and Standards channels (among others)?]

How do we know that this isn't happening? Do XM and Sirius break down their subscribers into age groups? And if they do, how do we know who is actually listening to that satellite receiver once it is installed in the car or home. I'm well past 55 and I just renewed my subscription to XM for three years.

Yes, XM and Sirius have broken down subscriptions by age groups.
Further, one can infer that people bitching on a radio board about the lack of Oldies (or Standards) on terrestrial radio are not satellite listeners. Why bitch if you have and use a better alternative?

It does not matter in fee-based radio who listens; what matters is who subscribes. We are talking numbers here. I did not say no 55+ individuals have signed up for satellite radio. The percentages are significantly lower. Advertisers make decisions based on statistics, not anecdotes.

 

[TheFonz]

[Advertisers make decisions based on statistics, not anecdotes.]

O.K. I got it. So I guess that with the audience for terrestrial radio dwindling, we will see it go the way of the covered wagon.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

It does not matter in fee-based radio who listens; what matters is who subscribes. We are talking numbers here. I did not say no 55+ individuals have signed up for satellite radio. The percentages are significantly lower. Advertisers make decisions based on statistics, not anecdotes.

Actually, there are more 55+ folks signing up for satellite radio than you would expect. One reason is pretty much outlined in this thread...the dwindling number of oldies and standards stations on over-air radio.

Both services have at least two channels dedicated to older music, even more if you count the various "decades" channels that even date back to XM's "40s on 4".

 

[AZJoe]

[And if baby boomers are as free-spending as some claim and as open to new products as some claim, how come so few have signed up for XM or Sirius - with multiple Oldies and Standards channels (among others)?]

How do we know that this isn't happening? Do XM and Sirius break down their subscribers into age groups? And if they do, how do we know who is actually listening to that satellite receiver once it is installed in the car or home. I'm well past 55 and I just renewed my subscription to XM for three years.

Yes, XM and Sirius have broken down subscriptions by age groups.
Further, one can infer that people bitching on a radio board about the lack of Oldies (or Standards) on terrestrial radio are not satellite listeners. Why bitch if you have and use a better alternative?

It does not matter in fee-based radio who listens; what matters is who subscribes. We are talking numbers here. I did not say no 55+ individuals have signed up for satellite radio. The percentages are significantly lower. Advertisers make decisions based on statistics, not anecdotes.

Actually they are signing up with XM & Sirius, I have seen two reports that the average age of satellite radio subscribers is 45 yrs old. You may think only a small percentage of radio listeners have gone over to sat radio, but take the 11.5 paying listeners and you have the third largest "market" in the USA, sory all you sat radio haters, but it is here to stay- and we heard the same doomsday ccrap about cable tv, sat tv services before.....why pay for it when its free? Because it is better, more choices..enjoy terrestrai radio, if you can.

 

[Oldbones]

You may think only a small percentage of radio listeners have gone over to sat radio, but take the 11.5 paying listeners and you have the third largest "market" in the USA, sory all you sat radio haters, but it is here to stay- and we heard the same doomsday ccrap about cable tv, sat tv services before.....why pay for it when its free? Because it is better, more choices..enjoy terrestrai radio, if you can.

It's still a VERY small percentage of the overall population, and an audience that's spread out over a couple hundred rather narrowly-formatted channels. Funny how many users of these boards decry narrow programming on terrestrial radio, yet praise satellite radio where the niches are extremely narrow. It's not better, it's the same ol', just different.

 

[fred flintstone]

Funny how many users of these boards decry narrow programming on terrestrial radio, yet praise satellite radio where the niches are extremely narrow.

Narrowly programmed because there are so many of them. On satellite radio you can pick and choose among narrowly programmed channels - something you can not do on terrestrial radio.

I also notice that XM's 50s on Five, 60s on Six, etc also change their playlists frequently - so over time, there is some depth. 50s on Five's playlist actually is very similar to WRLL's (and some other Clear Channel Real Oldies stations I've heard).

 

[TheFonz]

[Funny how many users of these boards decry narrow programming on terrestrial radio, yet praise satellite radio where the niches are extremely narrow. It's not better, it's the same ol', just different.]


Maybe "narrow niche" music programming is the answer for smaller terrestrial radio stations. If they can't compete with the large music stations, and their market is already saturated with Talk radio, what are the alternatives? I suppose converting the station into a fast-food resturant would be one.

 

[fred flintstone]

Maybe "narrow niche" music programming is the answer for smaller terrestrial radio stations. If they can't compete with the large music stations, and their market is already saturated with Talk radio, what are the alternatives? I suppose converting the station into a fast-food resturant would be one.

FM signals pretty much cover a market. There are no "smaller" FM stations. Smaller AM stations do niche programming but it requires a niche with a dedicated cult following (like foreign language or religion) anbd low costs. Few listeners will tolerate AM's poor sound quality (especially the quality heard on weak stick "smaller" stations) for music. And music formats don't generate the kind of devotion necessary.

PS: Fonz, do you have something against using the quote button? ???

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

FM signals pretty much cover a market. There are no "smaller" FM stations.

Yes, there are...they're usually called "rimshots"

Actually, there are plenty of examples of not only true rimshots or move-ins, but small non-upgraded class A signals that don't cover a large chunk of a market.

 

[AZJoe]

Wrong, its a service that offers up to 70 different musical formats, and the playlists are not so tight as that of terrestrial radio. No major market offers close to 70 formats, heck most offer about 10 or so. NYC doesnt even have oldies or country. I love when they say 11.5 million people is a drop in the bucket..well each subscription is listened to by 2.5 people so now you have almost 29 milion people, it is also offered on aol, Directv and DISH. How come people think having tv ratings such as hit tv shows get getting 30 million viewers is a hit, but 30 million sat radio listeners isnt? Pure jealousy.....1 million people added sat radio just this a past quarter..... hey, thats about how many listeners terrestrial radio lost. Hmmmmmm

 

[TheFonz]

[PS: Fonz, do you have something against using the quote button? ???]



I ALWAYS use the quote button, as I did this time. The full text comes up, I edit to the part I want to respond to, and I reply. Just like I did on the old board. What am I doing wrong?

 

[Oldbones]

Pure jealousy.....1 million people added sat radio just this a past quarter..... hey, thats about how many listeners terrestrial radio lost. Hmmmmmm

Jealousy? Of what? Where did you get this figure of "listeners terrestrial radio lost"...did you just make it up? It isn't an either/or situation...I'd venture to guess that most satellite subscribers still listen to terrestrial radio too.

 

[fred flintstone]

I ALWAYS use the quote button, as I did this time. The full text comes up, I edit to the part I want to respond to, and I reply. Just like I did on the old board. What am I doing wrong?

There are two quote buttons. The one upper right inserts the entire post to which you are replying. The other one (second from the right in the bottom row of icons - looks sort of like a comic book speech baloom with lines in it) just inserts the quote commands into your post. You can either cut and paste something - or select text and then click on the second quote icon.

However you do it, the work "quote" in brackets [ ] has to begin your quote and backslash quote or "/quote" in brackets has to end your quote. Probably when you edit the full quote, you somehow remove the quote begin and end commands, too.

 

[TheFonz]

There are two quote buttons. The one upper right inserts the entire post to which you are replying. The other one (second from the right in the bottom row of icons - looks sort of like a comic book speech baloom with lines in it) just inserts the quote commands into your post. You can either cut and paste something - or select text and then click on the second quote icon.

However you do it, the work "quote" in brackets [ ] has to begin your quote and backslash quote or "/quote" in brackets has to end your quote. Probably when you edit the full quote, you somehow remove the quote begin and end commands, too.

O.K. I did that. I don't see a "blue box" in the preview, but I'll post it and see what happens.........................

 

[TheFonz]

O.K. I did that. I don't see a "blue box" in the preview, but I'll post it and see what happens.........................

Looks like I got it. Thanks!

 

[AZJoe]

Pure jealousy.....1 million people added sat radio just this a past quarter..... hey, thats about how many listeners terrestrial radio lost. Hmmmmmm

Jealousy? Of what? Where did you get this figure of "listeners terrestrial radio lost"...did you just make it up? It isn't an either/or situation...I'd venture to guess that most satellite subscribers still listen to terrestrial radio too.

I venture not, terrestrial radio listenership has been declining for years, and most sat radio listeners DO NOT listen to terrestial radio, what would be the purpose? Oh yeah, I subscribe to Sirius or XM to have no commercials on my music channels, so I will go back to terrestrial radio while still paying for sat radio- more ads,more chatter, less music. Yeah sure...... I personally know more than 25 people who have XM or Sirius, they gave up on terrestrial radio and are fans of sat radio now. The satisfaction rates are very high with both services (over 90%), and churn rates are very low.

 

[radiofriend1]

you and your friends are the exception. new study out yesterday says over 83% of americans will not consider subscribing to satellite radio before 2010

if U like it that's fine but u are clearly not representative of most of the country

 

[fred flintstone]

Considering is not subscribing.

Market research clients love consider questions. They always get high numbers because there are few things most people would refuse to consider. And the question is in the subjunctive making it even more hypothetical - and the question, therefore, meaningless.

 

[TheFonz]

[quote ] new study out yesterday says over 83% of americans will not consider subscribing to satellite radio before 2010[/quote]



But you're not telling us what percentage of that 83% actually listens to TERRESTRIAL radio!

 

[radiofriend1]

the study was done with those who are normal radio users