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

[fred flintstone]

the study was done with those who are normal radio users

What does that mean?

Please provide a link to the study. From what you posted, it sounds like kaka.

 

[AZJoe]

So, 17% do have satradio, not a bad %, and growing. And those that have it LOVE It. A couple years ago the # was far less. When shown what sat radio is, many people love it and do not go back to terrestrial radio. In fact terrestrial radio faces many other challenges from ipod, internet and other alternative music/entertainment sources. The same thing could have been said for cable/sat tv years ago.... now look at it. The facxt remains, millions of people have signed up with XM & Sirius in a few short years- and are happy with it. If you are happy with terrestrial radio , more power to you, you get what you pay for thats for sure. I love my oldies, and as a format on terrestrial radio it is dying rapidly, and what there is offered, has a limited song selection (usually less than a few hundred titles), XM and Sirius program oldies with playlists in the 1000s... rock on!!

 

[radiofriend1]

fine. enjoy it. nobodys saying you are wrong. but those predicting the death of FM and FM radio are a bit premature. as far as oldies i don't disagree most terrestrial oldies stations playlists were too limited but the other problelm they have is the audience is too old.

here's the story:

Study: 83% Won't Subscribe to Satellite Before 2010

Omnicom Group's Targetbase is predicting that satellite radio will garner about 19.5 million subscribers by 2010, or about 17 percent of U.S. households. This projection is significantly lower than the previous predictions of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which estimates 30 million by 2010. Targetbase's projections are based on data from Forrester Research, Simmons Market Research, Gartner Group and its own methods.

"Your early adopters are already there," said Targetbase Senior VP/Communication Strategy Jordis Rosenquest. "Now you're moving to the early majority who must be shown the value and quality of the programming content."

The study found that 83 percent of U.S. households have no intention of subscribing to satellite radio before 2010. 19 percent say they intend on subscribing to Sirius, while 13 percent will go with XM. The remaining 68 percent are undecided.

The study entitled, "What Listeners Want: The Value of Satellite Radio," also asked what subscribers they valued most. 50 percent said "no commercials," while 50 percent cited the "same stations everywhere." (07-12-06)

 

[fred flintstone]

The study found that 83 percent of U.S. households have no intention of subscribing to satellite radio before 2010.

Kaka. Anybody here every buy something they had no intention of buying until they bought it?

 

[AZJoe]

The study found that 83 percent of U.S. households have no intention of subscribing to satellite radio before 2010.

Kaka. Anybody here every buy something they had no intention of buying until they bought it?

A couple years ago it was 95%, as it becomes more and more available and the word spreads it wil lbe even more popular. Many people never thought they woudl give up their 45s and lps for CDs, now CD's a re makign room to mp3s--everything changes over time. Terrestrial radio will always have a place and audience- just in more so limited role and less popular thanit has beenin the past- much like over the air tv broadcasters are today- still viable but not so dominate as in the past. I do not mind paying 43 cents a day to have a vast array of formats, deeper playlists, coast to coast coverage and NO commercials on my music channels- far worth it. If its not for you- cool, I just know my favorite format , oldies is on its last leg on terrestrial radio and I turned to the best choice out there to get my oldies radio fix. On the 50s 60s and 70s channels sat radio offers over 3000 titles.... lets see regualr oldies radio do that. I rest my case-- choose what you will, 11.5 million others have choosen theirs, and is growing by over 1,000,000 each quarter.

 

[radiofriend1]

The study found that 83 percent of U.S. households have no intention of subscribing to satellite radio before 2010.

Kaka. Anybody here every buy something they had no intention of buying until they bought it?

yo, dude if u don't want to believe it, fine stay in denial. it's not my opinion but those of radio users. keep your head stuck in the sand

 

[fred flintstone]

yo, dude if u don't want to believe it, fine stay in denial. it's not my opinion but those of radio users. keep your head stuck in the sand

[EDIT--personal attack]

The survey is flawed. Therefore, it is not possible to draw valid conclusions from it. You may be correct but you can't prove it from this so-called survey.

Moderator's note: Fixed broken quote line.

 

[radiofriend1]

well dude it's just a survey not a legal document. u think it's flawed cuz u don't agree with it. it makes sense to me but if u don't wanna believe it again that's cool

now lay off

 

[fred flintstone]

well dude it's just a survey not a legal document. u think it's flawed cuz u don't agree with it. it makes sense to me but if u don't wanna believe it again that's cool

now lay off

No. You want to believe it, so the study must be right. The method is flawed therefore the findings are not valid. The findings may be correct or may not. But the "study" proves nothing.

You have an axe to grind. The people who paid for the study have an axe to grind.

And to rephrase my "personal attack:" Research is in area in which you give no evidence that you know what you are talking about. Further, your spelling and use of the English language does not give credibility to your assertions.

 

[radiofriend1]

pls explain to us how the method of the study is flawed, maybe without personal jabs to divert attention away from the fact you are so cynical about terrestrial radio, maybe cuz you've been replaced or something?

i'm glad you've put so much of your time and energy into dissing something cuz you have the axe to grind with radio. radio's better without the bitter

 

[fred flintstone]

I explained in my earlier posts the flaws apparent in the press release to which you provided a link. If you have a link to the full report on the study, I can discuss method more fully.

You have no basis for saying I am cynical about anything - terrestrial radio or satellite radio. I'm just saying this study, as described in a press release, is not a good basis for making predictions. You may be correct: Few people may subscribe to satellite radio in the next four years. I don't know. I'm just not willing to be the farm based on the study described in the press release and the wording of the questions and the percentages cited that don't ad up.

Axes to grind: The study was conducted by an ad agency. Another study from a well-known accounting firm tells a very different story.

And my main point is what people say the intend on some survey is not necessarily what people end up doing - especially over a time frame extending over four years. Look at the political polls and how the numbers change in a period of weeks or months in surveys asking for whom people intend to vote.

PS: It is a sign of disrespect for the people who read your posts to show so little regard for proper spelling, capitalization and syntax.

Further it is bad manners to attempt to invalidate other people by casting aspersions on their motives without basis. Instead, I'll ask: Why are you so invested in your position on the future of terrestrial radio and so hostile to differing viewpoints?

 

[radiofriend1]

it's also bad manners to be such a creep

 

[AZJoe]

Also bad manners to be a know it all. Makes for poor people skills.

 

[radiofriend1]

just referring to a study. why take such a beating because i quote a study. no matter how many times i say if you don't like it fine but i guess this is really the secdtion of this board for djs who's prime time has passed and now they're pissed at radio and think satellite is the bomb. great. listen to your xm, no sweat.

 

[fred flintstone]

Guess what? I'm not a DJ. I'm a research consultant.
You didn't quote a study. You quoted a press release.
You quoted it because it supports what you already believe.
I merely pointed out that, based on the press release, the study appears flawed.

i guess this is really the secdtion of this board for djs who's prime time has passed and now they're pissed at radio and think satellite is the bomb. great. listen to your xm, no sweat.

Talk about attacks! Nobody is allowed to have an opinion different from your's? Sorry, I missed that in the TOS.
I never even said I had an opinion different from your's. I just said the study does not support your opinion.
Then you start flaming, name calling and making up things about me and my career (about which you know nothing).

For the record, satellite radio has created jobs - not a lot, but some. People get replaced in radio all the time. Most find better ways to earn a living before they are 30. The big drop in the number of jobs in radio happened years - before satellite radio - from consolidation, automation, voice-tracking and 24/7 formats. The only "satellite radio" that costs jobs comes from Westwood One, ABC, Jones, et al. Not from XM and Sirius. Again, you are strong on opinion and weak on facts.

With friends like you, radio doesn't need enemies.

You still haven't answered my question. Why all this expressed rage around this topic?

 

[radiolover78]

Consultants would know more.

I too simply believe that satellite radio will not shoot off like some people think.

Personally, I know NO ONE who has satellite and trust me, I know a lot of people.

 

[Chuck]

Consultants would know more.

I too simply believe that satellite radio will not shoot off like some people think.

Personally, I know NO ONE who has satellite and trust me, I know a lot of people.

I never though I'd buy one either, but I have. I sure enjoyed it yesterday while driving to the hotel room I'm sittng in right now.

If I owned a McDonalds, and someone came up with a survey that said "17% of my regular customers weren't coming back," I'd be pretty concerned. I think conventional radio should be too.

 

[davideduardo]

Consultants would know more.

I too simply believe that satellite radio will not shoot off like some people think.

Personally, I know NO ONE who has satellite and trust me, I know a lot of people.

I never though I'd buy one either, but I have. I sure enjoyed it yesterday while driving to the hotel room I'm sittng in right now.

If I owned a McDonalds, and someone came up with a survey that said "17% of my regular customers weren't coming back," I'd be pretty concerned. I think conventional radio should be too.

There has always been about 5% to 6% of the population that does not use radio, and another 7% or so that uses it very little. This is the most fertile of the customer prospect areas for XM and Sirius. In fact, in the intitial launch of XM, we were told in programming meetings that the first focus was going to be mostly on these folks.


Most XM and Sirius installs are in cars, where only 30% of radio listening takes place. So if 17% of people get satellite, it means it will only impact about 6% of listening... and probably much less since the main buyers are light radio users. At present, satellite is less than 1% of radio listening... more like 0.4%.

Actually, the greater threat to radio is computer gaming! 132 million Americans are regular gamers and game time is time not spent with radio.

 

[radiofriend1]

You still haven't answered my question. Why all this expressed rage around this topic?

rage? you are plainly the one filled with rage. i quote some info and you are the one with all the hot air trying to cut down the info and making personal insults. adios, man.

 

[DougD]

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

Well stated and very needed for the backward thinkin' radio apologists here. They're too busy defending their turf, correcting others who offer useful suggestions (ala better programming, wider variety, more formats, etc.) all the while missing the fact that their ship is sinking.

Look around you. How many people did you start with in the business are still at your station or at OTHER stations? Stations don't want people. Now the owners don't seem to want listeners either.

"Go to satellite. You'll find your niche music there"

They just don't get it.