WHAT WOULD THE END OF SATELLITE RADIO MEAN FOR ATL?

[OutOfTheBiz]

Word is getting out that Sirius/XM will be filing Chapter 11 any day now. Though this move is a key part of a the struggle to prevent a takeover by Echostar, many have predicted before this that the bleeding can't continue forever. The merger has clearly not accomplished the goal of getting the two services closer to profitability.

So IF Sirius and XM don't make it... which Atlanta radio stations would be in the best position to benefit from their exit from the marketplace? What kind of tweaks and adjustments do you think some stations might make in the wake of such a big event?

I realize this is all just hypothetical, but there are certainly some discussion about this very topic happening around many a conference-room table as we speak.

 

[nightmanager]

I would expect basically no reaction at all. There aren't enough people listening to XM/Sirius at any one time to equal the number listening in even a moderately sized market.

The XM talk stations -mainly what I listened to before I dropped XM last fall- count a few thousand listeners at peak times.

That was always why Boortz and Clark Howard avoided satrad. They could have gone to sat and gained maybe 10,000 listeners each. But if doing so alienated just one decent AM station, they'd lose many more listeners in one shot. No reason to risk it.

On the music side, come on. Atlanta music radio has shown no sign of innovating for years so a sudden lack of satrad competition would hardly make things better.

 

[RTibbs]

Dave-FM would have most to gain not only because of their more affluent listeners are probably more pron to have saat radio but also because 20 years later they can finally have Howard Stern.

I am starting to think thast 92.9's problems in the morning should be referred to as The Curse of Howard.

 

[jabba17]

First of all, Chapter 11 is a reorg as a going concern. Just because SIRI declares BK doesn't mean that they are shutting down. I am guessing that there are plenty of people who would love to buy SIRI for pennies on the dollar, with no debt, in a BK sale.

The real question is, does a debt-free SIRI have enough revenue to continue as a going concern? Can SIRI cut costs without alienating its most loyal listeners to its priciest programming (i.e., Howard Stern).

And you can insert my many earlier comments about software-defined radio (mobile Internet radio) here.

I found this link from 2007 on satellite channel ratings: http://www.radio-info.com/in3_src/images/SP07_National_Satellite_P12.pdf . I wouldn't think that the ratings would be significantly different today for the purposes of this discussion.

Looking at the XM channels, I see the highest cume ratings (those over a 0.15) are on the following music channels:

50s on 5: 0.17
60s on 6: 0.25
70s on 7: 0.26
80s on 8: 0.26
90s on 9: 0.15
Willie's Place: 0.17, classic country
Highway 16 (The Highway): 0.22, current country
20 on 20: 0.42, CHR
Mix: 0.15, AC
Heart (Love): 0.19, soft AC
Blend: 0.22, soft AC
Flight 26 (The Pulse): 0.26, hot AC
XM Hitlist (Pop2K): 0.16, CHR
Top Tracks (Classic Vinyl): 0.24, 60s/70s AOR (was 70s-heavy under XM, now more 60s-heavy under Sirius)
Lucy (Lithium): 0.15, 90s alternative

Fox News also got a 0.19 share, the highest of any non-music format. I also noted that some of the channels in the 0.10-0.14 range included various flavors of country and alternative, as well as Watercolors (smooth jazz), Escape (beautiful music), and Big Tracks/Classic Rewind (70s/80s AOR).

I see the following:

1) Country, CHR, and AC do as well on satellite as they do on terrestrial. No surprise there.
2) Some niche formats that seem to do quite well compared to terrestrial are alternative and classic country, and to a lesser extent "environmental" formats such as smooth jazz and BM. How much of this is listener-selected vs. a substitute for Muzak I don't know.
3) Decades formats--particularly 60s, 70s, and 80s--do very well on satellite. 50s/60s/70s would translate to a terrestrial oldies or AM gold format. 80s--both CHR and AOR--seems to do well on satellite despite being a non-starter on terrestrial (except when masquerading as AC).

I would think that alternative, classic country, oldies, smooth jazz, and an 80s/classic alternative format are most significantly impacted by satellite.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

IF we are playing what IF

try this totally off-the-wall concept:

Forget that there is some interesting stuff on the birds.

The general public has not rushed to subscribe because the perception is that XM/SIRI is a smorgasborg of MUSIC. Wall to wall un-interrupted music. That they are not willing to pay for.

What does that say to station management? Station management thinks for a moment and realizes: all I am serving is wall-to-wall music with a tiny bit of bland bacon-bits and other flotsam thrown in. What is MY future?

 

[jabba17]

IF we are playing what IF

try this totally off-the-wall concept:

Forget that there is some interesting stuff on the birds.

The general public has not rushed to subscribe because the perception is that XM/SIRI is a smorgasborg of MUSIC. Wall to wall un-interrupted music. That they are not willing to pay for.

What does that say to station management? Station management thinks for a moment and realizes: all I am serving is wall-to-wall music with a tiny bit of bland bacon-bits and other flotsam thrown in. What is MY future?

And that gets back to my other argument that formats that people are unable/unwilling to pay for will continue to do well on terrestrial: ethnic formats like country, urban, and Latino; teenybopper CHR; and listen-while-you-work AC. Conversely, formats that are superserved on satellite, compared to terrestrial, might prevent a terrestrial format from taking hold and also serve the most loyal subscribers: alternative, niche country like classic country and Americana, and nostalgia/oldies (40s-80s).

The downside of this, of course, is that the terrestrial stations have to try to be more things to more people, watering down a format in the name of broad appeal. Hence, a deep-cut classic rock station like the old Z93 gives way to an anodyne classic hits 97.1 The River, and AOR stations in general are caught up trying to add some listeners while not alienating the ones they have. AOR is on the bubble as being a terrestrial format that is being hurt--but not killed--by satellite. Alternative has a similar dilemma, now that alt has splintered among AAA and active rock, not to mention "classic alternative". Notice how poorly alt and AOR have done in ATL lately--look at 96 Rock, Z93, Dave, 99X, Rock 100.5, and Project.

Speaking of interesting stuff on satellite...listen to Little Steven's Underground Garage. That format wouldn't survive one book on terrestrial....but I get to find new music on there that *I* like, in the style I like, without having to suffer through an active rock station.

 

[jal41]

In addition...Muzak Corporation (the folks that cause more hearing damage than jet airplanes and rock concerts combined ) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to the economy (list of former clients that keep piling up).

Businesses that drop these services (Both Muzak and Sirius/XM) are more likely to pick up formats that are friendly to their clients. For retail and the office...AC and B98.5. Those that cater to a younger clientel will go top 40 (Star 94 and Q100). Those that cater to men will go with classic and modern rock stations (Rock, Project, etc.)

One important note to any business thinking about playing the radio, CD's, or MP3's...you must purchase a BMI/ASCAP license, or you will be sued. ASCAP launched the music police (ASCAP employees who go around all day checking for these sort of things) on Atlanta a few years back, and told offenders that they would be sued. The satellite services acquire these licenses on the behalf of their clients...which is limited to the use of these services (included in the monthly fees). Ditch these services...and your right to play music without paying additional goes away.

 

[Fenway Frank]

Doesn't this bring us back to the old paradigm that Content really is king? Think about it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But Frank.... WHAT does that mean?

The word content is something like the word stuff. I have a lot of stuff in my garage. I have a lot of stuff in my attic. I have some stuff in my genealogy file. I have a little bit of stuff in my bank account.

If I put a station on the air and broadcast 1,000 hertz tone all day, I have content. Useless content. Boring content. If I put Sousa marches on 24/7, I have content. If I buy the format that 107.5 was broadcasting until recently and announce myself as "Smooth Jazz" ... I have content. If I bring back Cletus Judd I have content. If I pony up something kin to the national debt and I "buy" Neal Boortz, body, mouth and all and put him exclusively on my station, I have content.

So you step up and tell us "Content is king." I guess I don't know what you are saying to us.

 

[jabba17]

One important note to any business thinking about playing the radio, CD's, or MP3's...you must purchase a BMI/ASCAP license, or you will be sued. ASCAP launched the music police (ASCAP employees who go around all day checking for these sort of things) on Atlanta a few years back, and told offenders that they would be sued. The satellite services acquire these licenses on the behalf of their clients...which is limited to the use of these services (included in the monthly fees). Ditch these services...and your right to play music without paying additional goes away.

This also applies to music-on-hold. Play a radio in your place of business and it becomes a public performance. ASCAP was actually suing people--not just threatening--unless they bought a license, if they caught you playing a radio in the background of your pizza parlor. The business service tier of satellite includes an ASCAP/BMI license.

 

[The Flash]

It probably won't affect Atlanta radio appreciably, but it WILL affect my flights on AirTran Airways ("Now in Seat 2-A, the unintelligible Ilya Kovulchuk!").

The satellite channels really helped on the cross-country flights!

 

[X-14]

2 days ago on cnn.money.com there was an interesting article on the pending Sirius/XM bankruptcy filing:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/11/markets/thebuzz/index.htm

Bottom line is that it will affect investors a lot more than listeners. They don't expect the music to go dark anytime soon.
Say what you will about sat radio, but according to this story they have at least 19 million subscribers, yours truly among them.

I never, ever, EVER listen to terrestrial radio in my car anymore. Well, okay, on the rare occasion I do, it's NPR. But the reason I LOVE XM is honestly the variety. Depending on my mood I can bounce from the 80's or 90's to the coffeehouse channel (where on terrestrial radio will you hear John Mayer?) or to the 40's channel or Siriusly Sinatra (and you can hear that... um... where else?) or to the Pulse or the Blend or the Chill channel (where you can't hear ANY of those artists ANYWHERE else).

Here's the truth: In the wide world of music, there are quite literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of really talented artists (if not millions), MOST who are NOT mainstream and will never be on a big label. Yet on terrestrial radio the same stations play the same songs by the same top 50 or 100 artists and that's it. Over... and over.... and over... and over.

Even the super well-known artists have such great killer songs that you never hear on terrestrial radio anymore, groups like Yes and The Doobies and Pink Floyd or the Moody Blues or whoever you want to name. TONS of hits that NEVER, EVER get played anymore.

I LOVE my sat radio for the choice, the diversity, the lack of interruptions or commercials, etc.

Finally, in my mind, the nail in the coffin for XM's budget problems was the insane and totally unnecessary amount they paid to Stern. What a debacle. What an asinine waste of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[agentUrge]

But the reason I LOVE XM is honestly the variety. Depending on my mood I can bounce from the 80's or 90's to the coffeehouse channel (where on terrestrial radio will you hear John Mayer?) or to the 40's channel or Siriusly Sinatra (and you can hear that... um... where else?) or to the Pulse or the Blend or the Chill channel (where you can't hear ANY of those artists ANYWHERE else).

I'd like to mention that John Mayer has gotten plenty of airplay in Atlanta mainly because he got his real start here and in Athens...and I might add that 99x was yet again the station that really introduced him to those not in tune with the singer/songwriter scene....it was probably about 3-4 months later when Star94 started playing him and it was downhill from there. It's a great example of how FM will suck the life out of good artist/band by continuously playing the same song rather than venturing into deeper tracks.

Even the super well-known artists have such great killer songs that you never hear on terrestrial radio anymore, groups like Yes and The Doobies and Pink Floyd or the Moody Blues or whoever you want to name. TONS of hits that NEVER, EVER get played anymore.

Very true. How often do any of you hear "Great White Buffalo" on FM? Still, for the artist, the only reason to have airplay is to get exposure for the record so that people would go out and buy it...I can understand why at one point in time, a label wouldn't want any station to play too many tracks from a new record because then they can't suck people into spending $15-$20 for a CD. Of course the interwebs has allowed people to buy the songs they like and I'm seeing more artists put all of the songs on their websites...or just the best ones so people can listen to them in their entirety. I think it would be in the best interest of the labels to extend the number of deep tracks that FM stations could play...maybe that would be an asset to terrestrial radio as well.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

It's a great example of how FM will suck the life out of good artist/band by continuously playing the same song rather than venturing into deeper tracks.

Sucked the lifeblood out? You do realize that it's the continuous and repetitive airplay that is directly responsible for the millions of dollars Mayer and his label made in sales, right? Why do you think labels release "singles" and spend tons of money pushing radio to spin them as often as possible?

I think it would be in the best interest of the labels to extend the number of deep tracks that FM stations could play...maybe that would be an asset to terrestrial radio as well.

Umm.. what? Radio stations can play any song they want as often as they want. Labels don't determine what tracks radio "could play." In fact, as above, it is in their best interest to focus on single song releases to maximize airplay which increases sales. Or don't you think that artists and labels actually WANT people to buy their music?

 

[the_widows_son]

Fresh from Drudge:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaYc._2S74sg&refer=worldwide

Maybe these are the same people that Citadel borrowed from?

 

[agentUrge]

Sucked the lifeblood out? You do realize that it's the continuous and repetitive airplay that is directly responsible for the millions of dollars Mayer and his label made in sales, right? Why do you think labels release "singles" and spend tons of money pushing radio to spin them as often as possible?

The simple repetitive airplay of any song makes people tired of hearing it. That, in my opinion is sucking the life out of it. But I'm not sure about the correlation between airplay and sales. While i'm sure what you say is possibly true...I also know that record sales isn't the sole golden paycheck of any artist. Touring and performing plays just as much a vital role in promoting sales of an artist's record simply because casual listeners are more likely to buy CDs of the artists they see live because they are exposed to more than just the single. If they've never heard this artist that's got 3 albums out already, they're going to hear songs from those albums..that encourages sales.

Umm.. what? Radio stations can play any song they want as often as they want. Labels don't determine what tracks radio "could play." In fact, as above, it is in their best interest to focus on single song releases to maximize airplay which increases sales. Or don't you think that artists and labels actually WANT people to buy their music?

Well, of course they want fans to buy the music..but these days nobody wants to buy an record unless the know they'll like it. The casual music consumer doesn't want to risk spending up to $20 on a CD for one song...or two for that matter. Solid fans are a different story altogether...U2 fans will buy the new U2 single/album regardless of airplay. It's the new fans they are trying to grab with airplay. A single gets released to radio...they play it...then what? What happens after they get the full CD (I know not all stations get music that way...I know some just get a pre-release)...do other tracks get played? Tracks aside from the next single if there is one? So maybe radio stations can play whatever they want, but the real question is if they're encouraged to or not. I, personally, don't think they are.

maybe it depends on the genre of music.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

The simple repetitive airplay of any song makes people tired of hearing it. That, in my opinion is sucking the life out of it.

I'm glad you used the word "opinion" at the end of this, because you're stating something as fact that is not. If it's always true that repeated airplay of a song makes people tired of it, how do you explain the massive success of stations that play ZERO new music? In fact, there are far more successful radio formats that simply repeat old music over and over than than are formats that play new and unfamiliar music.

But I'm not sure about the correlation between airplay and sales. While i'm sure what you say is possibly true...I also know that record sales isn't the sole golden paycheck of any artist. Touring and performing plays just as much a vital role in promoting sales of an artist's record simply because casual listeners are more likely to buy CDs of the artists they see live because they are exposed to more than just the single.

You appear to be somewhat ill informed about the entire nature of the business of commercial music. You are correct in that record sales aren't the sole source of income for artists - in fact sales are a relatively TINY piece of the money artists make. Record sales are how the LABEL makes money to recoup the money they invest in an artist to record, produce and distribute the music. Touring and shows are how the ARTIST makes money. Most importantly, neither are possible without EXPOSURE to the consumers - which is the role that airplay fills. Yes, people may decide to buy an artist's CD after seeing a live show, but no one buys tickets to shows in the first place unless they've developed an affinity for the artist to begin with - almost always through airplay of selected SINGLES. It's a simple formula that's worked for decades: Play one or two songs ad nauseum on radio >> Sell records (label gets paid) >> Sell concert tickets (artist gets paid)

If they've never heard this artist that's got 3 albums out already, they're going to hear songs from those albums..that encourages sales.

Correction. If they've never heard this artist that has 3 albums out already, they won't be at any concert performance to begin with - because people don't generally buy tickets to concerts for artists they've never heard of.

A single gets released to radio...they play it...then what? What happens after they get the full CD (I know not all stations get music that way...I know some just get a pre-release)...do other tracks get played? Tracks aside from the next single if there is one? So maybe radio stations can play whatever they want, but the real question is if they're encouraged to or not. I, personally, don't think they are.

Again, radio stations are given the music to play by the labels. If it's a single released before an entire CD is released, they'll usually get copies of just that song. Once the full CD is out - the station has it and could choose to play anything they want from it. But the record label does not WANT stations playing various and sundry cuts. They schedule releases of particular singles and have teams of promotion people working all around the country to coordinate maximum airplay for the song at the same time. The goal is a so-called "#1" song - which is acheived by having as many stations giving a song as many repetetive spins as possible all at the same time. This is the long-proven way that songs become hits. Hits make artists successful. Period.

And if you think that people are tired of the "hits" and only want to hear new and different songs from their favorite artists - go to a major concert sometime. Lets take John Mayer for example. Listen to the crowd react when he plays "a new song off my new CD coming out next month" and compare it to how the crowd reacts to the first few notes of "No Such Thing." Still think people are tired of it or that the lifeblood has been sucked out of it? Why do you suppose artists always play their most-played songs at the END of their sets?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And if you think that people are tired of the "hits" and only want to hear new and different songs from their favorite artists - go to a major concert sometime. Lets take John Mayer for example. Listen to the crowd react when he plays "a new song off my new CD coming out next month" and compare it to how the crowd reacts to the first few notes of "No Such Thing." Still think people are tired of it or that the lifeblood has been sucked out of it? Why do you suppose artists always play their most-played songs at the END of their sets?

A very instructive explanation, OutOfTheBiz.

The main thrust of this thread is the effect of satellite radio (or the absence thereof) on "dirt" based radio in Atlanta.

What percentage of the American people go to concerts? What percentage of the American people buy music? How does dirt-based radio go about gathering, pleasing and keeping listeners who are NOT music centric. Your post is a great recipe for building and keeping a station-listener relationship.... IF the listener is a music fan.

What do you propose that radio do to attract and serve people who are not music fanatics? Are there enough such people to worry about them?

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

The main thrust of this thread is the effect of satellite radio (or the absence thereof) on "dirt" based radio in Atlanta.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what this thread is about - since I started it.

What percentage of the American people go to concerts? What percentage of the American people buy music? How does dirt-based radio go about gathering, pleasing and keeping listeners who are NOT music centric. Your post is a great recipe for building and keeping a station-listener relationship.... IF the listener is a music fan.

I'm a bit confused? I don't think I spelled out any kind of "recipe" at all? I was simply offering some deeper explanation of how the relationship between record labels and radio works - in response to what I think were some of Andy's misconceived and/or misinformed notions. The answer to your questions is "a very, very small percentage." So small that it's a very bad thing to be swayed into thinking that those most vocal about the music (the music fans) represent the true majority public opinion about what your station is doing/playing.

What do you propose that radio do to attract and serve people who are not music fanatics? Are there enough such people to worry about them?

Since they are the vast majority of potential listeners - they are the people you MUST worry about, and program to.

What do I propose? It's really far less complicated than so many people try to make it: Play a small, focused tight list of familiar songs - and play them often. People find radio stations when they encounter songs that they love. People never get tired of the songs that they love, and they stay for a long time on stations that play a lot of them. Don't fall in love with the sound of your own voice. Let the music be the star of the station. Don't mix talk shows into music radio. There are far too many choices at people's fingertips these days. Be one or the other and be focused. Don't play a lot of commercials. If you have the guts to hold the line on hourly units, you'll be rewarded with higher ratings and better CPP. It works, but few have the willpower to make it happen. Keep a local identity. Never let your station be generic enough to sound like it's coming from any place other than YOUR CITY. It's not rocket science.

As to the ORIGINAL topic... I think that IF (a big if) Sirius and XM go bye-bye, dirt-based radio might take a lesson from them that people DID respond to the variety of channel choices. Smart stations would find ways to get more and more people using HD radio and create entire new formats on their alt-channels. Rather than owning a format, if I was a GM or PD I would want to own a GENRE in Atlanta - and using ALL the channels in your arsenel could be the way to do it.

 

[Hepcat]

I've had XM radio since 2002 and I love it. Now have three units activated. I take it everywhere and I do mean everywhere - when I check into hotels I get a south-facing room. To the beach condo, etc etc.

I really like the 40's swing, 50's Rockabilly, 60's, Dixieland Jazz, Classic Vinyl, Willie's Place country, and the Outlaw Country channel (the best country programming since Tom Taylor's WRFG shows).

But especially like the various news/talk programs. Heck I can't go to sleep at night without the Ron & Fez talk show on my earphone.