Why drop Bob Edwards?

[davideduardo]

Satellite radio's broken window, or boarded up store front. Religious radio is the first nail in the coffin as satellite radio becomes like the AM band with preachers taking over.

I don't believe that for a moment. Satellite has used strong personalities to attract subscribers ever since Mel hired Howard.

Some work, like Howard. Some don't, such as the just-cancelled "Piolín" channel. But they are very aware that talent with big followings will sell and renew subscriptions.

With Christian radio formats being among the top rated stations in markets ranging from Orlando to Austin, I'm not surprised that Sirius XM is looking to expand the faith-based channel offerings. Faith-based choices might be as big a subscription driver as Stern, in fact.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yes, but it seems that Howard is the only one of those "strong personalities" which has "worked" to "sell and renew subscriptions."

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, but it seems that Howard is the only one of those "strong personalities" which has "worked" to "sell and renew subscriptions."

He also seems to be the only one who actively promotes Sirius. I haven't seen Oprah going out and trying to attract subscribers.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, but it seems that Howard is the only one of those "strong personalities" which has "worked" to "sell and renew subscriptions."

But they keep trying... eventually, they will find another.

The biggest opportunity, IMHO, that they had was creating an Art Bell channel. For some reason, after being announced it fell apart. But that one had a definite chance of being a subscription driver.

 

[FredLeonard]

But they keep trying... eventually, they will find another.

The biggest opportunity, IMHO, that they had was creating an Art Bell channel. For some reason, after being announced it fell apart. But that one had a definite chance of being a subscription driver.

Terrestrial radio hasn't found "another" and it's coming up on 10 years since he left. Forbes estimated that some 60 per cent of subscribers signed up only for Howard. He goes, they go. His contract is up at the end of next year.

People only pay for satellite radio (the package with Howard is $19 a month) if - and only if - there's something they absolutely must hear and they can't hear it any other way. It also helps if they spend a lot of time in a car. If somebody is at home, the sports stuff - and the same diversity of music channels - is available on cable or satellite TV. Most of the news and talk programming is available on terrestrial radio or online. Oprah and O&A are the only other "strong personalities" and they are nowhere near Howard in drawing subscribers.

 

[TheBigA]

Oprah and O&A are the only other "strong personalities" and they are nowhere near Howard in drawing subscribers.

The interesting thing to me is that "conventional wisdom" suggests that lots of people love musical diversity, large playlists, and lots of new artists and new music. I constantly read on these boards that the day consumers get the ability to stream internet radio in their cars, OTA radio will be dead. But the fact is that consumers have had all of the advantages of internet radio, plus the personalities traditionally available only on the air, AND the additional benefit of no commercials, and the result is less than 10% of the public is willing to pay for it. It really shows in a very clear way what the people really want. It really makes me wonder if satellite radio music channels were available for free, but instead had 12 minutes of spots an hour, would it make a difference?

 

[FredLeonard]

People say they want "diversity" or "variety." What they mean is they can't find what they want. They say they want more choices, so they can find the one (or the few) that they actually want to listen to. Nobody wants to listen to all of them.

And, sure, nobody wants to pay for something they think of as always having been free. A while back, people couldn't envision paying for TV and now most everybody does.

 

[davideduardo]

Terrestrial radio hasn't found "another" and it's coming up on 10 years since he left. Forbes estimated that some 60 per cent of subscribers signed up only for Howard. He goes, they go. His contract is up at the end of next year.

I'd like a citation for that, as what I recall was that XM said that some large percentage of new subscribers in that particular year came from a desire to hear Howard. I was no longer programming "our" XM channels in 2006, so I did not see the subscriber data in 2006, though.

People only pay for satellite radio (the package with Howard is $19 a month) if - and only if - there's something they absolutely must hear and they can't hear it any other way.

First, Howard is part of the basic service. $14.99 a month, about $13 a month on an annual renewal, even less if you have several vehicles with subscriptions.

What motivates many subscribers is the slightly deeper playlists, the formats that are not on in their markets and the lack of commercials on the music channels. Additionally, those who drive a lot, for pleasure or work, and often drive longer distances, like having to not have to seek out stations every 60 or so miles. A huge subscriber base comes from truckers, in fact. Probably larger than the Stern subscriber base.

It also helps if they spend a lot of time in a car. If somebody is at home, the sports stuff - and the same diversity of music channels - is available on cable or satellite TV.

XM Sirius is vastly better than the absolutely miserable satellite / cable music channels. In any case, if at home people go for some form of streaming on their smartphone, not a fixed-location TV.-

Most of the news and talk programming is available on terrestrial radio or online. Oprah and O&A are the only other "strong personalities" and they are nowhere near Howard in drawing subscribers.

O&A is not on any more... they split the team with the firing of Opie. And if you ask users of specific channels, there are many "hard core" personalities such as Cousin Brucie who have a large draw within a specific format.

And all the curated music formats are better programmed than any of the pure-play streams.

Disclaimer and anecdote: I have 4 cars with subscriptions as there is nothing listenable in either Prescott, AZ or the Coachella Valley locations where I live about a third of the time in each.

 

[TheBigA]

What motivates many subscribers is the slightly deeper playlists, the formats that are not on in their markets and the lack of commercials on the music channels. Additionally, those who drive a lot, for pleasure or work, and often drive longer distances, like having to not have to seek out stations every 60 or so miles.

And yet with all of those motivations, any one of which seems to be killer for OTA radio, Sirius has been stuck at about 20-21 million subscribers. Granted, that's a lot of people. But even Mel Karmazin himself admitted it paled in the number of people who listen to OTA. I'm not saying this as a criticism of Sirius. In my opinion, they've done an incredible job of building a radio company and keeping it from bankruptcy. My comment has to do with what this subscription rate says about consumers, and what it could mean for other subscription-based radio services.

 

[FredLeonard]

And though the company does not release ratings for any individual channel, a large amount of its paying customers listen to Stern primarily, if not exclusively. In fact, back when Stern was making news about leaving rather than take a pay cut from his rumored $100 million a year salary, Forbes reported that 60% of Sirius' audience listened exclusively to the controversial talker.
www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/15/if-howard-stern-leaves-will-sirius-xm-survive.aspx

I checked the SXM website before posting. The $14.99 package for XM and SiriusXM does not include Howard. The Sirius package, however, does. The $18.99 for all receivers includes Howard.

 

[davideduardo]

I checked the SXM website before posting. The $14.99 package for XM and SiriusXM does not include Howard. The Sirius package, however, does. The $18.99 for all receivers includes Howard.

Funny, I am paying the basic rate and have Howard on all 3 vehicles. Two have Sirius radios, one has the XM frequency band.

http://www.siriusxm.com/ourmostpopularpackages

Basic Package has Howard in it.

 

[FredLeonard]

I looked at that same page and it tells me the basic package does not include Howard.

I guess you can deduct the cost of those subscriptions. Why waste so much money just to hear Howard? Besides, given the amount of posting you do here, you can't be spending all that much time in even one of those three cars.

Satellite radio is still operating under the broadcast model and therefore is obsolete. On demand is the future (and a lot cheaper).

 

[davideduardo]

I looked at that same page and it tells me the basic package does not include Howard.

You are doing something wrong. I looked on 4 different devices... a MacBook, a PC, and two tablets and selected "Sirius Radio" twice and "XM Radio" twice and on each instance I was offered 3 different packages. The basic one included Howard in each case.

I guess you can deduct the cost of those subscriptions.

No, I can't. And in any case, the savings would only be commensurate with the tax bracket one is in. The maximum saving taking a business expense deduction is going to be about $6 a month.

Why waste so much money just to hear Howard?

I never listen to Howard. You are jumping to conclusion based on facts not presented.

Besides, given the amount of posting you do here, you can't be spending all that much time in even one of those three cars.

I have several places of residence, and alternate between them. The drives include lots of areas with either bad radio stations or distances that include areas with little OTA radio of value.... like Blythe, for example.

Satellite radio is still operating under the broadcast model and therefore is obsolete. On demand is the future (and a lot cheaper).

"On demand" is the term generally applied to podcasts and any type of prerecorded programming that can be started at the listener's convenience. Just like the "on demand" channels on a cable system. Audio podcasting has, per the Edison survey, been stagnant in the last few years. I believe you really mean "streaming". Streaming is where the growth is, which is why most significant stations also are available on new media platforms. And it's why Clear Channel changed its name today.

Satellite has parallel web streaming offerings. And they have streamed on-demand options.

But many people prefer curated playlists and either share time with them and Pandora or just like "radio" over new channels.

 

[FredLeonard]

By "on demand" I mean listener-driven. You pick what you want to hear and when you want to hear it. Whether this is accomplished through downloading or streaming is of secondary importance. The main thing is, it's not programmed, selected or gatekept for you as in the broadcast model.

 

[davideduardo]

By "on demand" I mean listener-driven. You pick what you want to hear and when you want to hear it. Whether this is accomplished through downloading or streaming is of secondary importance. The main thing is, it's not programmed, selected or gatekept for you as in the broadcast model.

You are very quick to tell us radio is dead, yet you don't understand the nature of new media.

"On demand" is a term used universally in radio and TV for the delivery of a previously broadcast or recorded program or segment.

If you listen to Stern live via SiriusXM's web service, you are streaming him live. If you listen to yesterday's Stern show today, you are using "on demand" services.

"On demand" is definitely programmed just like the broadcast model. If you don't understand how radio works today, think of your cable provider's "On Demand" channels. There you select a program you missed or a pay per view event and you watch it at your convenience... but it is a pre-prepared segment or show or feature that is not customized for you in anything except the time of delivery.

 

[TheBigA]

Pandora is programmed for you, based on your tastes. If you like this, then you might also like that. They have lots of people and their "genome" that do that for you.

Same with the Beats service that Apple just bought. They have lots of "tastemakers" and programmers whose job it is to create stations and channels that will suit your interests. I know a few of them, and they take meetings with record labels, listen to lots of music, and try to fit the music into categories. Most of these people are former OTA radio people, by the way.

People have less, not more, time today. They're looking for a Google for music. Something they can trust that will help them search the universe for things they will like. There are professionals whose job it is to assist them. Very similar to the broadcast model.

 

[FredLeonard]

You are very quick to tell us radio is dead, yet you don't understand the nature of new media.

"On demand" is a term used universally in radio and TV for the delivery of a previously broadcast or recorded program or segment.

If you listen to Stern live via SiriusXM's web service, you are streaming him live. If you listen to yesterday's Stern show today, you are using "on demand" services.

"On demand" is definitely programmed just like the broadcast model. If you don't understand how radio works today, think of your cable provider's "On Demand" channels. There you select a program you missed or a pay per view event and you watch it at your convenience... but it is a pre-prepared segment or show or feature that is not customized for you in anything except the time of delivery.

Thank you for once again providing the industry line and conventional wisdom. You may treat it as revealed word inscribed on tablets on Mt. Sinai. I don't. I say it is a failed and superstitious concept embraced by a group of people completely lacking in creativity and the ability to use reason.

 

[TheBigA]

I say it is a failed and superstitious concept embraced by a group of people completely lacking in creativity and the ability to use reason.

You can think whatever you want to think. But when people are employed to program an on-demand service, then it IS a "programmed, selected or gatekept" service. The only choice you have is WHEN you consume it. That is what makes it on-demand. Not the content itself.

 

[davideduardo]

Thank you for once again providing the industry line and conventional wisdom. You may treat it as revealed word inscribed on tablets on Mt. Sinai. I don't. I say it is a failed and superstitious concept embraced by a group of people completely lacking in creativity and the ability to use reason.

Essentially, you are claiming your right to misuse standardized terms.

On demand is "programmed, selected or gatekept" because the term means "give me something that was already produced and recorded when I want it and where I want it and on the device I want it on.