• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

XM Radio

R

radioaircheck

Get XM radio and enjoy better programing. Clear Channel and Infinity, a thing of the past. Everyone is going XM or Sirus. People will get tired of the same old bland radio. Watch and see.
 
> Get XM radio and enjoy better programing. Clear Channel and
> Infinity, a thing of the past. Everyone is going XM or
> Sirus. People will get tired of the same old bland radio.
> Watch and see.


FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from subscribers after one year.

Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the Satelitte service.
>
 
> FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
> subscribers after one year.
>
> Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the Satelitte
> service.


These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the source of your statistics.
 
> > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
> > subscribers after one year.
> >
> > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the Satelitte
>
> > service.
>
>
> These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
> source of your statistics.
>


I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.
 
> > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
> > > subscribers after one year.
> > >
> > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> Satelitte
> >
> > > service.
> >
> >
> > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
> > source of your statistics.
> >
>
>
> I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I
> LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.

My sentiments,also. There's little "local radio" anymore--most is owned by some distant, disinterested corporation that capitalizes on revenue and discounts listeners. I'm a Sirius subscriber just renewing for the third year of service. Both Sirius and XM are good, each with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.

The report of a 30% renewal rate is a bit hard to believe but could be true among certain categories of subscribers that would tend to "try and say good bye." The citation of 70% not renewing may not refer to the general subscriber base.
>
 
> > > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
>
> > > > subscribers after one year.
> > > >
> > > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> > Satelitte
> > >
> > > > service.
> > >
> > >
> > > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
>
> > > source of your statistics.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I
> > LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.
>
> My sentiments,also. There's little "local radio"
> anymore--most is owned by some distant, disinterested
> corporation that capitalizes on revenue and discounts
> listeners. I'm a Sirius subscriber just renewing for the
> third year of service. Both Sirius and XM are good, each
> with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.
>
> The report of a 30% renewal rate is a bit hard to believe
> but could be true among certain categories of subscribers
> that would tend to "try and say good bye." The citation of
> 70% not renewing may not refer to the general subscriber
> base.
> >
>
I as well have sirius in my home and car...it makes roadtrips a helluva lot easier to handle. Sirius may have the upper hand in the end due to their variety of programming coverage area and the fact Mel K has jumped on board to run the show.
 
I listen to my iPod and get more enjoyment out of that than Satellite radio. If it where truly "Satellite Radio", then I could listen to other markets for my radio enjoyment.

Why should I pay a subscription fee for someone else to load an iPod for me??

Thanks to Disney leading the cause and Viacom backing it up, I am locked in my market for both radio and TV cause they don't want me to venture outside. That action also got me non interested in Satellite TV. I remember the fun I used to have in the C-band days when I could watch or listen to anything I could find.

Back to the XM/Sirrus thing, why pay for the subscription? I have five thousand hours of music that I already like plus new stuff with an semi-unlimited supply of battery power (Sucks when the battery on the trucks dies).

-Doc




> > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
> > > subscribers after one year.
> > >
> > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> Satelitte
> >
> > > service.
> >
> >
> > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
> > source of your statistics.
> >
>
>
> I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I
> LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.
> <P ID="signature">______________
Doc Bryce Everybody!</P>
 
ipods are also hurting commercial radio. My xm radio in my car has an mp3 player too. I listen to XM online at home. I really do love the stations XMU, Unsigned, Fred and Ethel. I like them becasue XMU and Unsigned play stuff I would have never found online. I don't like everything, but there are enough stations that I like I always find something to listen to. If I like it, I can find it online usually. I haven't listened to Sirius as much, but I have some friends that swear by them too. I am just very happy with the product. I get more than my money's worth.


> I listen to my iPod and get more enjoyment out of that than
> Satellite radio. If it where truly "Satellite Radio", then
> I could listen to other markets for my radio enjoyment.
>
> Why should I pay a subscription fee for someone else to load
> an iPod for me??
>
> Thanks to Disney leading the cause and Viacom backing it up,
> I am locked in my market for both radio and TV cause they
> don't want me to venture outside. That action also got me
> non interested in Satellite TV. I remember the fun I used
> to have in the C-band days when I could watch or listen to
> anything I could find.
>
> Back to the XM/Sirrus thing, why pay for the subscription?
> I have five thousand hours of music that I already like plus
> new stuff with an semi-unlimited supply of battery power
> (Sucks when the battery on the trucks dies).
>
> -Doc
>
>
>
>
> > > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
>
> > > > subscribers after one year.
> > > >
> > > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> > Satelitte
> > >
> > > > service.
> > >
> > >
> > > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
>
> > > source of your statistics.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I
> > LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.
> >
>
 
> I listen to my iPod and get more enjoyment out of that than
> Satellite radio. If it where truly "Satellite Radio", then
> I could listen to other markets for my radio enjoyment.

I don't think that satellite radio was developed to satisfy radio geeks' dreams of listening to out-of-market stations. Besides, online streams of radio stations addresses that issue.



> Why should I pay a subscription fee for someone else to load
> an iPod for me??

XM and Sirius aren't supposed to serve as a lazy man's iPod. Its about the discovery of new music. There is so much new music on satellite that doesn't get exposure on terrestrial radio, and can't be found on your iPod, because you haven't discovered it yet.


>
> Back to the XM/Sirrus thing, why pay for the subscription?
> I have five thousand hours of music that I already like plus
> new stuff with an semi-unlimited supply of battery power
> (Sucks when the battery on the trucks dies).
>
> -Doc
>

Doc, if you prefer your iPod, that's fine. But it doesn't sound like you've ever tried satellite radio in the first place.

Either way, people are paying for satellite to have something that they can't get for free from terrestrial radio, can't get from online radio, and get find on their iPods. The subscription numbers tell that story.
 
> > I listen to my iPod and get more enjoyment out of that
> than
> > Satellite radio. If it where truly "Satellite Radio",
> then
> > I could listen to other markets for my radio enjoyment.
>
> I don't think that satellite radio was developed to satisfy
> radio geeks' dreams of listening to out-of-market stations.
> Besides, online streams of radio stations addresses that
> issue.
>
>
>
> > Why should I pay a subscription fee for someone else to
> load
> > an iPod for me??
>
> XM and Sirius aren't supposed to serve as a lazy man's iPod.
> Its about the discovery of new music. There is so much new
> music on satellite that doesn't get exposure on terrestrial
> radio, and can't be found on your iPod, because you haven't
> discovered it yet.
>
>
> >
> > Back to the XM/Sirrus thing, why pay for the subscription?
>
> > I have five thousand hours of music that I already like
> plus
> > new stuff with an semi-unlimited supply of battery power
> > (Sucks when the battery on the trucks dies).
> >
> > -Doc
> >
>
> Doc, if you prefer your iPod, that's fine. But it doesn't
> sound like you've ever tried satellite radio in the first
> place.
>
> Either way, people are paying for satellite to have
> something that they can't get for free from terrestrial
> radio, can't get from online radio, and get find on their
> iPods. The subscription numbers tell that story.
>
Right on all counts. Most of us probably never thought we'd be willing to pay a subscription to hear music (as we did viz a viz cable for television), but then none of us ever figured we would be so disenchanted with and sick of what terrestrial radio has become, either. From my perspective, the Sirius subscription is well worth not hearing interminable commercials and substandard programming foisted off on listeners by stations that are themselves held by owners in absentia who couldn't care less about listeners. The stations have become a license to print money and listeners are a commodity to be tolerated. True, satellite radio is a corporate undertaking headquartered a great distance away, but at least sat rad affords me what I want to hear and not corporately formulated music interrupted by commercials and some disembodied voice tracked "announcer."
 
> I listen to my iPod and get more enjoyment out of that than
> Satellite radio. If it where truly "Satellite Radio", then
> I could listen to other markets for my radio enjoyment.
>
> Why should I pay a subscription fee for someone else to load
> an iPod for me??
>
> Thanks to Disney leading the cause and Viacom backing it up,
> I am locked in my market for both radio and TV cause they
> don't want me to venture outside. That action also got me
> non interested in Satellite TV. I remember the fun I used
> to have in the C-band days when I could watch or listen to
> anything I could find.
>
> Back to the XM/Sirrus thing, why pay for the subscription?
> I have five thousand hours of music that I already like plus
> new stuff with an semi-unlimited supply of battery power
> (Sucks when the battery on the trucks dies).
>
> -Doc
> Hey Doc welcome back. How is the new gig going?
>
>
>
> > > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal from
>
> > > > subscribers after one year.
> > > >
> > > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> > Satelitte
> > >
> > > > service.
> > >
> > >
> > > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site the
>
> > > source of your statistics.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I really don't care if those numbers are right or not. I
> > LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio anymore.
> >
>
 
> > > > > FYI... Both XM and Sirius have only a 30% renewal
> from
> >
> > > > > subscribers after one year.
> > > > >
> > > > > Less than 30% of Infinity car owners opt for the
> > > Satelitte
> > > >
> > > > > service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > These numbers cannot possibly be right. Please site
> the
> >
> > > > source of your statistics.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I really don't care if those numbers are right or not.
> I
> > > LOVE my XM! I hardly ever listen to local radio
> anymore.
> >
> > My sentiments,also. There's little "local radio"
> > anymore--most is owned by some distant, disinterested
> > corporation that capitalizes on revenue and discounts
> > listeners. I'm a Sirius subscriber just renewing for the
> > third year of service. Both Sirius and XM are good, each
> > with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.
> >
> > The report of a 30% renewal rate is a bit hard to believe
> > but could be true among certain categories of subscribers
> > that would tend to "try and say good bye." The citation
> of
> > 70% not renewing may not refer to the general subscriber
> > base.
> > >
> >
> I as well have sirius in my home and car...it makes
> roadtrips a helluva lot easier to handle. Sirius may have
> the upper hand in the end due to their variety of
> programming coverage area and the fact Mel K has jumped on
> board to run the show.
>
I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed mobile internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think there's about ten years before that happens. That will be when streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless, terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will totally go away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money as it has been for years.

Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for many years too long. They have lost touch with what the listener wants, what they need. They care nothing about the communities they serve or even the clients really. They are living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be replaced by other broadcasting methods. Programming has suffered, and the public is mighty tired.

Every so many years radio has a Renaissance. When the network block programming was replaced with TV, radio had to re-invent itself. Music radio was born. When AM music radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both the diversity of format and superior sound quality. Now radio on FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what AM used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM. It appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the sun for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will replace them. One cord runs though all of this. We are in the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The public will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then there is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.

Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these days. I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that doesn't suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap. Something tells me many others feel the same way. In fact, over a million or so..

<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>
 
Sorry -- as long as I can get music on my regular radio,
I won't pay to listen.

Yep - I'm old fashioned.

Just seems silly to have to pay to listen when you can still
get the sound anyway.
 
> Every so many years radio has a Renaissance. When the
> network block programming was replaced with TV, radio had to
> re-invent itself. Music radio was born. When AM music
> radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both the
> diversity of format and superior sound quality. Now radio on
> FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what AM
> used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM. It
> appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the sun
> for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> replace them. One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
> what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The public
> will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then there
> is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
>
> Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these days.
> I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that doesn't
> suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> Something tells me many others feel the same way. In fact,
> over a million or so..
>
Insultant,you have the best post ofthe day. You managed to sum up why radio is on life support. Ther will be a "CONsultant lurking through here who will argue with your statements,but you are correct..period, unlike the self bragger who appears just before me.
 
Re: What IS the state of radio?

> >
> I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed mobile
> internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think there's
> about ten years before that happens. That will be when
> streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless,
> terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly
> loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will totally go
> away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money as it
> has been for years.

Radio has never been a license to print money. FCC figures through the time financial reports ceased to be required, and then independent reports, showed about half of all stations, from the 50's through the 90's, did not make money. There are too many of them.
>
> Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for many
> years too long.

There are many exceptions to that, enough to invalidate the point. And the 60's and 70's operators... folks like Max Richmond, Richard Eaton, Don Burden and such were probably far worse than any of the corporations of today.

> They have lost touch with what the listener
> wants, what they need.

In most cases, they have a better sense of that... the kinds of listener research and feedback that can be done today are vastly superior to the cash Box subscription and some calls to the record store.

> They care nothing about the
> communities they serve or even the clients really. They are
> living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be replaced
> by other broadcasting methods. Programming has suffered,
> and the public is mighty tired.
>
> Every so many years radio has a Renaissance.

If you look carefully, you might conclude that this change has been less apocalyptic and more gradual than it seems. Most is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

> When the
> network block programming was replaced with TV, radio had to
> re-invent itself. Music radio was born.

True and false. While TV hastened the move from network and block radio programming, the real reason was the plethora of independent stations licensed following the World War.

The first Top 40 station, generally agreed to be KOWH in Omaha in August of 1952, was not the first music station but it was the first music station with what are close to being today's formatics.

In 1952, the TV freeze was still on. TV only reached about 25% of the population, and very few people had sets. While TV would kill the network radio programming and bring about change, the end was really not until the late 50's. In the meantime, music stations, especially Top 40, sprouted all over the country.

> When AM music
> radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both the
> diversity of format and superior sound quality.

I fail to see that AM music radio was corporate (whatever that means) in the 70's. There was plenty of innovation in programming, but the erosion of AM had already started in the late 60's when the FCC mandated implementation of the dropping of simulcasting it had ruled on several years before.

By ending simulcasting, in the late 60's we saw all combo owned FMs create new programming, some good and some bad. But we got progressive rock in the late 60's, AOR in the early 70's, FM only CHRs in '72, and quite a few new formats on FM, like Spanish, and a few early Black targeted stations.

> Now radio on
> FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what AM
> used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.

The main reason FM started winning (parity was achieved in 1988) was the non-simulcast rule, not the programming itself. The programming was a byproduct of legislation. Since the FMs had low spot loads and were more adventurous since they started with no audience, they encroached on the AMs. AM was hardly dull, as a listen to KCBQ or KHJ or even WLS through the first half or more of the decade will show. Even small market CHRs like WBBQ in Augusta did very well... but in the end, the sound quality and lighter loads of commercials made a difference. Keep in mind, during the 50's and 60's, most major market CHRs ran the full 18 minutes.

> It
> appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the sun
> for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> replace them.

I agree on the probability that some form of broadband will replace satellite as an efficient delivery method. It may be superior to AM and FM, too.

I do not see XM and Sirius as having a day in the sun, however. At present, with around 8 million subscribers, they barely can break a 0.3 in local market ratings. In other words, below minimum reporting standards. It will take over 15 million subscribers to get around a 1 share (this assumes that the current ratio of in car to portable installs continues) based on average in car radio use of about 6 hours a day per person 18+.

There are 5% of Americans who do not use radio each week. There are another 7% or more of light users. If those who don't use because there is nothing they want in mass appeal formats buy sets, that will get the services to over 30 million subscribers and profitability. But will barely be felt by radio.

Broadband could be very different, totally remaking the business model for programming delivery.

> One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
> what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The public
> will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then there
> is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.

There have always been some sucky stations. I built my first one on the premise that the competitors were over-commercialized. I took all their audience and then some. But that is competition, not a major change in radio. The same will happen to today's radio. I don't see things as bad off as you do, but that is a matter of opinion and I certainly respect your criteria as you are looking at this as an opportunity, and not doing the usual slam radio post.
>
> Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these days.
> I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that doesn't
> suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> Something tells me many others feel the same way. In fact,
> over a million or so..
>

About 8 million as of this quarter.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by David Eduardo on 08/15/05 11:44 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: What IS the state of radio?

> > >
> > I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed mobile
>
> > internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think there's
>
> > about ten years before that happens. That will be when
> > streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless,
> > terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly
> > loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will totally go
>
> > away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money as
> it
> > has been for years.
>
> Radio has never been a license to print money. FCC figures
> through the time financial reports ceased to be required,
> and then independent reports, showed about half of all
> stations, from the 50's through the 90's, did not make
> money. There are too many of them.
> >
> > Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for many
> > years too long.
>
> There are many exceptions to that, enough to invalidate the
> point. And the 60's and 70's operators... folks like Max
> Richmond, Richard Eaton, Don Burden and such were probably
> far worse than any of the corporations of today.
>
> > They have lost touch with what the listener
> > wants, what they need.
>
> In most cases, they have a better sense of that... the kinds
> of listener research and feedback that can be done today are
> vastly superior to the cash Box subscription and some calls
> to the record store.
>
> > They care nothing about the
> > communities they serve or even the clients really. They
> are
> > living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be
> replaced
> > by other broadcasting methods. Programming has suffered,
> > and the public is mighty tired.
> >
> > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance.
>
> If you look carefully, you might conclude that this change
> has been less apocalyptic and more gradual than it seems.
> Most is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
>
> > When the
> > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio had
> to
> > re-invent itself. Music radio was born.
>
> True and false. While TV hastened the move from network and
> block radio programming, the real reason was the plethora of
> independent stations licensed following the World War.
>
> The first Top 40 station, generally agreed to be KOWH in
> Omaha in August of 1952, was not the first music station but
> it was the first music station with what are close to being
> today's formatics.
>
> In 1952, the TV freeze was still on. TV only reached about
> 25% of the population, and very few people had sets. While
> TV would kill the network radio programming and bring about
> change, the end was really not until the late 50's. In the
> meantime, music stations, especially Top 40, sprouted all
> over the country.
>
> > When AM music
> > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both the
> > diversity of format and superior sound quality.
>
> I fail to see that AM music radio was corporate (whatever
> that means) in the 70's. There was plenty of innovation in
> programming, but the erosion of AM had already started in
> the late 60's when the FCC mandated implementation of the
> dropping of simulcasting it had ruled on several years
> before.
>
> By ending simulcasting, in the late 60's we saw all combo
> owned FMs create new programming, some good and some bad.
> But we got progressive rock in the late 60's, AOR in the
> early 70's, FM only CHRs in '72, and quite a few new formats
> on FM, like Spanish, and a few early Black targeted
> stations.
>
> > Now radio on
> > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what AM
>
> > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.
>
> The main reason FM started winning (parity was achieved in
> 1988) was the non-simulcast rule, not the programming
> itself. The programming was a byproduct of legislation.
> Since the FMs had low spot loads and were more adventurous
> since they started with no audience, they encroached on the
> AMs. AM was hardly dull, as a listen to KCBQ or KHJ or even
> WLS through the first half or more of the decade will show.
> Even small market CHRs like WBBQ in Augusta did very well...
> but in the end, the sound quality and lighter loads of
> commercials made a difference. Keep in mind, during the 50's
> and 60's, most major market CHRs ran the full 18 minutes.
>
> > It
> > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the sun
> > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > replace them.
>
> I agree on the probability that some form of broadband will
> replace satellite as an efficient delivery method. It may be
> superior to AM and FM, too.
>
> I do not see XM and Sirius as having a day in the sun,
> however. At present, with around 8 million subscribers, they
> barely can break a 0.3 in local market ratings. In other
> words, below minimum reporting standards. It will take over
> 15 million subscribers to get around a 1 share (this assumes
> that the current ratio of in car to portable installs
> continues) based on average in car radio use of about 6
> hours a day per person 18+.
>
> There are 5% of Americans who do not use radio each week.
> There are another 7% or more of light users. If those who
> don't use because there is nothing they want in mass appeal
> formats buy sets, that will get the services to over 30
> million subscribers and profitability. But will barely be
> felt by radio.
>
> Broadband could be very different, totally remaking the
> business model for programming delivery.
>
> > One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
> > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The public
>
> > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> there
> > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
>
> There have always been some sucky stations. I built my first
> one on the premise that the competitors were
> over-commercialized. I took all their audience and then
> some. But that is competition, not a major change in radio.
> The same will happen to today's radio. I don't see things as
> bad off as you do, but that is a matter of opinion and I
> certainly respect your criteria as you are looking at this
> as an opportunity, and not doing the usual slam radio post.
>
> >
> > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> days.
> > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> doesn't
> > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> fact,
> > over a million or so..
> >
>
> About 8 million as of this quarter.

I agree many stations suck, but there are many many that are just as good and better than XM. Satellite is just something new. We'll see how well it's doing in 10 years.
>
 
> > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance. When the
> > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio had
> to
> > re-invent itself. Music radio was born. When AM music
> > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both the
> > diversity of format and superior sound quality. Now radio
> on
> > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what AM
>
> > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM. It
> > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the sun
> > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > replace them. One cord runs though all of this. We are
> in
> > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
> > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The public
>
> > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> there
> > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
> >
> > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> days.
> > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> doesn't
> > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> fact,
> > over a million or so..
> >
> Insultant,you have the best post ofthe day. You managed to
> sum up why radio is on life support. Ther will be a
> "CONsultant lurking through here who will argue with your
> statements,but you are correct..period, unlike the self
> bragger who appears just before me.

Mr. Murrow,

Maybe you're just fed up with radio because you are out of the game or never made much.

Reading your post thiese past few days i would say you don't get along well with people. Am i right?
>
 
> > > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance. When the
> > > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio
> had
> > to
> > > re-invent itself. Music radio was born. When AM music
> > > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> > > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both
> the
> > > diversity of format and superior sound quality. Now
> radio
> > on
> > > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what
> AM
> >
> > > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.
> It
> > > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the
> sun
> > > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > > replace them. One cord runs though all of this. We are
>
> > in
> > > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
>
> > > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The
> public
> >
> > > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> > there
> > > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> > days.
> > > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> > doesn't
> > > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> > fact,
> > > over a million or so..
> > >
> > Insultant,you have the best post ofthe day. You managed to
>
> > sum up why radio is on life support. Ther will be a
> > "CONsultant lurking through here who will argue with your
> > statements,but you are correct..period, unlike the self
> > bragger who appears just before me.
>
> Mr. Murrow,
>
> Maybe you're just fed up with radio because you are out of
> the game or never made much.
>
> Reading your post thiese past few days i would say you don't
> get along well with people. Am i right?
> >
>

I think Mr. Murrow is just reinterating what most of us have concluded about radio these days. David's comments are very intelligent, and I see and even agree with many of his points. As a (former?) owner of a station, I value his aspect of the business. I did'nt know statistically that 50 percent of radio stations were unprofitable. My guess is smaller operators account for a lot of the loss catagory as it is MUCH harder to clear a profit when the potential audience is lower. When I referred to the printing of money, I was making more of a reference to medium to large market radio clusters. Debt aside, the worst of radio properties in markets of these sizes make a hansome profit. Were most of them get into real trouble is the debt.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion!<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>
 
Re: What IS the state of radio?

> > > >
> > > I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed
> mobile
> >
> > > internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think
> there's
> >
> > > about ten years before that happens. That will be when
> > > streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless,
> > > terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly
> > > loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will totally
> go
> >
> > > away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money
> as
> > it
> > > has been for years.
> >
> > Radio has never been a license to print money. FCC figures
>
> > through the time financial reports ceased to be required,
> > and then independent reports, showed about half of all
> > stations, from the 50's through the 90's, did not make
> > money. There are too many of them.
> > >
> > > Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for many
> > > years too long.
> >
> > There are many exceptions to that, enough to invalidate
> the
> > point. And the 60's and 70's operators... folks like Max
> > Richmond, Richard Eaton, Don Burden and such were probably
>
> > far worse than any of the corporations of today.
> >
> > > They have lost touch with what the listener
> > > wants, what they need.
> >
> > In most cases, they have a better sense of that... the
> kinds
> > of listener research and feedback that can be done today
> are
> > vastly superior to the cash Box subscription and some
> calls
> > to the record store.
> >
> > > They care nothing about the
> > > communities they serve or even the clients really. They
>
> > are
> > > living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be
> > replaced
> > > by other broadcasting methods. Programming has
> suffered,
> > > and the public is mighty tired.
> > >
> > > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance.
> >
> > If you look carefully, you might conclude that this change
>
> > has been less apocalyptic and more gradual than it seems.
> > Most is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
> >
> > > When the
> > > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio
> had
> > to
> > > re-invent itself. Music radio was born.
> >
> > True and false. While TV hastened the move from network
> and
> > block radio programming, the real reason was the plethora
> of
> > independent stations licensed following the World War.
> >
> > The first Top 40 station, generally agreed to be KOWH in
> > Omaha in August of 1952, was not the first music station
> but
> > it was the first music station with what are close to
> being
> > today's formatics.
> >
> > In 1952, the TV freeze was still on. TV only reached about
>
> > 25% of the population, and very few people had sets. While
>
> > TV would kill the network radio programming and bring
> about
> > change, the end was really not until the late 50's. In the
>
> > meantime, music stations, especially Top 40, sprouted all
> > over the country.
> >
> > > When AM music
> > > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> > > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both
> the
> > > diversity of format and superior sound quality.
> >
> > I fail to see that AM music radio was corporate (whatever
> > that means) in the 70's. There was plenty of innovation in
>
> > programming, but the erosion of AM had already started in
> > the late 60's when the FCC mandated implementation of the
> > dropping of simulcasting it had ruled on several years
> > before.
> >
> > By ending simulcasting, in the late 60's we saw all combo
> > owned FMs create new programming, some good and some bad.
> > But we got progressive rock in the late 60's, AOR in the
> > early 70's, FM only CHRs in '72, and quite a few new
> formats
> > on FM, like Spanish, and a few early Black targeted
> > stations.
> >
> > > Now radio on
> > > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what
> AM
> >
> > > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.
> >
> > The main reason FM started winning (parity was achieved in
>
> > 1988) was the non-simulcast rule, not the programming
> > itself. The programming was a byproduct of legislation.
> > Since the FMs had low spot loads and were more adventurous
>
> > since they started with no audience, they encroached on
> the
> > AMs. AM was hardly dull, as a listen to KCBQ or KHJ or
> even
> > WLS through the first half or more of the decade will
> show.
> > Even small market CHRs like WBBQ in Augusta did very
> well...
> > but in the end, the sound quality and lighter loads of
> > commercials made a difference. Keep in mind, during the
> 50's
> > and 60's, most major market CHRs ran the full 18 minutes.
>
> >
> > > It
> > > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the
> sun
> > > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > > replace them.
> >
> > I agree on the probability that some form of broadband
> will
> > replace satellite as an efficient delivery method. It may
> be
> > superior to AM and FM, too.
> >
> > I do not see XM and Sirius as having a day in the sun,
> > however. At present, with around 8 million subscribers,
> they
> > barely can break a 0.3 in local market ratings. In other
> > words, below minimum reporting standards. It will take
> over
> > 15 million subscribers to get around a 1 share (this
> assumes
> > that the current ratio of in car to portable installs
> > continues) based on average in car radio use of about 6
> > hours a day per person 18+.
> >
> > There are 5% of Americans who do not use radio each week.
> > There are another 7% or more of light users. If those who
> > don't use because there is nothing they want in mass
> appeal
> > formats buy sets, that will get the services to over 30
> > million subscribers and profitability. But will barely be
> > felt by radio.
> >
> > Broadband could be very different, totally remaking the
> > business model for programming delivery.
> >
> > > One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> > > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
>
> > > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The
> public
> >
> > > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> > there
> > > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
> >
> > There have always been some sucky stations. I built my
> first
> > one on the premise that the competitors were
> > over-commercialized. I took all their audience and then
> > some. But that is competition, not a major change in
> radio.
> > The same will happen to today's radio. I don't see things
> as
> > bad off as you do, but that is a matter of opinion and I
> > certainly respect your criteria as you are looking at this
>
> > as an opportunity, and not doing the usual slam radio
> post.
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> > days.
> > > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> > doesn't
> > > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> > fact,
> > > over a million or so..
> > >
> >
> > About 8 million as of this quarter.
>
> I agree many stations suck, but there are many many that are
> just as good and better than XM. Satellite is just something
> new. We'll see how well it's doing in 10 years.
> >
>

There are many limitations to XM. The jocks are of rather poor quality. I wouldn't hire many of them to even work small market radio. For something that's pumped out of Washington D.C., the talent in general reeks. Also, I question their music rotation, frankly. I do believe they overcomensate with so much variety within the format of a particular channel they become too obscure in many cases. That being said, they serve a purpose mainly in that they serve audiences abandoned by terrestrial radio. If your format is Jazz, dance, industrial, real alt., big band, the blues, or many other formats not heard on terrestrial, then XM is quite a blessing. That's why I have it. It's not the quality of the channels in a way, it's the fact they have them. When streaming in your car happens it will be a much better choice I feel. Until then, if you want formats other than the norm, Sat. radio is a wonderful thing.

Also, people have made references to the fact that we, as FM broadcasters must go digital to be competitive to Sat. radio's sound quality. To my ears I'd say most stations have the digital grunge pumped out of XM and Sirrius all beat to hell. There is no analog noise or multipath issues, etc. via the bird, but the grunge is noticable to those persons that can hear well. Once again it's the ability to get a diversity of formats, not the quality of the broadcast really.


<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>
 
> Mr. Murrow,
>
> Maybe you're just fed up with radio because you are out of
> the game or never made much.
>
> Reading your post thiese past few days i would say you don't
> get along well with people. Am i right?
> >
>
MR Balls:
Fed up with radio? Yes, it's not really radio anymore, just a few real estate companies. Out of the game?Far far farrr from it. I made it many times. When an opportunity opened I made the best of it,as I am doing now and quite well, thank you. I get along with people fine. I don't have time however for over bloated egos or those with less than ten years experience thinking they are material for markets #1-10, and cannot take professional criticism to help them learn their craft. They don't feel they have to earn their way to success,and they are the ones who deserve to be called upon from time to time. As I pointed out to you before,if my posts annoy so much,why don't you just skip over it? 'nuff said.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom