Now that we have the Arbitron ratings for Sirius and XM, I wanted to put together some channel comparisons so we can see how the audiences for either service differs in behavior.

So here's the Top 10 channels, based on total cume, for Arbitron's Spring 2007 book

For XM Satellite Radio:

1. Top 20 On 20
2. Flight 26
3. The 70s On 7
4. The 80s On 8
5. The 60s On 6
6. Top Tracks
7. Highway 16
8. The Blend
9. The Heart
10. Fox News

For Sirius Satellite Radio:

1. Howard Stern 100
2. Sirius Hits 1
3. Howard Stern 101
4. New Country
5. The Pulse
6. Octane
7. Hair Nation
8. Classic Vinyl
9. Blue Collar Comedy
10. Sirius Gold

Now when we combine the two...

Here's the Top 10 channels on satellite radio:

1. Howard Stern 100 - Cume: 1,225,100
2. Top 20 On 20 - Cume: 1,055,300
3. Flight 26 - Cume: 713,700
4. The 70s On 7 - Cume: 654,100
5. Sirius Hits 1 - Cume: 653,200
6. The 80s On 8 - Cume: 648,900
7. The 60s On 6 - Cume: 619,600
8. Top Tracks - Cume: 607,600
9. Highway 16 - Cume: 554,100
10. The Blend - Cume: 548,000

Arbitron has released the Spring 2007 ratings for both XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.

The report breaks out each service's channel by channel data of both cume (short for "cumulative audience" - essentially the unduplicated persons or households listening during a specific period) and AQH (Average Quarter Hour - the average number of persons listening to a station for at least five minutes during a 15-minute period).

XM led significantly with a cume of 10.33 million listeners versus the 6.6 million listeners at Sirius.

But Howard Stern owned the top spot as the most-listened to satellite radio channel with over five times as many listeners as Opie & Anthony:

• Sirius' Howard 100 (ch 100) had a cume of 1.22 million listeners and an AQH of 96,700
• XM's The Virus (ch 202) had a cume of 216,800 listeners and an AQH of 20,800

While Howard 100 was the #1 most listened to satellite radio channel, XM's Top 20 on 20 (ch 20) ranked as #2, with 1.05 million cume listeners and an AQH of 21,800 listeners.

XM's listening is more evenly distributed, while Sirius is more Howard Stern-biased (Howard 101 even had a cume of 502,000 and AQH of 30,700).

Check out the full Arbitron ratings report here (PDF).

[via Radio-Info]

Oh sure, there's a merger going on so everyone's one big happy family right? Not exactly. Everyone still wants to see how Sirius' and XM's satellite radio subscribers are stacking up against each other.

So here's some charts and numbers using the latest subscriber information to break it all down for you.

Total Satellite Radio Subscribers:

Sirius Satellite Radio: 7,142,538
XM Satellite Radio: 8,250,000

The above chart shows the total cumulative subscribers starting from the fourth quarter of 2001 and how both Sirius and XM subscribers have grown comparative to each other.

Quarterly Net Subscribers

Sirius Satellite Radio: 561,493
XM Satellite Radio: 338,000

Here you can see how Sirius and XM have added NET subscribers on a quarterly basis, going back to 2005. For the seventh consecutive quarter, Sirius has beaten out XM in net satellite radio subscriber additions.

Quarterly Gross Subscribers:

Sirius Satellite Radio: 1,002,145
XM Satellite Radio: 942,000

This chart shows the quarterly GROSS subscriber additions between XM and Sirius. I find that gross subscribers are a very important metric to track, because it eliminates variables (like churn) and shows the true market penetration. For the third consecutive quarter, Sirius has outpaced XM in gross subscriber additions. This even beats out the "Stern Effect" from last year.

 

So now that we have the full data from both XM and Sirius for 4Q06, let's look at my favorite metric: gross subscribers. Again, the reason why I like looking at gross subs is because it shows an untainted view of market penetration. 

And what a difference a year makes.

Looking at 2005, it's clear that XM held the dominating position in gross subscriber additions. Even in the fourth-quarter of 2005, XM still held out past Sirius even despite "the Stern Effect" (now being referred to as "the Stern Bubble" by Sirius management). When 2006 rolled around, XM still continued to hold its own, but by Q4 Sirius made a massive jump.

For the first time in satellite radio history, Sirius outpaced XM in gross subscribers for the quarter. This is significant.

Sirius now is at nearly the same number of subscribers as XM was a year ago. In 2006, the reasoning behind XM's poor net subscriber additions was that churn restricted net growth. I'd be interested to see if Sirius follows this trend, or whether they will be able to learn from XM and keep churn in check.

Either way, it's clear that for the moment, the tide has turned.

David Hinckley has a piece in the New York Daily News today on NASCAR's partnership moving from XM to Sirius, and how both services are appealing to the NASCAR fan.

The five-year, $107.5 million deal that Sirius inked with NASCAR allows them to broadcast all 36 races starting this year. Sirius carries 12 hours of live NASCAR talk every day, including the David Poole and Marty Snider morning show and NASCAR driver Tony Stewart's show every Tuesday night. Sirius also provides separate channels of in-car audio between the driver and pit crew during the races.

"Our package is radically different from what XM offered," says Sirius' Scott Greenstein. "We treat NASCAR like we treat the NFL. We talk about the race all week, we carry the race and then we have a five-hour post-race show."

Meanwhile XM still provides NASCAR-related talk and coverage, but not the live races.

"We're still in the game," says XM's Eric Logan. "We just do it differently. We looked at how people were using the channel, and most of it was to talk about the races, not listen to them. So we saved $20 million a year and kept what most subscribers wanted."

With 75 million NASCAR fans, it's all part of Sirius' strategy to target young men.

"We have Howard Stern, NFL football, the Playboy Channel and other programming that already appealed to those listeners," Greenstein says. "So NASCAR fits right in, even though it stands on its own."

[New York Daily News]

In a recent survey by The Channel Checkers, Sirius was recommended by retailers by 60% while XM was favored by 30% of retailers. 10% said that either/or were fine or equal (leaving 20% who said... nothing? yeah..wait, what?).

It's quickly noted in the article that the survey includes Radio Shack which has a tight relationship with Sirius. Interestingly enough, 10% of retailers at Radio Shack actually recommended XM - this may be due to the fact that reportedly some Radio Shack retailers offer XM as well.

Of the reasons why Sirius was recommended more than XM was NFL, NASCAR and Howard Stern. For XM's recommendations it was more music selection and... French channels. 

The article also reports that while last year there was a significant lean towards Sirius, this year the respondents reported much closer to 50/50 - in terms of new subscriber activations. Curious.

So while it's being recommended more by retailers, new sub activations remain in parity? Odd. That said, The Channel Checkers is predicting that Sirius should outpace XM in terms of new subscriber additions in Q4 of this year.

[The Channel Checkers] 

No doubt today the marketing folks at XM are talking about this article (every internet marketing professional reads ClickZ). They do a simple test of grabbing two people who are theoretically in the market for satellite radio, and get their input for surfing on XM's website.

The result is none-too-pleasing and worse... it's dead on.

XM's user interface leaves a bit to be desired as we figured out earlier this year, and not to mention that the look-and-feel has largely been unchanged since launch. But what the ClickZ article didn't touch on is Sirius' website (I suspect that'll be "Part 2"). I'd like dive a bit deeper into XM's homepage, and take a poke at Sirius' while we're at it.

 

First, while I think the big Flash banner on XM's homepage was a step in the right direction from the previous design, it takes up too much real estate to deliver too small of a message. Yes, the slides automatically rotate but there's too little information.

I much prefer Sirius' approach (below) where the promotional slideshow, the music neighborhoods, and a receiver spotlight are all above the fold and readily available. XM wastes a lot of real estate there, even the navbar is a bit wasteful.

 

Sirius also has two simply calls-to-action: "Get SIRIUS Now" and "Listen for Free." Done. Simple. XM's call-to-action are a bit all over the place: "Shop XM Radio," "Listen Now," "Get An XM Radio," "Sign up for a free trial" ... too much stuff.

Another thing that Sirius does is show their key content offerings right in the upper-left corner. Guess what everyone talks about when they talk about Sirius' content? You got it: Howard Stern, NFL, Martha Stewart. Sirius reinforces this. XM instead makes you scroll down to see their key offerings (or wait for the slideshow to rotate).

Speaking from a subscriber's point of view, XM also has a big glaring problem. It's hard to figure out where to manage your account. If I want to update my profile, the LAST thing I'll think of is to go to Customer Service - that's left for when I'm having problems with my account. Sirius puts the Manage Account link exactly where you expect it. On the flip side, I much prefer XM Radio Online to SIRIUS Internet Radio.

Honestly, I much prefer Sirius' website overall to XM's, though I have to say the flashy animations get annoying. Give us a way to turn that off easily please Sirius?

(Oh, and just so I'm not such a negative-Nancy, I'm quite impressed with XM's Exclusive Music section. It's a better look. Simple and clean.)

I could go on and on about this, but I'd rather hear what you all have to say. What was your impression before you subscribed to either service about their websites? What about as a subscriber what problems/benefits do you encounter?

[ClickZ]

In a duopoly, such as that in the satellite radio industry, it's a given that the media will do a "versus" comparison from time to time... many of which I ignore. They're usually the same crap and ultimately give you a wishy-washy conclusion ("if you like Howard Stern, go with Sirius - but if you like Oprah, go with XM!" yeah, great, thanks).

But this beauty on Associated Content caught my eye. First off, I should at least applaud the author for making a choice (Sirius won) - and the comparison is based on personal experience - but there's a few holes and I'm going to exploit here. So let's get to it shall we?

"XM has a bad habit of repeating songs. I may end up hearing one song five times in one day within a few hours period. With Sirius, that isn’t the case."

...has anyone experienced this? Maybe I'm listening to different channels than this author.

"Furthermore, I do not like the way XM names its stations."

...ok, I need to agree here. While cute, many of the channels are just too ambigious for the newbie to instantly know what kind of music is being played. But that's also what the neighborhoods are for - if you're in the Rock neighborhood, you kind of know what you're going to get (take a guess... Rock, good job). That said, Sirius isn't necessary innocent of this either. "Buzzsaw" and "Area 33" are really self-explainitory either. But aside from all that... is this really friggin big deal?

"Sirius satellite radio broadcasts a lot clearer than XM, especially in relation to the talk channels. People’s voices come across a lot smoother and can be easier understood than XM, which tends to be fuzzy."

...huh? Bandwidth - and subsequently sound quality - varies from channel to channel. I wonder if she's comparing a traffic channel to Howard 100. There's crappy sounding talk channels on both services. Sorry, that's the truth.

"It’s true that XM has 90+ music channels, 10+ sports channels, 20+ news and talk channels, along with a few traffic channels."

...90+ eh? Try 69.

"Along the same lines, if you will be doing a lot of listening to talk shows, Sirius has more of the popular shows such as “Discovery,” “Howard Stern,” and “Martha Stewart.” What celebrity talk show does XM have? The “Oprah Winfrey“ show. Sirius also has “Playboy Radio.” What does XM have that could compete with that? Nothing."

...she counts "Discovery" as a popular show? Nothing about HGTV or Food Network on XM? What about Dale Earnhart Jr? Jimmie Johnson? Ellen Degeneres? Cal Ripken Jr? Tyra Banks? Oprah's not even on yet!

If you're going to do a comparison, at least do a bit of research. Basing it on personal preference is fine - hell, that's the deciding factor for everyone - just try and give it a fair shake though. Want my bottom line? Fine, here it is: if you like Howard Stern, go with Sirius - but if you like Oprah, then go with XM.

[Associated Content] 

Bridge Ratings has traditionally been showing very positive trend numbers for SIRIUS Satellite Radio over the past few quarters, and rightfully so as SIRIUS has done an absolutely incredible job of adding new subscribers - much of that is due to Howard Stern.

The question on many people's minds, investor's and industry watchers alike, is whether this growth is sustainable. Sure, no one expects the hoards of people to continue signing up at the rate they were doing in Q4 and Q1, but exactly how much influence does Stern have for a long-term effect? Bridge attempts to answer this.

Bridge Ratings estimates that a total of 8.4% of Stern's terrestrial audience (not a small amount mind you - that's 1.1 million listerners) have made the move to satellite radio. For the remaining listeners though, Bridge noted that there's "an apparent apathy for future subscriptions" and that The Stern Effect seen during their satellite radio trends from 4Q05 through 1Q06, "has virtually stalled."

Bridge Ratings asked 3,200 Stern listeners 18+ between April 1 and May 8, "why haven't you yet subscribed to Sirius satellite radio?", these are their responses:

1.	Don't miss listening to the Stern show enough to subscribe	31%
2.	Equipment and monthly subscription costs too high	23%
3 .	Listening to a morning show that was my second choice before	20%
4.	Don't listen to morning radio right now	11%
5.	Don't see the value of satellite radio	10%
6.	Don't Know	5%

Bridge Ratings is also projecting that over the last ten weeks 1,142,312 additional satellite radio subscriptions have occurred at the retail level and that since early April, the retail subscriptions have swung in favor of XM after being dominated by SIRIUS.

I'm curious to see if this continues (or changes) as new devices, from both XM and SIRIUS, are unveiled in the coming months and as preparations for the 2006 Holiday season begin.

Bridge has more metrics about retail awareness and consumer preferences, you can check them out here. 

Celebrities in Satellite Radio are a key aspect to driving public awareness of each service. In general, most celebrities don't spend much time on the air, but that doesn't really matter. They're meant to get people through the door and hooked on the service. Think the Victoria Secrets "million dollar bra" or the Dodge Viper - most will never wear or drive one - but who cares, you're going to buy the Ipex or Caravan anyway.

AdRants has an enlightening writeup on the different approaches taken by SIRIUS and XM Satellite Radio when it comes to the celebrities they choose to sign on. According to recent research from E-Poll, a celebrity appeal research company, there are dramatic differences in public opinion for satellite radio celebrity talent. XM's talent has more "universal" appeal, while SIRIUS' selection is far more polarizing as illustrated by E-Poll's E-Score rating.

This shows key strategic differences in XM's and SIRIUS' approach, both of which I think have their positive and negative aspects.

Take XM's "universal" approach, while people will have a generally favorable opinion of these celebrities, there doesn't exist the same level of "passionate" fans who would do anything for these personalities. On the flip side of that coin, you won't be driving away any subscribers either.

SIRIUS' more polarizing approach that both attracts the hardcore fans, yes, like Stern's fanbase. But it also has the potential of preventing some subscribers from signing up because they find Stern "mean" and "rude."

Which approach is better? Neither. Both. There's plenty of the market to go around.

[AdRants]