Inside Radio has a more dramatic take on Bridge Ratings' recent findings answering the question of how many Howard Stern listeners followed him to Sirius:
Maybe 1.3 million, says Bridge Ratings. And Dave Van Dyke finds “an apparent apathy” among those who’ve not already trailed him to Sirius. Bridge asked 3,200 Stern fans why they haven’t yet subscribed and 26% said they were listening to their “second choice” show on terrestrial radio. 15% said they didn’t miss Stern enough to shell out the $13 a month.
Not included in that report: 25% said costs were too high, and 20% don't see the value in satellite radio.
coughbullshitcough
Hmmm....
I second that opinion: coughbullshitcough.
How do they explain the fact that Sirius was dead in the water, then jumped from 600,000 to 4.5 million (and counting) listeners after Stern announced his impending arrival? And isn't Inside Radio owned by Clear Channel? Sounds like a whole lot of FUD to me.
Ultimately, I just have my doubts about the reliability of any ratings system that seems to rely on exit poll-type data rather than hard numbers.
If people can not see the value in Satellite Radio than they havn't even tried. I had to drop my truck off to be inspected and they gave me a loaner. I rolled my window down and listened to the wind.
Commercial radio is just unlistenable. Not only that but why do I have to hear bits on commercial radio that are just lifted from Bubba, Howard, hell probably even O&A too by small local DJ's.
People in Philly probably heard about.
I'm guessing there's an automobile deal in there somewhere - no way (IMO) that 4.5 million is 100% Stern fans. Mercury, for example, is offering factory-installed Sirius radio on *20* different models of their vehicles. Even if those cars don't sell, those subs are still counted, no?
I don't doubt he brought over a LOT of subscribers, but something tells me Howard's taking credit for a little more than he should.
The same people who see no value in sat radio, also see no value in satellite TV or DVDs for that matter.
they are dumb.
why buy a DVD when I can see the movie for free on NBC in 8 years?
Edit: The Mercury deal involves 20 different vehicles under their brand for 2006 & 2007. So logically, this deal would have kicked in January 2006 - coincidentally the same starting point for Stern.
"Commercial radio is just unlistenable."
Eh. Most people are simply too complacent, too stupid or just plain don't care.
Hell, Billy Gates built a multi-billion dollar company around an OS that's more of an impediment to productivity than anything else. Most people don't care that there are FAR better options out there. The same applies to Satellite Radio.
Let the masses suffer. They deserve it.
"Not included in that report: 25% said costs were too high, and 20% don't see the value in satellite radio."
That's a problem right there. People need to see that terrestrial radio is broken and SDARS is the fix.
$13 (and lower with multi-year plans) a month is really not much considering what you are getting in return.
I agree SatRadioFan.
People without satRadio don't have a clue what radio should sound like because they are used to hearing 15 minutes of commercials every hour and being able to predict the next three songs because they heard them exactly 60 minutes earlier.
Not one person I know with SatRadio has a complaint about it. Eventually, It'll be just like cable.
>> $13 (and lower with multi-year plans) a month is really not much considering what you are getting in return. >>
I just wish there wasn't so much to lay out for the hardware - they really need to make the receivers more affordable, or just rent them out as a cable company would.
The reason cable TV seems like a much more palatable concept to the masses is because people rent the equipment from the company, and it's $4-$5 per month at that.
Perhaps if there were some sort of trial/rental system whereby potential subscribers could get their hands on some basic receivers - which maybe are limited to a few dozen channels (similar to the sampling on DirectTV) and would have the built-in FM modulators as well, so there wouldn't be a need for too much technical prowess.
The listeners would then be satisfied with the limited channel selection (and hardware) and paying a smaller monthly subscription, or have enough interest to upgrade.
Come to think of it, maybe instead of a whole new line of 'rentable' hardware, perhaps XM & Srirus could have some sort of tiered channel system for different price plans. $7 a month gets you the standard commercial-free music stations, and higher plans get you the more specialized channels, along with the premium programming such as the sports broadcasts. Cable & satellite TV charge extra for baseball & football packages - why not sat. radio as well?
"perhaps XM & Srirus could have some sort of tiered channel system for different price plans."
A fine idea in theory, but I think they need to keep things simple. Complicated pricing schemes will just confuse users. I agree with you that cheaper hardware is the key. The cheapest models either company offers is around $60 (and I'm not even sure if a dock is included with that). People have been conditioned to expect low prices for radios, which have been commodity items for decades. When you can pick up a cheap-shit transistor radio for under $10, that's what people will perceive radios should cost.
I don't know what the margins on the hardware are, but the SatRads should take a page from the gaming industry (ignoring the next generation of consoles, which, aside from Nintendo, are priced outrageosly high) and consider selling some of their hardware at a loss. I would think it's the subscription that counts.
Also Cable companies have a set audience. You can't watch regular TV any more unless you have cable. Some people I know have huge antennas because they refuse to pay a monoply company but they had to pay for the equipment.
Cable gets away with it because the government turns cheek. Well until recently.
I lower cost rate might confuse customers if they have a billing schedule and price list as long as a cable companies but if Sirius/XM have 2 or 3 options then it could work. Think full sub for 12.95. Half sub (music only and online) On-Line sub only with nothing but music.
I am not a huge on-line listener until today because I am in my car almost everyday for the entire day.
"I just wish there wasn't so much to lay out for the hardware - they really need to make the receivers more affordable, or just rent them out as a cable company would."
Receivers start at $50-$60, that's certainly not expensive. Considering things like the price of gas ($60 to fill up the tank), and people dishing out $300-$400 for an iPod (which playlists are stale and predictable), I don't think $60 is outrageous for something that provides thousands of hours of entertainment.
Now if we can just convince Joe Sixpack.
"Receivers start at $50-$60, that's certainly not expensive."
No, it's not. But as I said before, Joe Sixpack perceives it as too expensive for a radio.
SatRadioFan- Ipods have stale and predictable playlists? How can that be? ROTFLMAO
>> Complicated pricing schemes will just confuse users >>
I'm not so sure - they certainly have various packages for cable & satellite TV - why not radio?
I really think it's a matter of marketing and making it *ultra-clear* what one gets for what amount of money.
For example:
$7/month pricing plan you get:
- all the decade channels
- 5 or 6 rock channels (classic, modern, pop, alternative, etc)
- 1 or 2 specialty channels from each genre - blues, jazz, classical, reggae, etc.
- 3 or 4 news stations (FoxNews, CNN, ESPN radio, etc)
- The 'base' channel for the sport that each service carries (MLB Homeplate for XM, NFL channel on Sirius, etc.)
And you offer all this on a basic model of receiver - one that has limited features (only receives the channels on the basic plan) but enough is included to be able to hook up in the car or the home (FM modulator, baby)...
Then for the full price you fill in all the remaining channels, and you either have the option of unlocking the channels on your basic receiver or just getting the more advanced hardware & having more features - recording, 'tuneselect' (XM), etc, etc..
IMO, the average joe just does NOT want to shell out the money for the hardware as well as the subscription fee every month. At least not at the price point it's at now.
I was a loyal Stern listener for 15 years but lost interest during his 8 month infomercial for John Kerry.
You have to admit his show has sucked for the last 2 years. He himself said it's sucked for the past 10. I don't agree.
O&A entertain me just as much if not more and it doesn't cost me a cent.
I still read daily Stern show breakdowns but he went for the money grab and used the censorship as an excuse.
Damn I spend more on take out a month than the monthly plan is worth shell it out tune it in and you will never regret it. Censorship was the straw that broke the camels back Howard is back JOIN THE REVOLUTION BROTHERS!!!!
Man you guys have got to be kidding me. I guarantee anyone saying its not worth it does not have sirius, because ive never heard anyone who has it complain once. And if you cant afford the 13 bucks a month then work an extra half hour ever week & you'll be glad you did. the other 198 channels are GREAT but its worth the money just for howard. Hes at the top of his game right now, and the monthly fee is chump change for the amazing service.
"Perhaps if there were some sort of trial/rental system whereby potential subscribers could get their hands on some basic receivers - which maybe are limited to a few dozen channels (similar to the sampling on DirectTV) and would have the built-in FM modulators as well, so there wouldn't be a need for too much technical prowess."
There is a free trial at sirius.com