Howard Stern Traffic & Searches Declining... Who Cares?
With Howard Stern's move from terrestrial to satellite radio, and his show gone from E! to OnDemand, visits to Stern's website and search queries are down - at least according to Hitwise (via Media Buyer Planner). This sparked my curiousity, because some people are using this data to say that his move to satellite hurt his celebrity.
So first, let's work backwards and take a look at search queries data. First, the Hitwise numbers:
Now, let's contrast these numbers with what Google Trends shows us:
Strange, the trend lines don't seem to match up... even if you just look at the same date ranges (Hitwise starts from March 2005 - right around the "D" mark on Google Trends).
OK, so let's look at overall website traffic:
Now, aside from the "siriusradio.com" thing - which redirects to sirius.com anyway - I wanted to see how this matches up with Alexa traffic results:
(Note that I'm only able to overlay sirius.com and howardstern.com on the Alexa chart.) These tend to be tracking with each other, as opposed to opposite each other as the Hitwise numbers seem to be.
Now wait, didn't comScore do something like this earlier this year? Oh yeah, that's right, they did. Let's take a look at their numbers as well:
Interesting.
Now... really all this proves is that each service's varying methodology has the ability to create different results. Interesting to say the least, but not nearly the law-of-the-land.
So that leads me back to the question of using this to measure the amount of celebrity. Does the decline in traffic and search queries (according to Hitwise) indicate a reduction in the 'celebrity' of Howard Stern?
Well... yes actually. He's talking to a lot less people now, so what? The thing I really don't like about both posts is that they are indicating that being on satellite radio is a step down in "status." But this form of media is still very much in it's infancy, yet the rate of adoption is faster than cell phones, cable and the Internet. Sure, right now the audience is relatively small... but what about in 2010?


Comments
In 2010? Retirement. This time without pay. :)
Posted by: History Guy ? | September 12, 2006 4:46 PM
There was an article in Crain's NY Business Magazine about how Howard's audience has practically vaporized into thin air. I never thought he could live up to the hype, and it took a big leap of faith to believe people would pay for what they were getting for free for so long. If that was supposed to be the only reason millions of otherwise disinterested people were supposed to have subscribed to satellite radio, that turned out to be a pipe dream.
Posted by: Max | September 12, 2006 5:09 PM
2010?
That must be the "END" be that everyone is talking about. Probably the point in time when Opie and Anthony will finally win. ;)
Posted by: Another Thought | September 12, 2006 5:11 PM
Howard who? Out of ear, out of mind. Satellite radio isnt the best place to try and garner attention. Nobody can just turn you on. Thats why his competitions deal is so beautiful. Spin it all you want but Howie is fading. Sad but true.
Posted by: tussel ? | September 12, 2006 5:44 PM
Quick with the post! Not everyone*. I wrote nobody, sorry.
Posted by: tussel ? | September 12, 2006 5:45 PM
"Satellite radio isnt the best place to try and garner attention. Nobody can just turn you on. Thats why his competitions deal is so beautiful. Spin it all you want but Howie is fading. Sad but true."
like it or not, Howard brought 20+ years of attention to Satellite radio, not the other way around.
Now, has his "competitions" deal made an impact at all?
Posted by: AIR ? | September 12, 2006 7:02 PM
again tussel is talking out of his ass again.
competition meaning mancow that lost his flagship station or o&a that are on in 20 markets AND sat.radio
witch you ALWAYS fail to mention.and this shit that boom all you do is turn on the radio you can still do that go to any store and but one.when stern was on old radio , if i lived in utah i still could not hear him with sat i can take him ant where.
Posted by: sternfan73 ? | September 12, 2006 7:19 PM
Fading away. He has his hardcore fans. I leave him alone now......
Posted by: tussel ? | September 13, 2006 12:54 AM
Considering that Sirius had 800,000 people before Howard announced he was leaving, and now have nearly $5 million...I would give him anywhere from 2-3 million of these folks. Considering talentless hacks like O&A drew a whole 30,000 people to XM, I would say Howard has been a huge success. Who else could have brought over an audience like this? Answer: no one. So is he fading away? No. This medium will continue to grow and its amazing how many people came with him immediately.
Posted by: Hey Now | September 13, 2006 10:33 AM
Again with the made up facts... You even dropped it from 35k to 30k this time. I will ask again - somebody show me where it says 35k were signed up for opie and anthony. Oh, thats right, a random caller on sterns show came up with that number so it must be fact.
I think it is pretty much accepted that Stern brought name awareness to Sirius and because of him many people chose it over XM. This does NOT mean that the 3.9 Mil or however many signed up since he announced went there for him. Only one of the four people I know with sirius actually listens to stern. That doesnt mean are at all relevant, but they make just about as much sense as the ones you are throwing out.
Posted by: MarkS ? | September 13, 2006 11:53 AM
Tussel wrote: "Considering that Sirius had 800,000 people before Howard announced he was leaving, and now have nearly $5 million...I would give him anywhere from 2-3 million of these folks."
First, why would you assume all of this growth is due to Howard when BOTH firms are adding subscribers, and Sirius even counts unsold Sirius equipped cars as part of it's subscriber figures? This is practically impossible to figure, but most media professionals would doubt you.
Secondly, who cares? Who stayed up all night to post all of those graphs? To prove what?
Posted by: Max | September 13, 2006 4:56 PM
well, if you take into cosideration he still has a ton of traffic and in a smaller medium (satellite radio), you gotta say he's doing excellent. He no longer has +12 million listeners. Howard has gone to satellite and still on top of the list of other radio personalities.
Also we assume that HOward is responsible for most of Sirius' growth due to the following:
Before Howard was on SIRIUS XM held 69% of the market share compared to 31%. Now that Howard is on Sirius it has completely shifted, Sirius now has 69% of the market share compared to 31% of XMs.
XM has been pummeled and has been outsold by Sirius ever since Howard announced. Stern effect is not quite over and i dont see it ending in the near future, especially witn X-mas right around the corner.
SIRIUS UP, XM Down,......Coincidence? We all know not.
Posted by: DodgerBlues ? | September 13, 2006 10:15 PM
well, if you take into cosideration he still has a ton of traffic and in a smaller medium (satellite radio), you gotta say he's doing excellent. He no longer has +12 million listeners. Howard has gone to satellite and still on top of the list of other radio personalities.
Also we assume that HOward is responsible for most of Sirius' growth due to the following:
Before Howard was on SIRIUS XM held 69% of the market share compared to 31%. Now that Howard is on Sirius it has completely shifted, Sirius now has 69% of the market share compared to 31% of XMs.
XM has been pummeled and has been outsold by Sirius ever since Howard announced. Stern effect is not quite over and i dont see it ending in the near future, especially witn X-mas right around the corner.
SIRIUS UP, XM Down,......Coincidence? We all know not.
Posted by: DodgerBlues ? | September 13, 2006 10:17 PM
markS, it used to cost an extra dollar for o&a. XM made $30,000. do the math.
Posted by: FaFaFluFly ? | September 13, 2006 11:33 PM
WAS NOT! It was 1.99. Who cares. And where did you get that market data from? Bridge Ratings? Just wait till Sept 18th.
Posted by: tussel ? | September 14, 2006 4:09 AM
Dodger Blues writes:
"Before Howard was on SIRIUS XM held 69% of the market share compared to 31%. Now that Howard is on Sirius it has completely shifted, Sirius now has 69% of the market share compared to 31% of XMs."
Those statistics are completely wrong- not even close.
I wonder what it is with people who care so much about what happens between XM and Sirius? Do people care so much about what happens between HBO and The Movie Channel? Do people stay up late at night calculating stats for Spike TV versus Animal Planet/
Who cares? Where does this nonsense come from?
Posted by: Max | September 14, 2006 7:44 AM
"markS, it used to cost an extra dollar for o&a. XM made $30,000. do the math."
I can make up facts too. Howard Stern has bone cancer. I heard it somewhere so it must be true.
Seriously, show me ONE place where that says 30,000 and I will apologize (messageboards dont count).
Posted by: MarkS ? | September 14, 2006 8:31 AM
"Just wait till Sept 18th."
Is that the day you emerge from your parent's basement?
Posted by: MikeHunt ? | September 14, 2006 9:23 AM
ok max....here we go:
http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/14764
there is one. let me know if you need more proof. :)
Posted by: DodgerBlues ? | September 14, 2006 10:13 PM
Proof of what? You misread the statistics Karmazin was giving out, as unreliable as those are. XM still has far more subscribers than SIRI, and XMSR does NOT count mere installations on cars sitting on factory lots waiting for delivery.
You wrote: "Before Howard was on SIRIUS XM held 69% of the market share compared to 31%. Now that Howard is on Sirius it has completely shifted, Sirius now has 69% of the market share compared to 31% of XMs."
Not only are your figures not in sync with Karmazin's, but he was talking about month to month subscriber growth, not total "market share" as you believed. And no one in the media biz seems to believe Howard has much to do with SIRI's growth, not at this point anyway. Heck, I AVOIDED Sirius because I don't think it's worth paying a monthly fee for a few hours of lesbian and toilet jokes. So the door swings both ways on that.
Posted by: Max | September 15, 2006 12:44 PM
Is everyone retarded? Howard Stern has never been bigger than he is now! He has spawned a revolution in subscription media that has never been achieved before. Stern has Sirius and Howard TV which are both sucessful pay services that are totally uncensored as well. He makes big laughes on a consistant basis unlike anyone radio has ever heard before. He is the definition of big business right now and he is in the white hot center of the sweetheart deal of the century with Sirius. He has propped up Sirius as the new leader of radio content anywhere. Stern will easily continue to dominate talk radio and the masses will continue to subscribe to hear him. No one has ever been able to take him down and they never will. Compared to the many previoius attacks on Howard throughout the years, this current one is weak. Nothing can replace Howard Stern, period.
Posted by: trey | September 20, 2006 2:19 AM
Both companies have seen their stock drop in general. However, XM is the only one trending up.
Despite all the hyping from fans and analysts who have invested heavily in Sirius, when will they all wake up to the reality that Sirius is a year away from junk bond status?
Dodger Blues, who cares what Sirius tells it's board members? The ticker tells the truth. Sirius DOWN, XM up.
Howard is turning 70 and he is still pushing porn radio. May God save his soul.
Trey, nice idol worship there. You think he cares about his fans loike you? That's where you buy loyalty in the long run. No one even talks about Howard anymore. Robin can't even use his ex-fame to get her show off the gorund.
Wake up.
Posted by: Grendelkid | September 29, 2006 10:55 AM