A recent Bridge Ratings study found that satellite radio listeners leads other radio formats in attracting Influentials, nearly 30% more than all of traditional radio.
"Influentials" are segments of the audience who are enthusiasts, who influence others to act on or consume products or services. They're a group of very active consumers who others turn to for advice and product recommendations. In other words, they're the hubs of word-of-mouth marketing.
And the Bridge study found that Satellite Radio Influentials are ten times more passionate about their experience than their terrestrial radio counterparts.
This isn't surprising, since most satellite radio listeners are also subscribers. So they are passionate enough to pay for radio while others simply turn on the radio.
Knowing that satellite radio listeners far outweigh terrestrial radio listeners in their word-of-mouth clout holds more value than you think. Because aside from Sirius and XM trying to appeal to Influentials, there's another group that desperately wants to get on their good side... advertisers.
Audio entertainment isn't the only rapidly evolving segment of the media right now. Everything in media is changing, including the rules on how companies market their product to their core audience. In an age where peer networks have more chops than the traditional 30-second spot, the one group marketers want to target is the New Influential.
And this study shows that satellite radio is chock full of them. Might be something for the Ad Sales folks to look into the next time they're courting a prospect.
This is a double edged sword IMHO. To reach the "influencers" Sirius and XM would need to place ads on the music channels. As soon as they place ads on the music channels they lose millions of influencers. Placing them on the talk channels doesn't really work so well because you are reaching the minority of listeners.
Double-edged sword my ass. How can having influencial buyers and trendsetters adopting your product be a bad thing in any way? They arent about to change the whole setup bc a bridgeratings survey and advertise the shit out of the music listeners. These people are useful when sirius annouces deals around the shopping season and those influencers spread the word and convince others to buy, as well as buy for others. rethink what you said, it definitely did not need to be mentioned.
That last comment was by me, TheHoff. And you better not forget it.
Anyone who doesn't think that advertising will eventually seep into the music channels on a combined Sirius/XM after a merger is living in a dreamworld. What would stop them? The only reason XM stopped running ads on their music channels was because Sirius hammered them with advertising saying they had the only "100% Commercial Free Music"
Once that competitive pressure is gone - satellite radio will start to suck just as much as terrestrial radio - if not more. And please don't tell me that "competition" from iPods and internet radio is going to keep satradio honest. Please.
Satellite radio, if the merger goes through, still has tons of competitve pressure. It's not just iPods and internet radio, it's any form of audio based entertainment fighting for listeners. Terrestrial radio, HD radio, CDs, concerts, cable/satellite tv music channels. Hell, you can expand it to television in general since it takes your time from listening, concerts, plays, live sports because games are better in person. It's not like they have only have two competitors.
What's stopping them is in your own arguement of Sirius hammering XM with ads of '100% commercial free music'. As soon as a station would air one commercial, terrestrial radio would pounce on them with ads of 'Why pay for satellite? We have commercials in our stations, too...and we're free'. They don't want that from terrestrial radio or fans complaining...
A second reason is in your other arguement of "don't tell me competition is going to keep satradio honest". They start to lie to subscribers, they pay the price in losing them. And then being advertised by old subscribers, news papers, terrestrial radio, etc. as liars. You're arguements...please.
and beginning now, the advertisers will start to give a second look to placing ads on sat radio because they are not only growing, but tend to influence others into spending--i think they get more bang for the buck on sat radio as there is a limited amount of ads and so people pay attention more
What would stop them?
Cancellations will stop them. I have 8 radios between the two services. If they air ads on the music channels I will cancel every single one of them. I know for a FACT that I am not alone. Read some of the forums. You'll see. People will put up with shitty sound quality and their favorite channels being dropped but draw the line at ads. I won't pay money to listen to ads on radio. At least not music channels.
Ads on XM were well before my time so I don't really care about that. I don't even care about the Clear Channel stations on XM. I understand that it wasn't XM's choice and if it were they wouldn't be there.
My iPod is FULL of music and I will go right back to buying my tracks one at a time or downloading indie tracks from band websites if it happens.
And here we see the real fear of the NAB. Paying rights is a moderate battle for them. The 15 million plus "influential" targets that the merger would create will be an irresistible target for Madison Avenue. Even if it's just talk / sports / traffic channels, more budget will go to SatRad, and that leaves less pie for the AM/FM leeches.
Someday, one of these clever corporations is going to bypass Madison Avenue, the content deliverers, and everyone else by paying the artists to start every song with their jingle. How are we going to bitch at XM-Sirius if the artists beat them to the punch?
This post is in search of a sponsor.