This is pretty interesting. An article in today's Washington Times highlights the draw to Bob Dylan's show on XM Satellite Radio:
Rock legend Bob Dylan draws about 1.7 million listeners on XM Satellite Radio, making his weekly show one of the most popular that the subscription service offers, said XM President and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Panero.
Washington-based XM has more than 6 million subscribers. Mr. Panero would not tell us which programs draw the biggest audience on a daily basis, but he did say that "The Opie & Anthony Show," along with XM's comedy and news channels, tend to be the most popular.
Now, neither XM or SIRIUS expose the number of listeners for each of their channels. It's unfortunate because us fanboys would love to sit there and pick over any of these numbers - but then again, it's competitive intelligence. As long as no one is talking, why show your hand? (It would also serve as great market research for terrestrial radio.)
But XM has shown us a glimpse, here's the breakdown:
Total number of XM Radio Listeners* - 13.6 million
XM's The '70s - 2.1 million listeners
XM's The '80s - 1.9 million listeners
XM's 20-on-20 - 1.8 million listeners* Yes, "listeners" are different than "subscribers"
So... after seeing those numbers, knowing that Theme Time Radio Hour is bringing in about 1.7 million XM listeners is pretty damn impressive indeed.
How do they know how many people are listening to a given channel or show? Extrapolation from surveys?
Week in and week out Dylans "performance" is nothing short of amazing. As is the Opie and Anthony Show. XM Fucking Rocks!
Why are they keeping the ratings all secret? As a subscriber and a listener, I am interested about the rankings among Satellite companies and Terresterial radio.
i thought satellite radio was a failure. fucking experts on testical radio with thier thumbs up their asses.
>>>Why are they keeping the ratings all secret?
XM is an Arbitron subscriber. Arbitron does a specialized ratings reports for XM only. Since they are the only client to it, there are likely copyright issues with Arbitron that limits the amount of information that XM may make public. As well as competitive reasons... since XM "owns every radio station in the market", they have no reason to publicize the info as they can see which stations work, and which stations need work, via the ratings.
And especially since there is no advertising on the XM produced music channels, there are no ad agencies or national clients buying the numbers too. And since no one else will have access to it, there is no reason to publicize the majority of the info... and I agree with that philosophy. They can use the specific ratings info as a programming tool to tell them what works -- then use the broader info from time to time to tell the story of XM... like today with the Bob Dylan special.
Just know that Arbitron is "monitoring" XM -- and I do believe that they're using similar methods they use for terrestrial radio.
---------
homer985 said:
"XM is an Arbitron subscriber. Arbitron does a specialized ratings reports for XM only. Since they are the only client to it, there are likely copyright issues with Arbitron that limits the amount of information that XM may make public."
It goes beyond that, Homer. ALL Arbitron information is proprietary. That's why the only Arbitron numbers you ever see quoted in industry publications are the so-called "12+" figures. Arb won't let non-subscribers have access to the other numbers.
>>>It goes beyond that, Homer. ALL Arbitron information is proprietary.
Yes, I realize that, I was just getting less into specifics.
Arbitron limits the public distribution of info to Persons 12+ market share and rank. Outside of that, they only allow specific demo rankings for each station to be put out publicly. For example, they could publish Top 10 rankings for Persons 18-34, but not market share or other info.
Regardless, like I said, that info is meaningless to the average listener since XM owns all the stations. And since CUME and info like that is technically proprietary, like you said, they likely can't give it out. Nor should they.
Listeners?
talk about taking the number of subs and twisting and turining it till you have a number that looks so much better then the original.
so if they assume 2 listeners per xm sub..then that means only 850k subs listen to him...
and since 2 listeners = 1 sub, that would mean even if O&A were in 5th place, at 1.6m "listeners" it would mean they have less then 750-800k subs?
not real uber if you ask me. 800k of 6m is not good either...
I could have sworn that I read on this blog - many, many times - that O&A were the most popular station and show on XM. Could all the pests be wrong? Is it possible?
O&A have stated several times (and this is the only statement I remember seeing repeated here) that their show is in the top 5 at XM. Panero's statement seems to reflect that that's an accurate ballpark.
It's possible that "shows" are ranked separately from "channels" in XM studies, so O&A might not be competing with the 70's channel necessarily.
Pness,
Although on average XM is figuring on two listeners per sub, I'd be willing to bet that that breaks down differently for O&A than it does for some of the music channels.
For instance, I see myself as a fairly typical O&A fan. I have two subs for myself; a car/desk unit and an Inno. I'd say the ratio is probably close to 1:1.
On the other hand there are plenty of Starbucks and exercise gyms out there playing 20-on-20. That's what, 30, 40, 50 listeners at any given time per sub? That's how the average ends up 2:1.
If O&A really have 1.5M listeners I'd predict that they're bringing in about that many subs. I might be wrong of course.
I could have sworn O&A specified most popular 'talk' station, but I don't recall exactly..
Anyhoo, I'll have to start recording Dylan's show & check it out when I get home from work.
Where can I listen to Bob Dylan's show by way of the internet?
I don't have XM. I bought Sirius instead, simply because of Howard Stern, but I would really like to hear Bob Dylan's show. Sounds interesting.
>> I don't have XM. I bought Sirius instead, simply because of Howard Stern, but I would really like to hear Bob Dylan's show. Sounds interesting. >>
You could always sign up for a 3-day trial on XM online...
>>You could always sign up for a 3-day trial on XM online...>>
sounds good, Pete.
I'll just make sure to begin the trial the day before he's on.
XM getting him was a major coup.
>>>talk about taking the number of subs and twisting and turining it till you have a number that looks so much better then the original.
PNess, you are misunderstanding or at least belittling XM in this case. XM rarely comments about their number of listeners versus their number of subs. This is a rare situation, and in my opinion good use of it.
Furthermore, XM is not making that number up and/or pulling it out of thin air (the 2 listeners for every sub number). That number is based on solid research information from Arbitron -- which XM is a subscriber of for specific audience research. That number has been consistant for over 3 years now (I first heard it in 2003). They have plenty of historical data at this point to know that it is accurate.
Remember that XM isn't putting the number of "listeners" out in press releases or as selling points in advertising -- in fact, it was a passing comment in a newspaper article. That is hardly "twisting the numbers". If the program drew 1.7 million listeners -- and is the top listened to program, then by all means they should be heralding it. That's what radio does.
IMHO, you're critisim is a bit much and probably unwarranted in this situation.