What we all knew already: Opie and Anthony ratings UP!!!! - Page 2

Jeff Gatie · 08-01-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Jeff,
It seems to me your cause in this thread is to talk up as much
about Sirius numbers as possible. I get it - you are a loyal Sirius
listener.

Yes, of course all these numbers are speculative and I'm surprised
we are continuing to go back and forth based on numbers we can't
prove.

My only point was that the FM deal has to be good for O&A and XM
because it is bringing far more exposure to O&A and XM than XM had
ever put into the duo. The boys have a huge listening audience,
CBS radio has plastered their faces on billboards and city busses and
a new commercial featuring O&A is due out in a week. In addition,
the boys are touting XM radio every day to their growing listening
audience. Even without numbers to prove how much subscribers
this all is bringing in, you can't deny that the deal is helping O&A
immensely -- and that was the point of this thread.

I realize you want to rub Sirius numbers in our faces, so if it makes
you any happier, I'll cry "uncle" here. XM has lost. We realize that.
Doesn't mean any XM loyalists will switch over to Sirius anytime soon,
though.

Ron, I would hardly call me a loyal Sirius listener, especially when I almost chose XM because of baseball and a true punk rock channel, prior to Sirius getting Howard. Also, my last post was the first to contrast Sirius vs. XM. I was not trying to "rub Sirius numbers in (y)our faces", I was just trying to debate your definitive statement that the Free FM deal was good for XM. You would not want me to state that "all of Sirius' subs are due to Howard" when they have added many more OEM installs, nor would you want me to say that NASCAR has "saved" Sirius when the numbers are not even in for Nascar. I do not say those things simply because there is no evidence. I have nothing against XM, I even agree with their playlists more than I do Sirius, they fit my musical tastes more.

I also never said the deal was bad for O&A, I only said it may be bad for XM. Of course it is good for O&A, they got what they wanted, but at what expense for XM? Also, I do not like credit being given to any personality or deal that the numbers do not support. If Howard did not back the "Stern effect" predictions with actual numbers, I'd be calling Karmazin and Stern on the carpet for it. I only ask the same of O&A's fans, otherwise it gives merit to the accusation of "Kool-Aid drinking fans" that both personalities and their fans hurl about.

As an aside, I thought we were having a polite, yet lively debate about O&A, as was discussed in your post above. If I came across as rubbing your nose in something, I apologize. I hope our conversations in the past about this subject and others would help you to realize it was not my intent.

Ronald Epstein · 08-01-2006, 12:52 PM

Jeff,

It's not a problem.

I realize you meant no ill intent.

TheLongshot · 08-01-2006, 02:22 PM

For churn numbers, there are too many variables out there to point at O&A as being the cause of it. There is the change in channels, gaining some, but losing some others. There is the sound quality issue. There is the fact that those who signed on for the yearly plan after the rate hike had their plans expire, which might have caused them to dump things. There may be other reasons as well for it.

Personally, I think it is a good thing for XM because as dedicated as O&A fans are, there probably aren't a huge amount of them. Now, they have the Howard spot and they can do what Howard has done for the past year on their show, give word of mouth about XM. Sure, some are going to be just satisfied with listening to the free broadcast, but there is added content with signing up, including being able to listen to them in a wider time slot.

Also, they are being featured prominently in their new ad campaign. (Even tho I don't really like the ads. They look too much like local radio station ads.)

Jason

Will Cunningham · 08-01-2006, 02:57 PM

Here is an interesting article I found on techdirt a couple of days ago. It supports that the deal has helped XM. The # of subscribers claiming O&A as the reason they signed up has doubled, which they are apparently asked when they sign up.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/op...ff-for-xm.html

Interesting stuff really.

Jeff Gatie · 08-01-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Cunningham

Here is an interesting article I found on techdirt a couple of days ago. It supports that the deal has helped XM. The # of subscribers claiming O&A as the reason they signed up has doubled, which they are apparently asked when they sign up.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/op...ff-for-xm.html

Interesting stuff really.

Uhhh, doubled from what? I thought it has been said they had no data on who signs up and/or listens for O&A, besides the data from the premium subs which were allegedly around 30,000. Without actual numbers this article is just spin. One thing is true, if O&A have doubled their appeal for new subs, something is gravely wrong in another part of XM to be causing all that shrink.

dailW · 08-01-2006, 05:22 PM

i think they will do fine on radio.XM wise who knows.i feel XM is a great service with great stations.if they just wanted to do free radio , i think XM will get by fine with ron & fez they are great and could carry that channel by themselves.

Jeff Adkins · 08-05-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

I love Patrice as well. But, having him on the Free FM show might not work very well since practically every other word out of his mouth is n*gger which is not allowed anymore.

Since when? Is this a new CBS policy? I remember during Stern's last month on FM it was still said quite a bit. It was practically every other word when they had Daniel Carver & his family on for that gameshow.

Quote:

I realize you want to rub Sirius numbers in our faces, so if it makes
you any happier, I'll cry "uncle" here. XM has lost.

XM has lost?? Lost what?? Yes, Sirius is gaining a larger share of the new subs but I wouldn't be so quick to say "XM has lost." I don't know that I would necessarily say there can be only one winner and one loser. Both could be winners if they could start making some money.

Jeff Gatie · 08-05-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

Since when? Is this a new CBS policy? I remember during Stern's last month on FM it was still said quite a bit. It was practically every other word when they had Daniel Carver & his family on for that gameshow.

The callers or guests could say it, but the hosts of the show could not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

XM has lost?? Lost what?? Yes, Sirius is gaining a larger share of the new subs but I wouldn't be so quick to say "XM has lost." I don't know that I would necessarily say there can be only one winner and one loser. Both could be winners if they could start making some money.

I think Ron was just being sarcastic.

Ronald Epstein · 08-05-2006, 01:28 PM

Yes, absolutely, it was sarcasm.

WillG · 08-06-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Since when? Is this a new CBS policy?

I believe that once the new indecency bill was signed into law, they put tighter restrictions in for what could go out over the air. N*gger was one of the things that could not be said anymore. It may have to be dumped out of now no matter who says it. They did a bit recently where Anthony read the long memo about what was not allowed to be said over the air to Benny Hill music.

They did finally have Patrice on the Free FM show last week. I didn't get to hear too much of it though

James St · 08-06-2006, 12:06 PM

CBS clamping down on what can be said in fear of a huge FCC fine. There have been a few occasions where O&A couldn't even play back a news story that aired over network television because CBS censored several words that were used in the news piece.