Life without Stern isn't pretty... (1 Viewer)

For those who underestimate his impact on Sirius:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/27/news...ings/index.htm

I don't see how this can be used to judge his impact on Sirius in any way.

There's is a BIG difference in what people are willing to pay for, and what they will tune in to for free.

For these Clear Channel markets mentioned in that article, there are many others around the country, in which Stern's ratings are falling. For instance, he's something like #9 in D.C., he's lost the #1 spot in Boston to a local team, and he's losing ground in New York....all former strongholds of Stern's.

Now, I'm not denying who he is in the radio business, but go check around on Stern based message boards. There are more and more die hard Stern fans now saying that they can't stand his show anymore, that all he does is complain, that he's not funny anymore, but most importantly...that they'd never PAY for his show at this point.

Plus it's been announced that he will have just as many commercial breaks on Sirius that he has now, that he's working Mon-Thurs, and that there'll be a price hike upon on or around his arrival.

When you consider all of these factors...how great is the offer to the consumer?

I'm only a casual Stern fan, but I've decided to switch to Sirius - primarily because of Stern. I've recently become more interested in listening to music, so the two will go well together I believe.

The $500 million is of course about getting new listeners over - no doubt. But remember all the free publicity Sirius is getting from this. And it's only going to increase for the next year.

I think they overpaid. I believe Stern was ready to retire and that was the amount if took to convince him otherwise. Still, I think they made the right move.

Something else to consider. Stern has a very polarizing effect. I bet for every 2 people that sign up for Sirius because of Stern they will probably lose one potential customer who picks XM because they despise Stern. Without getting into stereotypes I can imagine people walking into Best Buy and seeing Stern on Sirius and Dr. Laura on XM and it will be a "moral" decision for a lot of people. I don't care about either, just want my sports talk that XM provides.

Yeah, if you have high morals, go with the provider that streams the Playboy channel and who hired the DJs that broadcast a couple fucking in the largest cathedral in the nation.

Whew, $500 mil! I'd hardly call that "free publicity"!

Yeah, but would your mom know who Opie and Anthony are? I bet most people don't have a clue who they are or what they represent, but most everybody knows Stern and Dr. Laura. On top of that you have to pay extra on XM in order to subscribe to their Playboy and O&A channel. Stern will just be another channel right? So anybody who had Sirius could tune into his uncensored show. I'm sure that will be a real hit with parents.

We Howard fans are loyal. Will 'the majority' of fans migrate to a pay service to hear him? Probably not. However, even if only 40% of us make the trip, Sirius wins.

I don't think that this innovation and the exodus from terrestrial radio is about morality. At least not directly. It's no different than cable television. Those few (and I do believe that the numbers are a LOT fewer than we are led to believe) who oppose so-called amoral programming (Stern, O&A, ManCow. etc.) don't have to buy in to Satellite Radio, just like they don't have to buy in to Cable/Satellite TV. But it seems as though they do, doesn't it? People know what they are paying for, and can either exercise the use of the tuning knob, or not. I think that a large part of the move to satellite is more about the over-commercialization of that medium. Since the FCC allowed 3 major corporations to control the majority of affiliate stations, we've seen major changes in the types of programming available to us.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Just this last month, KSJO, longtime rock staple in this area, went all-Latino programming. Clearly this is a response to the need in the marketplace, but us rock 'n roll fans are once again left out in the cold. Where does a guy like me go to hear rock on the radio now? The answer is obvious.


Satellite radio is the radio of the future. We are in the medium's infancy, and I expect that we will see massive changes in the next few years. As far as a rate increase when Stern shows up, I've been offered a "guarantee" that this will not be the case. I've been told that those of us who chose to sign on early will be "grandfathered" in, and will not bear the cost on increased overhead. We'll see, huh?

I'd think that the big decision to be made would only be Sirius or XM, which to choose? Stern fans have already made up our minds. And there are a lot more of us than there are O&A fans. If one is purchasing a satellite radio for music, then it seems clear to me that XM is the better choice. Those who enjoy the talk medium, NPR, and comedy will likely go with Sirius. Programming will be key.

Lastly, let us all not forget that competition is good for the marketplace. Without it, we listeners get fewer choices, and the monopolist can do as it pleases. Every new listenter is a coup for both companies.

Spread the word.

mt

Sorry I got this sidetracked to a moral debate. I was just trying to show that for all the people Howard attracts, he detracts a similar number of people; morality having nothing to do with it.

Well, I can't argue with that. Let us hope that both of these companies flourish, and are forced to keep improving programming, and keep prices reasonable through competition. That is what would be best for us, don't you think?
What is your "breaking point", as far as monthly costs are concerned? Personally, considering Howard and all, at today's inflation rate, I think I'd pay a maximum $20-25/month for what I get with Sirius.
Then again, I can recall saying similar things about cable TV...
I currently work for a major Cable TV/High-Speed Internet provider, so I get both of those services as an employee benefit. If I did not work for that company, I'd still be a subscriber, as I much prefer cable to dish, but I'm not sure I'd have the "Platinum" package.

mt

What will be interesting to see is how much ad revenue they'll be able to bring in with Stern's show. With a substantially smaller audience, it's hard to say how much advertisers will be willing to pay...especially with no way to track how many people are actually listening. If Sirius has..say..3 million subscribers by this time next year, how do you know what percentage are tuning into Stern's channel without Arbitron numbers?

Sirius has a huge amount of subscriber
numbers to make up for the $500 million
deal they made for Stern. Frankly, I
don't think they will make it. As Joe
McCabe has pointed out, you can't expect
the majority of the Stern fanbase to
migrate to satellite radio just for him.



Actually, I believe that Stern has MILLIONS of listeners and it was reported that if they could get just a million or so of them over to Sirius, that it would hit their goal.
I too am a loyal Stern fan and currently have XM, I will be making the switch over to Sirius soon. My wife will also be getting Sirius. I don't listen to much music on XM, so I think I will be just as happy with Sirius.

Most people are happy with either. There's a very specific breed of music fan who thinks that everybody is just like them and will only be happy with XM. My wife listens to Sirius daily for music and loves it. Me, I'm disgusted with the sound quality of XM and Sirius music so I stick to my Karma. Besides, my tastes are too discriminating to listen to streams...90% of everything is crap...I'd rather have my eyes plucked out than listen to some nasty '70s' channel. Anybody who can listen to a stream like that is more of a nostalgia fan than a discriminating listener.

Can someone name something Stern has done that is worthwhile. I must be missing alot because he could'nt be more boring and old.

Lucky for you, there are about 59 other music channels for you to listen to.

Jason

I know a guy who goes to two movies almost every week (I'm not making this up). I can't find 104 movies that come out each year that are worth seeing...not even close. He hasn't seen 'Sideways' or 'Cinema Paradisio', and probably never will, but he's seen 'Catwoman' and 'Gigli'. I guess he's more of a movie fan than I am...after all, he sees about a hundred films a year, and I only see thirty or forty!

I assure you that my taste in music is more diverse than the average satellite radio fan, and that my tolerance for bad sound quality is much less!

So is mine, which is why I wonder why you are supporting Sirius. Oh, yeah, you don't listen to it because you think 90% of music is crap. Maybe, if you listened to XM, maybe you'd find stuff worth listening to. I certainly do.

As for sound quality, I'm certainly satisfied with the quality of XM in my car. Course, car systems aren't really designed for critical listening, but if I'm going to do that, I'll buy the CD.

XM gives me the opportunity to discover new music. While sometimes, my collection far exceeds what XM plays, sometimes I can be surprised. It is certainly more than the average person listening to satelite, who only have the experience of what gets played on FM.

Jason

I might take small issue with that. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I consider myself a discriminating listener, and I probably spent 75%-80% of my XM listening time to mostly new music on various "non-nostalgia" channels. However, occasionally I'm in the mood to hear a blast from the past and during those times I thoroughly enjoy XM's decade channels, particulary the 60s and 70s. Those stations are programmed extremely well, IMHO.