XM Club: Visitors Welcome!

[JACkory]

When variety is the name of the game, terrestrial radio will never "be the winner". It's just not possible. Furthermore, to one such as myself who despises advertisements/commercials, satellite radio is worth every penny just to avoid those.
Maybe it seems different to someone who mainly listens to NewsTalk and not music, but XM clobbers terrestrial so hard I don't see it ever getting back up.

[chrisfan]

Remember when cable didn't have commercials? Jac, satellite doesn't not run commercials now (on the channels still commercial free) because they want to satisfy listeners. The only reason satellite is not running commercials regularly right now is that they don't have a large enough audience to warrant the advertising dollars. If their audiences continue to grow, I absolutely guarantee you that advertising will be as regular in satellite as it is on broadcast.

I'm not talking as a news talk listener here Jac. I'm speakig as someone who gets paid to analyze radio audiences.

[JACkory]

The only reason satellite is not running commercials regularly right now is that they don't have a large enough audience to warrant the advertising dollars.

Inn case you haven't been listening, XM DOES run commercials...but they don't run commercials on their music channels and I would bet they won't, because one of the main draws of satellite is COMMERCIAL FREE MUSIC CHANNELS. XM listeners pay $12.99 a month so that we don't have to listen to advertising. This day you prophecy, when advertising will be as regular in satellite as it is on broadcast, simply will not come because satellite will lose all those listeners when it gets to that point, and that's something I guarantee you.

How does one analyze radio audiences, anyhow? I'm curious.

[chrisfan]

Apparently you glazed over the word "regularly" in my comment Jac. I meant that as in NOT ALL CHANNELS ARE RUNNING ADS, BUT SOME ARE. When it comes to advertising and media, I'm not as dumb as you'd like to convince yourself I am. You might want to listen up.

The comparison to satellite radio and cable television is so relevant here it cannot be ignored. When cable first came out, one of the huge draws was that you paid so you didn't have to see commercials. you know what happened? Cable companies maxed out on sub counts, and STARTED SELLING ADS! Ad revenue is WAY too appealing to walk away from it in order to make you happy Jac. In the late 70s and early 80s, people were more than willing to pay double the cost of an XM subscription today in order to get TV free of commercials. Today? Most of those same people gladly pay 4x or more that much in order to get TV that HAS commercials on it! How did that happen Mr Saatchi?

[JACkory]

Cable television, from it's inception, had programming with commercials. Only the PREMIUMS, which were paid for over and above regular cable, featured programming without commercials. Those same premiums (HBO was the first) continue to air ad-free and will continue to do so.
I don't know why you're in such a combative mood...last thing I wanted to do was come here to this particular board and stand up for XM, as if I had the least notion of what they would do in any given position...I surely don't have any credentials as some "professional radio audience analyzer" as you say you do...I can only speak from a perspective that finds much laudable about XM...Do you get paid by terrestrial stations or conglomerates? I asked, but you shirked me off, what is involved in analyzing radio audiences? That seems a gargantuan task, to analyze entire audiences.
And who the fuck is Mr. Saatchi? That's way outside of my radar.
I will say this...I don't think the comparison of satellite radio to cable television is really all that relevant at all. How many folks can take cable TV in their cars with them and enjoy it on the road (passengers, mind you, I hope the driver wouldn't be watching cable). XM is a BOON to truck drivers who travel cross country. They no longer need worry about losing a signal as they travel out of it's range. For that matter, XM is a godsend to all travellers, with it's variety and sheer quantity of channels.
Ad revenue is WAY too appealing to walk away from it in order to make you happy Jac. What the fuck kind of sentence is that? Who's out to make me happy? Let me know so I can track him down...But whatever...ad revenue is appealing, no doubt. I imagine HBO, Cinemax and Showtime have had their fair share of advertising dollars waved in their collective noses. You fail to understand this: Such ad revenue might as well have a black skull and cross-bones printed all over it as well as the word POISON. I'm betting XM's music department is smarter than they are greedy and that they realize that ads on their music channels will lose subscribers.
IN FACT, just a few months ago XM sold 6 or 7 of their channels to Clear Channel Communications. They still air on XM but now CCC has control of them, and yes, they have commercials (very, very few I've noticed, but one's all it takes). XM was very quick about notifying subscribers about this...but get this, for each channel that Clear Channel took over, XM created and implemented another similarly formatted channel which was, you guessed it, COMMERCIAL FREE.

Anyhoo, you're all mixed up if you think Cable TV has ever run significant programming sans commercials (not counting the Premiums, of course). The whole pull of cable was PICTURE QUALITY and added channels. Stalwarts like TBS and WGN have been there since it's inception, and even they have always relied on ad revenue.

I'm not as dumb as you'd like to convince yourself I am. You might want to listen up.
Now, if you'd like to continue this discussion I would greatly appreciate it if you would clear your mind of any telepathic thought in which you feel that I've "convinced myself that you are dumb" and stop telling me to "listen up" as if I've been ignoring your posts. After all, I'm the one who asked you to tell me about your radio audience analyzer job and you never said a word, so why don't you start listening up, eh?

[chrisfan]

Incorrect Jac. There were many many cable channels that started out as commercial free, and gradually went to commercials. Why didn't they all start that way? Simple. Because advertisers who will try something new aren't going to get burned by it a second time. The audience had to be there, to prove it was an effective method of advertising, from the time the commercials first ran. If not, then the advertisers who tried it first would determine it didn't work, and not come back. In fact, the tremendous appeal of childrens TV to look at just one category on cable, when it started was that it was commercial free. Both Disney Channel and Nickelodeon (note: not premium channels) launched as commrcial free kid's networks. They built their audiences that way, because parents and educators liked the opportunity to reach kids but not market to them. Now let's advance 20 years. Have you noticed how little kid's programming there is on broadcast channels anymore? 20 years ago, ABC, NBC and CBS ran kid's programming on Saturday mornings from 6a-12n. Now they run the minimum amount they have to of kid's programming, and run news programming and local programming in it's place. Fox and WB have both gotten out of the kid's market all together. You're hard pressed to find a local affiliate that chooses to program to kids rather than talk show / court show / re-runs of sitcoms in the afternoon. Ever wonder why Jac? The reason is simple -- because there is no money to be made for local stations in selling kids' programming. Is that because marketers have quit targetting children? Most certainly not! Rather, they're spending gobs more money on it! And they're spending it on the previously commercial free cable networks such as Disney and Nick.

Your explanation of why there is not a relevant comparison to cable Jac, just screams to your misunderstanding of the ad revenue asepct of media. It has absolutely nothing to do with the appeal to a given group. Yes, truckers like satellite radio. But people living in very rural areas that got no TV reception love their cable TV (which is why the cable penetration of rural areas greatly outnumbers that of urban areas). What exactly is your point there? Neither the rural homeowners or the truckers are a large enough population to support mass media on their own.

So advertising on a paid service means poison and death to that medium? Really? Well if you do your research to fully comprehend how wrong you are about cable not having ads at its start (yes the NON-premium channels) and THEN you take a look at sub counts as advertising has grown and the number of ad minutes increased on cable TV, you'd discover that subcounts have gone UP as advertising has grown ... not the other way around. Jac, the numbers simply do not support what you wish to believe.

Mr Saatchi? Saatchi and Saatchi is one of the most influential advertising agencies in the world. A man who fancies himself such an "expert" on the ways of advertising should know that Jac.

Combative? I think not. I think I'm merely reflecting your attitude back to you. Well, that and I think it's kind of silly that you're talking to me as if I'm clueless here. I studied mass media mergers and business acquisitions as my senior project as a broadcast journalism major. I've worked in advertising my entire career doing nothing but tracking trends and handling ad revenue on broadcast mediums. You're a happy XM customer. That's lovely Jac. But you don't know jack about media. I challenge you to find a single credible writer at a single media trade publication (Broadcasting and Cable, Media Week, Ad Age, etc) that shares your predictions that satellite will never go commercial. You won't find it Jac.

Again Jac, give me some credit for having a brain. I remind you again, this kind of thing is EXACTLY what I deal with every single day for work. I'm not some new XM listener making a prediction because I saw a report on MTV news. I live and breath TV and radio advertising. Clear Channel isn't some company I see negative websites about. It's a company I deal with for business on a nearly daily basis.

One important point about Clear Channel: Have you ever looked into the number of businesses that Clear Channel is in? The number of non-music related businesses they're in? Billboard real estate, ATM machines? Do you know WHY they get into those businesses Jac? Because they're methods of delivering advertising. A little over 5 years ago, Clear Channel got into ATM machines pretty big. Why there was no advertising on ATM machines 5 years ago! No, there really wasn't. But they saw it as a potential growth area for advertising, and got in on the ground floor. They do a pretty shrewd job of heding their bets. If there's a chance that revenue is oging to go down on their radio stations (and it has) they're going to make sure they're invested in all the areas where those ad dollars may move. Jac, a company like Clear Channel is not going to invest in satellite radio if they don't see the growth potential in ad revenue.

[luke]

Oh I'd say there's more than one negative web-site about Clear Channel out there.

I don't know if satellite radio will last or not, and I'd say mp3 players are probably a bigger "threat" than satellite radio, but I can guarantee that commercial radio will NEVER be relevant again to non-top 40 music audiences. Even the new stations they're putting out, the "it's like an iPod on random!" stations, just play a bigger variety of top 40 garbage.

Terrestrial radio hasn't looked outside that box in decades, and there's no way they're ever going to start. The advantage of satellite radio is variety beyond top 40, and that just can't be offered in the FM format.

So yeah, satellite radio in this capacity may die out, but there wouldn't be any "winners" beyond some suits in a tower. Only losers.

I think another threat down the line is going to be internet radio. I mean, if you could get AOL jukebox or whatever to play in your car free of charge, there wouldn't be much need for satellite.

[chrisfan]

Luke, I totally agree with your first two paragraphs. I disagree with number 3.

You're right that terrestrial radio hasn't looked outside the box in decades. They haven't had to. Media-wise, the developments in programming and fight for an audience was so hot in television, that radio was able to squeak by without being held accountable. And the truth is, up until about 5 years ago, radio had no competition for that audience. They have competiton now -- and as you said, the biggest competition they face from a music perspective is MP3 technology. They're just now recognizing that, and just beginning to adjust to it.

I believe they will adjust. The top players in the game have gone through this before. Radio was supposed to go by the wayside when TV sets started appearing in homes. Why would you need a radio to listen to Burns and Allen or Little Orphan Annie when you could SEE those programs! Radio adjusted then, and they'll adjust now. They got fat and lazy, but they've been woken up now.

Does that mean that radio will program in the same way we've known it for the past 40 years? Not at all. An adjustment means a real change ... like Little Orphan Annie to music. I doubt that radio will make any attempt at all to be the medium to breaks new music - ie the era of radio that most music fans long for. But you've got to remember - radio programming encompasses FAR more than reaching huge music fans. The people around this board may not be excited about the way that radio evolves. But that's because radio has given up on big music fans such as many of the pepole around here. Big audience matters to them much more than the same old audience.

[JACkory]

There's no chance of COMMUNICATION in this "discussion" with you, Chrisfan...you've already pegged me to your tastes and I have totally lost interest in anything you might have to say. What, pray tell, is your fucking point?

[chrisfan]

Sorry Jac. Chalk this up to another day that is going to be a big letdown for you, not getting the flame war you've been begging anyone to engage in with you for a while now. My point is in the posts I've written on the subject. Besides, you've lost interest in what I have to say, so why would you bother to ask for my point anyway?

[Galactus]

[Fuzznuts]

Oh, snap!!!

[chrisfan]

You know Mantis, I think I'm kind of insulted by that. While my post count may be down, I say enough stuff around here to give you material. THAT is the best you can come up with? Come on! I deserve a better than that. Come up with something good.

[Galactus]

I didn't come up with it but it's still funny as hell.

[chrisfan]

I know you didn't. That's why I think you should come up with something creative rather than recycling the same old crap. With a post count as high as mine, I deserve time and effort put in to poking fun of me.