Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.

Recs

11

Who Killed Terrestrial Radio?

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

My car was in the shop for a few days. The dealer took three stabs at it over the past month before realizing that a defective gas tank needed to be replaced. The end result is that I spent five days with a loaner.

Did I mention that the rental car didn't have satellite radio?

I'll admit that I'm spoiled. I've had a Sirius portable unit since 2004 and have had XM in my GM car since 2006. It's been awhile since I actively sought out AM/FM radio, and even then it's usually for the sake of local sports radio, since that's about the only thing I can't truly duplicate through Sirius or XM.

In short, I had forgotten how forgettable terrestrial radio has become. Between the sheer volume of ads -- which I realize pay the bills -- and the razor-thin music rotations, I was never happier than when I picked up the phone to hear "your car is ready" at the other end of the line.

Trying to take the pulse of old-school radio is a challenge. Clear Channel went private. The remaining publicly traded operators -- Citadel, Cumulus, Beasley, and the like -- are either penny stocks or command minuscule market caps.

Many of the stocks have hitched a ride on the market rally, but the gains don't feel particularly earned. Entercom (NYSE: ETM  ) has seen its shares grow nearly tenfold from its 52-week low, even though its latest quarterly report shows a 14% dip in revenue, with adjusted profitability falling twice as quickly.

Some may argue that the industry's wounds are self-inflicted, but I suspect foul play. I think several other factors have contributed to the demise of the traditional radio industry. I have a few suspects in mind.

Let's see how they line up.

Blame it on Sirius XM
With 18.5 million subscribers, satellite radio is a terrestrial party crasher. This is more than just a big number on Sirius XM Radio's (Nasdaq: SIRI  ) rolls. We're probably talking about 18.5 million of the more fanatical radio listeners, with enough disposable income to bankroll their subscriptions. This dilutes the quality of the terrestrial listener, at least in the eyes of potential sponsors.

Terrestrial radio was so threatened by satellite radio that it lobbied extensively -- through its National Association of Broadcasters arm -- to nix the merger between Sirius and XM. It ultimately failed, but it threw enough wrenches in the system to delay the pairing for a year and a half.

One can argue that satellite radio has its fingerprints all over the cadaver, but it's not a slam-dunk case. Only 47% of the buyers of new cars that come with factory-installed satellite receivers continue to pay for Sirius or XM after their trial subscriptions run out.

However, no one said satellite radio's appeal has to be universal to deal a blow to old-school broadcasters. In the end, we're talking about 18.5 million people who are unlikely to bother with terrestrial radio for as long as they're active satellite subscribers.

Taking a bite out of Apple's crime
Portable media players were a novelty until Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) introduced its iPod. Several generations later, the iPod is the undisputed champ. But let's take Apple in for some questioning before we pin the crime on Mel Karmazin.

Apple moved 10.2 million iPods in its latest quarter. It also cleared nearly 7.4 million iPhones, which come complete with iPod functionality. In other words, Apple moved nearly as many iPod-capable devices in three months -- 17.6 million -- as the entire population of satellite radio subscribers. If we tack on the portable-media players that rivals Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) and SanDisk (Nasdaq: SNDK  ) sell, we're probably looking at numbers that well exceed the satellite-radio crowd.

It's no surprise to find more and more cars with audio input jacks. There may not be a financial incentive to add the jacks -- as there is for automakers that deliver paying subscribers -- but consumers are demanding it.

With a choice of digital music purchases, ripped CDs, podcasts, and audiobook services, an iPod owner never has to run out of fresh content.

Blame it on the smartphone, wise guy
Unlike the iPod, Apple's iPhone streams the Web without a Wi-Fi connection. Internet-savvy phones by Apple, Research In Motion (Nasdaq: RIMM  ) , and Palm (Nasdaq: PALM  ) are making content access truly portable.

It's no surprise to find that the top music application on Apple's App Store is for Pandora Radio. Pandora's ability to serve up music streams tailored to the individual user make it unique in a way that terrestrial -- and even satellite, to some extent -- can't duplicate.

I say the Internet killed the radio star
Satellite radio, portable media players, and smartphones have helped poison terrestrial radio slowly, but I believe the World Wide Web will ultimately make terrestrial-radio towers obsolete.

As dirt-cheap -- or even free -- connectivity becomes ubiquitous and coverage gaps shrink, it will be hard for a handful of local radio stations to compete against the countless number of Web-based stations running on hobbyist shoestring budgets.

Obviously, some terrestrial stations will stick around as global streamers. The more popular content creators will simply go it alone and connect directly with fans. However, terrestrial radio as we know it is fading with every passing day.

The last lunge of the dagger will come from cyberspace.

Take the Motley Poll

Who do you think will kill terrestrial radio?

Ditch These ETFs Now
The rumors have been swirling for months: ETFs are dangerous. Now one well-known Motley Fool analyst is going on record to say that your ETF holdings might just sink your portfolio. If you own EEM, EWZ, FXI or any other popular emerging markets ETFs, you should download this FREE investment report. Learn which ETFs to ditch now!

This could be your last, best chance to protect your investments. Learn which ETFs to avoid and WHY today! Download your FREE report now. Simply enter your name here:

This is an advertisement from Motley Fool Asset Management.

Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick. Microsoft is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. Motley Fool Options recommends diagonal calls on Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days 

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz is a subscriber to both Sirius and XM. He owns no shares in any of the stocks in this story and is also a member of the Rule Breakers analytical team, seeking out the next great growth stock early in its defiance. The Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Turfscape wrote:

    You should note that the latest iPod Nano has an FM receiver built in. That was a selling point for me...

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 4:40 PM, mikenolan99 wrote:

    Oh, if were so easy. No single thing "killed" traditional radio.

    I was a broadcaster - owning two FMs and an AM in a mid-western state. I remember thinking about the threats to radio back then:

    Satellite - though obvious, I always felt that this was a transitional technology. The number of subscribers, and the usage statistics support the notion that this alone did not cause the demise of radio.

    Technology - Ipod, music on demand, internet was by far more of a cause, perhaps. I argue, though, that technology was simply indicative of a "permission" based culture. More later.

    Greed - The radio industry, following the de-regulation frenzy in the early 90s - did a lot to hurt themselves. Growth was through acquisition, not by serving listeners and advertisers better. When there were no more markets left to buy, achieving 50% margins and double digit growth became impossible. Capital had been invested on the notion of maintaining that type of growth.

    All in all, I believe the shift to an "on demand" culture, along with the influence power shifted from the few (traditional FCC broadcasters) to the many (Blogs) is the ultimate killer of any linear, streaming, non-interactive advertising based media model.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 4:54 PM, RAF22 wrote:

    One of the best candid endorsements ever:

    I was in a local restaurant last night talking with the owner when another customer who I had never met came over to also say hello to the owner. He introduced himself and mentioned he had recently moved to another town about 1 1/2 hour away but had returned on business. He covers clients in three adjacent states and spends a lot of time driving, but immediately followed up with this statement: ..."but that is no problem because I have Sirius satellite radio".

    We went on to discuss the pros and cons of terrestrial versus satellite radio and - once again - all the shortcomings of terrestrial came through loud and clear - as did all the advantages of satellite.

    Case closed - this tells you everything you need to know. Satellite radio will certainly rise to dominance in the industry.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 5:25 PM, JWILLI44 wrote:

    Ultimately new technology killed old fashioned radio. I can remember in the early 90's getting my first 8cd changer in my car. That was the beginning of the end for old radio. People didn't want to hear advertising as they drove to work. For me, a hip hop lover, I couldnt take the censorship of the music on regular radio so I would listen to all my "dirty" cd's. Then when I could have 1000's of songs on my ipod it was a natural progression, further moving me away from regular radio. I could just use Napster and download all my music for free...curses and all....Then when XM came out, The coffin was closed on radio. The only thing old radio had was "fresh" content to be discovered and some personalities. XM had all i wanted fresh content, NO CENSORSHIP, Live personalities, No commercials and over 100 channels to choose....Ok, so paying for radio was a challenge for me at first...Then I figured, I payed more for HBO or Showtime than a whole month of XM, XM was a great bargain.....I just cut out my trip to Dunkin Donuts every day.....lol...I lost some weight too! When I am stuck in a car with old radio and hear commercials most of the ride....I swear, I feel like choking the driver for not having XM!! Why torture me!?

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 5:55 PM, drew426 wrote:

    The really bad news is that No one is Killing Terrestrial Radio at all. Its the Opposite XM/Sirius is mostly a dead man walking scenario. Those ads that you think are stupid on normal radio make $. See its about MONEY-do the math XM/Sirius has over 3.5b of debt and its only a 2b company and also -XM/Sirius's CEO admitted that the only reason they merged is because the two of them make almost NO money. So is normal radio over- no its the Opposite. Every Satellite costs millions of dollars and has to be replaced every few years. The writer has no idea what really makes sense and is not very uniformed.

    XM is not making much if any money its sales numbers are all way down- (when US car sales are down which are-most of their sales-) its bad bad bad for business for them. MR Writer of this article I highly suggest you do more careful research before you say something. If anything XM/Sirius is dead way before Terrestrial radio. Its a company living in a dream world -if anyone goes away its XM/Serious Chapter 13 something like that, thats how serious it is for them.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:02 PM, ItAintCool wrote:

    Howard Stern's departure 4 years ago killed Testicle Radio.

    Before he even jumped to SiriXM, the man had a broadcast radio empire of 20 million listeners. He took stations with ratings in the toilet and turned them into #1 stations (or at least in the top 3). CBS Radio depended so heavily on him for advertising revenue that when he left, they lost hundreds of millions of dollars yearly and had to sell off many of their stations both in major & minor radio markets. Stations that carried Howard enjoyed good rating beyond his show, because audiences were curious enough to not change the dial after his show ended. As soon as he left, those audiences left, too. Not everybody went over to SAT radio with Howard (but I would guess at least 6 million did). But that audience split up and went to stations that suited their own tastes.

    I bought SAT radio for Howard, but I listen to it for everything, music, talk, news, sports. I never have listened to anything on broadcast radio ever since (except for the college football game that Siri didn't wasn't broadcasting). If Howard leaves, I'll probably follow him to his next venue, but I won't be giving up my SAT radio.

    Testicle radio isn't dead (nor will it ever be), but it has become far more insignificant a unimaginative and the audience has been diluted away. It's the same way that cable TV has taken away a large part of the audience that broadcast TV had, with better programming and more options. I'd rather watch any scripted drama on Cable TV over the crap on broadcast TV. SAT radio is the same way. That's why I believe in SIRI and I know the stock will be going up and up in the days and months to come.

    Staying long on SIRI.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:04 PM, crankly09 wrote:

    drew-you're an idiot.

    Many thanks,

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:16 PM, SIRIRICH wrote:

    SIRI will make you RICH!!!!!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Fredlee009 wrote:

    Rick. Really. Only 47%. You sound like a pumper, and you meant to bash. Your 100 percent right about terrestrial radio dying. Sat. Radio is a huge reason. If uve had it, its not fun to be without it.

    I would take 47% every day of the week. Dont forget some of that 47% already have a sub, or just simply cant afford to pay for radio. If it were free Rick, it would be exactly 100 percent. Yes, 100 percent of the people exposed to sat radio would prefer to have it. And half those WILL PAY FOR IT. You dummy. For a pay service, thats A GREAT PERCENTAGE. Business model works for much much lower percentage than that.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Fredlee009 wrote:

    47^% is a great percentage Rick. You sound like a pumper. 99 percent would take it if it were $2 a month. Its called a pay service. not eveyrone will take it. Great exposure, and thats a nice percentage.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:39 PM, SreeRama wrote:

    Terrestrial radio is on notice no doubt, but it's not yet anywhere close to dying.

    Also, remember terrestrial radio as a medium/technology/platform has 20 times more people (compared to U.S) to serve across the globe and will live on. %age of people willing to pay for a service that they have forever enjoyed for free is going to be small compared to overall terrestrial radio audience.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 6:57 PM, ItAintCool wrote:

    I have to agree with everybody else here Ric. It sounds odd about you going negative on 47% retention of subscriptions of new car purchases with Sat radios. That's basically saying that 1 in 2 new car buyers are going to pay to subscribe to SIRI-XM. What's the downside of that? Sounds like a lot of potential growth there.

    There are companies who would be killing to have those retention numbers.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 8:16 PM, southernbeachguy wrote:

    Good Article....Terrestrial Radio is no competition to sirus. If people try it for a week, they will be hooked and never go back. Internet Radio may Someday get a Foothold, but it will cost more to have an Internet connection in the car than sirus. Sirus is $12 per month.....Today Internet mobile connections is $45 and they will alwaays have a Fade area...... that fade area won't be fixed for 20 years. Sirus has a Clear signal everywhere and that is the important factor.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 8:19 PM, TMFBreakerRick wrote:

    Fredlee and and ItAintCool, the "only 47%" conversion point is only there to point out that slightly more than half of the people who try satellite radio go back to terrestrial. It is not meant to be a bash or a slam, as the very next paragraph explains the significance of 18.5 million subscribers with coveted disposable income. It is only there to explain that it's not the only nail in terrestrial radio's coffin.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 9:02 PM, mgmbrad wrote:

    Your eulogy for terrestrial radio is as premature as it is inaccurate.

    I am a "solider in the trenches" - I work in the "terrestrial" radio business (we just call it "radio") as a sales person who represents stations across the entire country. My colleagues and I come across the kind of broad strokes condemnation you've espoused, with some frequency.

    Let me be clear - like much of mainstream media, 2009 has not been a good year, but to take the short-term view of stock-prices as an indicator of the financial health of radio is as inaccurate as viewing the current health of bank or housing stocks as a barometer for the future existence of the entirety of those industries. Truth be told, the worst media offenders (Citadel, Cumulus, et al) bit off way more than they could chew over the last decade. Deregulation paved the way. Easy credit allowed radio groups to bury themselves above their heads in debt beyond traditional healthy multiples. We are just now beginning to see a reversal of years of consolidation - groups are spinning off signals...which are being snapped up quickly. If radio was a dying medium as you've described, wouldn't it make sense that many signals would simply go dark? If anything, these suddenly available properties are being eagerly purchased by private ownership.

    Speaking to the new media competitors: without a doubt, the media world is becoming much more competitive. Radio now faces a glut of other audio options, as you've described. The world of the future won't be radio-free...it'll be "radio-plus". However, none of these newer options compares to the true power of radio:

    -Since 2005 - radio has added 6 million listeners

    -Free local radio listening beats the crap out of satellite, which has only 4% of the total radio listenership (anyone remember the formerly mighty Howard Stern on Letterman a couple of years back practically begging his old listeners he so ungraciously left in the dust to come over to satellite radio? Not the mark of a medium that is doing well, if its star has to beg for subscribers. Many of his old listeners never made the switch and simply found their way to another radio station).

    -Almost 100 million more people are reached by radio in a week than Google reaches in a month.

    -Radio has almost 6x as many listeners as all mp3 player listeners combined (that includes iPod listeners)

    -The average iPod listeners tunes in to radio 90 minutes per day

    You mention the NAB's protest of the merger of Sirius/XM as somehow an indication of the fear terrestrial operators have of the power of satellite. Truth is - the protest was about Mel Karmazin's 100% strangle-hold of an entire industry (when was the last time one group owned virtually an entire sector? Even at it's worst, Clear Channel owned no more than about 20% of the entire radio market). Mel's purchase of his only competition was more about leveraging his debt (one debt-riddled company buying another that was worse of) than the power of a mighty outlet absorbing a competitor.

    Further, I find it hard to imagine the so-called "hobbyist shoe-string budget" of web-based radio a sustaining business model for the bulk of the players in that arena, let alone undermining the terrestrial radio business model. The RIAA has been hot-and-heavy after royalties for their artists played on all media. Except for those with the largest of investors, or a model that is making sustainable profits off of advertising, many hobbyists have already closed up shop, and many more are likely to follow.

    Without a doubt, the radio industry has its work cut out for it - there is much that can be done to bring the localized spirit back to the airwaves. Blame a decade of consolidation and cost cutting for the mass roll out of talent across multiple markets that homogenizes a medium who's power has always been in its ability to reach into it's own unique community and get those listeners to act. New measurement techniques rolled out by Arbitron in the last two years are rewarding stations with larger playlists, local talent and compelling content...oh, and showing that upwards of 2x as many people are listening than what was originally derived from antiquated measuring techniques.

    I'm not telling anyone to go out and buy radio stocks - this isn't a Wall Street issue...it's a Main Street issue. For the money, radio still is the best Return on Investment for getting folks in the door to buy products. It's immediacy is unparalleled. And this guy is proud to sell it.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Casco17 wrote:

    MGMBrad and others-

    I have been a Sirius subscriber for five years, and I agree with the other comments that it is very difficult to listen to terrestrial radio - for music anyway. One person mentioned thin playlists - that has been my biggest beef.

    Week after week the local terrestrial station only adds 1 or 2 new songs a week - rarely more. XM/Sirius is sometimes weak in that regard too, but not to the same degree. I'd rather hear a new song by Fall Out Boy or Beyonce, or even the Jonas Brothers, instead of a car commercial.

    Now - news/talk radio may be another matter. I get the impression that talk radio fans are less likely to switch to satellite radio, because (most of) their favorite on air talkers are staying on terrestrial radio.

    Will I go back to FM terrestrial radio? Maybe - if they come up with a successful mix that expands playlists beyond the norm today. Get rid of most dayparts - if a song gets added play it in morning drive, midday, evenings, whenever. Move songs from current to recurrent after 24 weeks or less - none of these marathon chart runs like at Adult Contemporary radio, where a song can stay in the top 10 for over a year (time for a vacation Jason Mraz).

    "Thanks for listening"

  • Report this Comment On November 23, 2009, at 3:24 PM, ItAintCool wrote:

    Sorry for the late post, but I was out of town for the weekend.

    mgmbrad said

    -Since 2005 - radio has added 6 million listeners

    -Free local radio listening beats the crap out of satellite, which has only 4% of the total radio listenership (anyone remember the formerly mighty Howard Stern on Letterman a couple of years back practically begging his old listeners he so ungraciously left in the dust to come over to satellite radio? Not the mark of a medium that is doing well, if its star has to beg for subscribers. Many of his old listeners never made the switch and simply found their way to another radio station).

    Well Brad, you sound like the typical NAB PR spokesperson. Spin, Spin, Spin.

    1) I have see no reports to support your case about a boost of 5 million users (save for PR spinmeisters who believe bay saying it, it must be true). Arbitron doesn't support your figures.

    2) Satellite has only 4% listenership? Again the Radio-industry makes up a figure they think would be comfortable spewing aloud. These are not facts, just what Arbitron (which has no ability to accurately measure satellite radio useage), makes up. Please follow this link to understand why. http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/why-arbitrons-satellite-ra...

    So the NAB just takes the very inaccurate and lowball number Arbitron gives and uses the negative propaganda to inflate the audience of broadcast radio stations, which then the NAB & Radio & Records repeats over and over as a mantra. Sirius-XM has over 18 million subscribers (that is a fact). In a US population of 300million, the important listening age demographic of ages 15-64 makes up about 200 million. And if you count the highly coveted 18-45 male demographic it's even smaller. So if there are 18 million SIRI subscribers that means roughly 10% of this important and 15-64 demographic subscribe to satellite radio (and probably even more of a percentage if you bring it down to males 18-45). Now of course that 10% figure is assuming that all 200 million people of this demographic are all actually listening to radio on a regular basis. I'm sure some of them don't listen to radio at all, which makes sat-radio's percentage audience ever larger.

    3)Your comment about Mr. Stern makes you sound like the angry jilted girlfriend, much like many in the broadcast radio industry now are. I saw Howard's appearences on Letterman, Kimmel et-all over the last few years. BTW: there was more than 1 year between Howard's last appearance on Letterman and his most recent one - which doesn't sound like he's desperate to be on Letterman to beg for an audience (and believe me Late-Night wants him on the program as much as possible because he's a huge ratings draw). You make it sound like he was a Televangelist begging for money (or in his case, listeners). Again this is a matter of subjective interpretation, but I think you're just putting your own spin on things. Please link us to the youtube video where he does this, so we can all judge for ourselves what you were talking about. In all his late-night appearances, sure he was promoting SIRI and his move to SAT radio. He is one of the leading figures for Sat radio, so it should not be considered unusual for such a well known individual to make such appearances to promote the medium. But please correct me and tell me when it is has become inappropriate for any major celeb to go on late night TV and promote what they're working on? I thought that was the reason most celebrities go on late-night TV talk shows.

    I'm sorry you're upset he left your medium and drove your audiences away to satellite and also drove the broadcast stations he was on into the ratings' toilet (and I'm more than happy to post the Arbitron numbers if you dare dispute this). But broadcast radio & the NAB didn't back him when the FCC was on his ass for so many years and he was the poster-boy for censorship. Only after his departure did any radio station decide to sue the FCC for a specific clarification of what it considered "indecent material".

    I will agree with you, broadcast radio is not dead, nor will it die. But it has diluted its audience since sat radio and it not the growing giant you claim it to be. 2009 was a bad year for radio as you said, but so was 2008-2006 in terms of maintaining an audience. Perhaps sat radio will never have the listeners of all the broadcast radio stations combined. But it doesn't need to. Like cable and SAT TV, it is subscriber based and doesn't depend solely on advertising revenue to support itself. Broadcast radio completely depends on advertisers to support itself. And the rates that radio charges for advertising is dependent on their ratings. Right now (short of the Latino stations- which are growing in listenership), the broadcast radio ratings have been dwindling and so is their advertising revenue.

    Broadcast radio won't die, but it has had to make drastic changes to survive in this SIRIUS-XM, IPod, internet radio world. And it continues to dwindle. It took 25 odd years for cable and Satelite to take a big chunk out of broadcast TV, I give SIRIUS-XM about 12 years before it does the same thing.

  • Report this Comment On November 23, 2009, at 3:28 PM, ItAintCool wrote:

    Sorry for the late post, but I was out of town for the weekend.

    mgmbrad said

    -Since 2005 - radio has added 6 million listeners

    -Free local radio listening beats the crap out of satellite, which has only 4% of the total radio listenership (anyone remember the formerly mighty Howard Stern on Letterman a couple of years back practically begging his old listeners he so ungraciously left in the dust to come over to satellite radio? Not the mark of a medium that is doing well, if its star has to beg for subscribers. Many of his old listeners never made the switch and simply found their way to another radio station).

    Well Brad, you sound like the typical NAB PR spokesperson. Spin, Spin, Spin.

    1) I have see no reports to support your case about a boost of 5 million users (save for PR spinmeisters who believe bay saying it, it must be true). Arbitron doesn't support your figures.

    2) Satellite has only 4% listenership? Again the Radio-industry makes up a figure they think would be comfortable spewing aloud. These are not facts, just what Arbitron (which has no ability to accurately measure satellite radio useage), makes up. Please follow this link to understand why. http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/why-arbitrons-satellite-ra...

    So the NAB just takes the very inaccurate and lowball number Arbitron gives and uses the negative propaganda to inflate the audience of broadcast radio stations, which then the NAB & Radio & Records repeats over and over as a mantra. Sirius-XM has over 18 million subscribers (that is a fact). In a US population of 300million, the important listening age demographic of ages 15-64 makes up about 200 million. And if you count the highly coveted 18-45 male demographic it's even smaller. So if there are 18 million SIRI subscribers that means roughly 10% of this important and 15-64 demographic subscribe to satellite radio (and probably even more of a percentage if you bring it down to males 18-45). Now of course that 10% figure is assuming that all 200 million people of this demographic are all actually listening to radio on a regular basis. I'm sure some of them don't listen to radio at all, which makes sat-radio's percentage audience ever larger.

    3)Your comment about Mr. Stern makes you sound like the angry jilted girlfriend, much like many in the broadcast radio industry now are. I saw Howard's appearences on Letterman, Kimmel et-all over the last few years. BTW: there was more than 1 year between Howard's last appearance on Letterman and his most recent one - which doesn't sound like he's desperate to be on Letterman to beg for an audience (and believe me Late-Night wants him on the program as much as possible because he's a huge ratings draw). You make it sound like he was a Televangelist begging for money (or in his case, listeners). Again this is a matter of subjective interpretation, but I think you're just putting your own spin on things. Please link us to the youtube video where he does this, so we can all judge for ourselves what you were talking about. In all his late-night appearances, sure he was promoting SIRI and his move to SAT radio. He is one of the leading figures for Sat radio, so it should not be considered unusual for such a well known individual to make such appearances to promote the medium. But please correct me and tell me when it is has become inappropriate for any major celeb to go on late night TV and promote what they're working on? I thought that was the reason most celebrities go on late-night TV talk shows.

    I'm sorry you're upset he left your medium and drove your audiences away to satellite and also drove the broadcast stations he was on into the ratings' toilet (and I'm more than happy to post the Arbitron numbers if you dare dispute this). But broadcast radio & the NAB didn't back him when the FCC was on his ass for so many years and he was the poster-boy for censorship. Only after his departure did any radio station decide to sue the FCC for a specific clarification of what it considered "indecent material".

    I will agree with you, broadcast radio is not dead, nor will it die. But it has diluted its audience since sat radio and it not the growing giant you claim it to be. 2009 was a bad year for radio as you said, but so was 2008-2006 in terms of maintaining an audience. Perhaps sat radio will never have the listeners of all the broadcast radio stations combined. But it doesn't need to. Like cable and SAT TV, it is subscriber based and doesn't depend solely on advertising revenue to support itself. Broadcast radio completely depends on advertisers to support itself. And the rates that radio charges for advertising is dependent on their ratings. Right now (short of the Latino stations- which are growing in listenership), the broadcast radio ratings have been dwindling and so is their advertising revenue.

    Broadcast radio won't die, but it has had to make drastic changes to survive in this SIRIUS-XM, IPod, internet radio world. And it continues to dwindle. It took 25 odd years for cable and Satelite to take a big chunk out of broadcast TV, I give SIRIUS-XM about 12 years before it does the same thing.

  • Report this Comment On November 23, 2009, at 4:43 PM, smithd1948 wrote:

    The incessant and non stop advertising and yak yak yak are what is killing terrestial radio. It is still good for local weather (sometimes) and news and sporting events but the ads and talk are just too much. I rarley listen to terrestial anymore and I do not have satel;lite or and ipod.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2009, at 11:48 AM, bweiss99 wrote:

    The article is a personal one, not a matter of fact.

    1) 92% of America listeners to the radio every day.

    2) Satellite is going out of business.

    Flawed arguments.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2009, at 12:51 PM, ItAintCool wrote:

    On November 24, 2009, at 11:48 AM, bweiss99 wrote:

    The article is a personal one, not a matter of fact.

    1) 92% of America listeners to the radio every day.

    2) Satellite is going out of business.

    Flawed arguments.

    I can't tell what you considered the "flawed arguments", Rick's article, or points 1 & 2 that you posted?

    Care to elaborate?

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 12:52 PM, DonPville wrote:

    Maybe I"m lucky living in Austin, TX - we have excellent local radio (Free by the way) that often showcases new and local artists. Terrestrial radio is far from dead (not even nearing the life support phase). If anything, Terrestrial radio has enabled technology such as iPods and similar devices to flourish - it's not like your little portable music device will automatically send new music to you every day. Satellite radio is good (not great) if you travel, but not much worth if you live in an area with great (and by the way FREE) terrestrial radio. Local traffic reporting - need I say more.

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 3:17 PM, JWILLI44 wrote:

    Censorship, lack of variety, and better alternatives due to technology has made terrestrial radio not as relevant. However, it is far from dead. There will always be a place for "free" radio. Just like FM didnt replace AM, ipods or satelite won't replace FM/AM. However, regular radio will be forced to compete on local news/sports/talk. For premium uncensored, uncommercialized entertainment mp3's and satelite will be the choice. Just as local broadcast tv channels can not be replaced by HBO, Showtime or any of the 100's of premium channels. however they can compliment each other..

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1049435, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/7/2012 11:08:53 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 52 minutes ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,878.20 33.07 0.26%
S&P 500 1,347.05 2.72 0.20%
NASD 2,904.08 2.09 0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/7/2012 4:00 PM
RIMM $16.71 Up +0.14 +0.81%
Research In Motion… CAPS Rating: *
SIRI $2.12 Down -0.04 -1.63%
Sirius XM Radio CAPS Rating: **
SNDK $45.91 Down -1.65 -3.47%
SanDisk Corp CAPS Rating: ****
PALM.DL $5.69 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Palm CAPS Rating: *
AAPL $468.83 Up +4.86 +1.05%
Apple CAPS Rating: ***
ETM $8.15 Down -0.07 -0.85%
Entercom Communica… CAPS Rating: *
MSFT $30.35 Up +0.15 +0.50%
Microsoft Corp CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement