Top Talkers List and Thoughts
This is apparently the latest available info from Talkers Magazine:
Thoughts:
- This is before Howard Stern went off the free airwaves and joined Sirius. It will be interesting to see where his audience goes, because it has already been reported that the large majority of them didn’t plunk down the $150 per year they would have needed just to hear him again on Sirius.
- Hannity is nearly up with Limbaugh. Could there be a new Number 1 in a year?
- Michael Savage has to be the least-discussed No. 3 on talk radio of all time. That’s not his fault, unless you consider not being afraid of controversy his fault.
- The rumors of Dr. Laura’s decline, let alone demise, are obviously greatly exaggerated.
- The liberal talkers (Schulz, Franken, and Rhodes) are at least showing up, which is more than I expected.
I’m surprised that Schulz is the highest rated Air America person. Why are Franken and Rhodes demanding the big salaries and crazy perks when they’re not even the #1 people for their station?
Comment by Phil Prenger — June 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
$150?! I paid $49 for the receiver, $10 dollars to activate, and $13 a month for the service. From what I can tell radio has been almost completely incapable of capturing the part of Howard’s audience that hasn’t migrated to Sirius. I expect that music and sports talk will see a large portion of the boost. Sirius’ numbers are looking very very good from the tiny minority (aka millions) of listeners that moved over to Sirius.
I expect to see satellite continue to suck away people from terrestrial radio at substantial numbers over the coming months as the influence reaches out into the market.
Howard’s numbers were concentrated on key regions where Infiniti allowed him to broadcast. They were so scared of FCC interference that they crippled his reach. (Although his high cost for affiliates was a high barrier for stations.)
While these number talk about listeners, they don’t take into account revenue. Rush’s genius was in offering maw and paw kettle stations a low cost service. Howard was expensive as hell. Both brought in a ton of money in different ways.
Comment by Ohio 2nd — June 28, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
#2, I changed the description to per year which I had meant to say before.
I don’t think Howard got any more than 1 million of his original fan base to come over, but I could be wrong. If so, no way it’s more than 2 million.
I am totally unimpressed with the “need” to pay $150 a year for satellite radio. If they could figure out a way to bundle it with cable AND provide it in the home and/or office and the car, I could see it working. Both XM and Sirius are in “serious” financial doo-doo, I believe.
Comment by TBlumer — June 28, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
My bet is that Howard is pulling over a quarter of a billion in annual subscription revenue, PLUS advertising revenue on his stations. That’s conservatively a two to one return on his $100,000,000 a year paycheck.
Considering how in the toilet Sirius was considered before he came on board, their performance has been amazing. I have a lot of faith in Mel Karmazin, considering how well he leveraged Stern back at Infinity.
You’re right about the technological limitations in homes. They’ve got the internet stream, but they need better technological tie-ins to cable and satellite TV.
Eventually I do expect a merger of XM and Sirius some time next year. XM’s superior technology and Sirius’ superior management would be a nice fit. I just don’t see the market supporting two satellite providers. People will be drawn to one and the other will have to cry uncle. Right now it’s Sirius. XM’s big asset is MLB. I don’t see that as enough.
Their big trump card is how Congress through the FEC has been doing everything they can to drive people away from terrestrial radio. From what I can tell, Clear Channel and Infinity haven’t been performing at all well, either. Rush has been playing it smart with his premium podcasting service. I think the terrestrial players need to focus on partnerships that play into podcasting, since that’s a direct technological competitor to satellite. We shall see. My money, as always, is on Stern.
What I’d like to see is the terrestrial players taking the FEC censorship restrictions head on. Their hands are tied with this stuff, which is clearly unconstitutional. Fight back. What do you have to lose?
Comment by Ohio 2nd — June 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
#4, what the free radio people have to lose is being dragged back to the Fairness Doctrine, an idea that has more traction in Congress than you would expect. That will drive people to satellite radio in a hurry and free radio will end up a vast wasteland.
Comment by TBlumer — June 28, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
I agree with Ohio 2nd that traditional radio’s days are numbered and I like your idea of bundling (they already have the satellites, but I assume they’ll need more?) It would be nice if it happened while I was still around to enjoy it.
When you say that the airwave “belong to the people,” what it really means is that they belong to the government (socialism at its best!) Do not be surprised when censoship follows.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — June 28, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
#6, to be clear. The Fairness Doctrine dictated that any time a political view was expressed on the air, the “opposing view” needed to be given equal time. The practical result was that no one expressed an opinion on anything because if you did, any nutbar could demand equal time.
All of this of course totally ignored the fact that the MSM in its reporting of the news was (and still is) incurably liberal, but because they were “journalists,” they were treated as “objective,” and didn’t have to respond to equal-time demands.
Reagan nuked the Fairness Doctrine in his final year or two in office, freeing up the radio waves to commentary-based talk radio. The rest is history. Conservative talk arose because the Fairness Doctrine gave it the opportunity, and the relentless bias of the networks give a truth-starved audience a place to go.
Comment by TBlumer — June 28, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
You are correct about the Fairness Doctrine; it is itself a form of censorship.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — June 28, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Ah truth. I recommend you read Areopagitica, Tom.
Comment by Ohio 2nd — June 29, 2006 @ 9:17 am
before howard moved to sirius, he was all i listened to, as far as i’m concerned, radio always sucked, too many commercials and not any kind of music that i would listen to. I don’t think i even listened to radio other than howard in more than 15 years. As soon as i bought Sirius, I cancelled my cable tv–i can’t even remember when i last turned on the tv, sold my cd player, and haven’t stopped listening to sirius since. The music channels/selection are amazing, the comedy channels are off-the-hook, and of course Howard keeps me laughing. I’m so glad that I can finally hear uncensored talk.
Comment by clarissa — June 30, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
#10, well you saved money in the deal. The “sold my CD player” — is that because of iTunes and iPod?
Comment by TBlumer — June 30, 2006 @ 7:52 pm