Wall Street Week/Fortune

[SteveOrdinetz]

Damon Cassell wrote:

>Let's stick with the trend. Format changes aside, can a radio station
>double it's ratings, year after year, like satellite has? Because
>that's what is happening with satellite, and there's nothing to
>indicate it will stop any time soon. These people aren't joining up
>because they want to kiss off $10 a month on a grand experiment.


This is a bogus argument.  It's like a station with a .1 share growing to a 
.2 and claiming to be the market's fastest growing radio 
station.  Technically they're correct...not likely anyone else doubled 
their audience, but they're still pretty insignificant.


>These
>people are joining because it's a seriously competitive alternative to
>radio. It's not going to stop, and the exodus is going to hurt radio
>in a big way in a much quicker timeframe than 5-10 years, as you said
>originally. This thing is knocking on the door right now.

You seem to have your mind made up and don't wish to be confused by the 
facts.  The $10 (or $13 depending on service) monthly fee is PER 
RADIO.  How many people have only one radio?  As others have noted, 
satellite radio seems to appeal to either people who want to hear 
programming that is not commercially viable or who spend many hours a day 
driving.

I see it being like cable/satellite tv.  Been around a long time, yet 
broadcast tv is doing just fine.  I don't see this "exodus" you're talking 
about.  Don't believe the hype.