Wall Street Week/Fortune
Sun Feb 13 08:53:16 EST 2005
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.
>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
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.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest