Sirius/XM merger could ground Opie & Anthony - Page 5

When Stern signed, XM had approx 1.8 million subscribers and Sirius had approx 600,000 subscribers (approximately a difference of 1.2 million).

At the end of 2006, XM had 7.625 million and Sirius had 6.024 million (a difference of 1.6 million).

That means that, since Stern signed, XM has increases their subscribers by 5.825 million and Sirius has increased their subscribers by 5.434 million.

This is a perfect example of "Howie math" and how his listeners believe everything the he tells them, with absolutely no regard for the truth.

So, explain to me how XM has been declining in numbers since the Stern signing.

That's not what I wrote. I meant that the only way that they want to be just like Stern is that they would want to collect the same paycheck as he does.

That will never happen. Aside from additional radio competition that exists now, but didn't exist during Stern's good years, there are just too many other listening options available to the current consumer. Mel Karmazin is correct when he told Congress that technologies such as iPods are competitors for radio stations.

I have lots of friends who used to listen to radio, but don't anymore because they only listen to their iPods.

To tell you the truth, I've always questioned the accuracy of Stern's numbers back int the 90's. At the time "Private "Parts" came out, he supposedly had around 18 million listeners. However, the movie only made $40 million at the box office. Even if we're conservative about ticket prices and say that tickets were only $5 each, that means that only 8 million people saw the movie. That doesn't take the people who saw the movie multiple times into account (which would include me seeing it twice, really I saw it 3 times, but the premiere didn't count toward ticket sales)

I find it hard to believe that 18 million people were listening to him daily, but less than half of that went to see the movie.

Billy West. Oh those were the good old days. Too bad we can't go back to that time.

That was definitely the pinnacle of the Stern era. Sure, there have been peeks now and then but nothing like the pure comedy of when Stern, West, Norris, Martling played off of each other. That was comedy magic.

Is that Opie math or Bill math-

Most Stern fans including myself waited till Q4 05 christmas to be exact when Sirius had the biggest one Quarter of either company to Purchase Sirius .

since then-

Sirius = 3.504 million
XM = 2.331 million
(not included is Q 1 2007)


XM added 1.696 million new net subscribers in 2006,
Sirius added 2.7 million in 2006.

Numbers can be "twisted" either way. Bottom line is without Stern, SIRIUS would be a footnote by now,especially if he went to XM when he left CBS.

I don't think your numbers are accurate. XM had far more subscribers than 1.8million at the end of 2005.

The growth rate of Sirius dwarfed that of XM in 2006. Of course you can't attribute it all to Stern, but anyone who thinks he didn't play a major part is kidding themselves.

Your original statement was "also XM has been declining in numbers since The Stern signing" (emphasis added by me). Was it not? My reply is based on that quote. In October 2004, when Stern signed, Sirius had approx 600,000 listeners and XM had 1.8 million.

It's not my fault that you chose the time frame that you did.

Even if using your redefined time frame, I fail to see how increasing their subscribers by 2.3 million is "declining". Declining would mean that they lost subscribers, not increased them by 2.3 million.

If you want to argue that Sirius is growing faster than XM is, fine. But to argue that XM "has been declining in numbers" is just silly.

[quote=.....So spot saying STERN is responsible for everything that has happened to the Doggy Company in last little bit.....QUOTE]




How funny is it that a grown man refers to a corporate entity with such disdain simply because he likes someone who works at it's competitor? What a silly little man.

This whole discussion has grown tiresome, and I'm bored with it.

We're all aware that Howard rules the airwaves, Satellite or otherwise, and he always will. However, when it's all said and done, WHO F.U.C.K.ING CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm outie.


mt

Of course they aren't right, its the only way he can get away with siding with O and A, notice how quick he is to point to figures that back his side of it, yet zero proof of the first part of it that proves his facts are wrong. Theres been such a big shift in market to sirius XM is lucky merger talk started. It wasn't anytime soon but it was coming.

A and O 0.0 ratings in Las Vegas and Chicago make it clear, merger isn't going to ground them , their lack of talent will.

If by 0.0, you meant 2.3 in all persons 12+, with a 3.7 in Adults 18-24, then I guess you're right, they are complete failures. Stern's highest-ever ratings in 18-24 when he was the #1 show in Vegas and on the #1 station in Vegas was a 3.4. So he must REALLY be a failure.

And also interesting how WCKG Chicago's overall station rating (for all 168 hours of the week) went up 0.2 to 1.1 starting when O&A joined the lineup after a solid year of 0.9 overall.

In 2000 on KXTE stern had an 11.2 for 18-34 year olds.

My bad, I see now that the number I quoted was from 2004, the last ratings book before he announced his move to Sirius, and NOT the highest-ever in that market.

Maybe that's because Sterns contract was up Nov 7th.
the station decided with his move to satellite coming not to keep him on the air.


so your ratings from the last book 2004 was Stern-less

Your joking right

I didn't say the last book of 2004. I said Stern's last book BEFORE he announced he was moving to satellite. That would be the 3Q2004 book, released in October.

Either way, the overall point stands. 0.0 does not equal 2.3, nor does it equal 3.7. That's what most of us refer to as a LIE.


Actually I'm not. WCKG's ratings are still in the toilet, but they've moved up 8 spots since January 1. They made a 0.9 share for every book of 2006, but a 1.1 for 1Q2007. Maybe they'll improve further, maybe they won't, but it's still a significant improvement.

calling a 0.9 to 1.1 a significant improvement is a joke...

No you said this-

Stern's highest-ever ratings in 18-24 when he was the #1 show in Vegas and on the #1 station in Vegas was a 3.4.


I showed you an 11.2!

Nice moving target there. I make a correction, you criticize my correction, I point out that you misread it, rather than admit YOUR mistake of reading comprehension, you jump back to my initial statement that I already admitted (and apologized for) was incorrect. I'll spell it out for you:





and proceed to ignore both of my previous posts because it contradicts your 2nd "aha"

Still doesn't change the fact that the 3.4 WAS in fact one of his ratings (even though you claim it was not), nor does it change the fact that 0.0 does not equal 3.7 (or even 2.3).

All of a sudden I feel like I'm listening to the Opie and Anthony show!

So we'll agree that there are no 0.0 ratings and agree to disagree on everything else? I can live with that.

Unless my name is "Howard Stern" I never said O&A got a 0.0

We all know he can't be joking, he clearly doesn't know what jokes are he listens to O and A. And of course it sounds like the O and A show I mean didn't you know the virus is spreading....at apperently a .2 clip.

On a serious note it just cracks me up just popping in once in awhile and watch the fanboys go at it, it brings a smile to my face. When in the end we ALL know who the king of all media is......

You ofcourse meant "was", right? No one is taking away Howard's past here... let's be reasonable at least

the new kings of all media is Mike and Mad Dog......

Actually, my XM number was wrong. According to the press release reporting on the XM's 3rd quarter of '04, which was approximately the date that O&A started on XM and Stern signed with Sirius, XM had 2.5 million subscribers (I don't know why I thought that it was 1.8).

As of the same date, Sirius had 662,000 subscribers.

That puts the number of subscriptions since Stern signed at 5.125 million for XM and 5.362 million for Sirius.

Regardless, I still maintain that to claim that XM has been "declining in numbers" since Stern signed is a silly argument.

A growth of .2 per month is something that any radio station would take. The question is how long can they continue that growth.

OnA are gone if the merger goes through. They don't want to play ball then let them rebel all the way back to terrestrial radio. If they'd just play the game for once in their careers they'd realize how much better things could be.

As far as the who's better goes, I doubt anyone would pay $500 Million for OnA so.... Plus I don't see an OnA On Demand channel.

If you judge the quality of entertainers by the money they make, I'd hate to see your music collection.

Yeah its all Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys Albums.

I'm just pointing out corporate America's view point of worth.