I haven't seen anything yet. Logan is telling us the same thing he's told O&A here. That they're doing well. Well it's company policy to keep those numbers unpublished. Until that policy changes statements like these do little to change my opinion.
Also with Arbitron. As a whole, people who are now slamming it. Stop using it as a justification when there are good numbers. You can't have it both ways. And it so fucking annoying when good ratings come out people are all over them and Arbitron's great. but when the opposite is the case oh Arbitron's outdated, and wrong, and untrustworthy.
E-Lo has said O&A have more than 5 million listeners on XM. He also said they have a far bigger audience than Bob Dylan's Themetime Radio Hour (which has 1.27 million listeners).
Both numbers are far off the Arbitron data. So I'd like to see some concrete evidence that the actual numbers are much better than this.
The only positive I'm taking from the last 24 hours is that Howard's audience is estimated at 1.2 million, far below the 2.1 million the zombies insisted he had (and that even that was lower than it really was.) But it's still sickening to think that Bubba the fucking Love Sponge and Scott Ferrell have the number two shows on all of satellite radio!!!
Even though they are not publicly released, I am sure potential advertisers would need to know this information. For example, I if I own a business, and I want to advertise on XM channel 202. I would want to know "my potential audience" I'm pretty sure I would be given a pretty exact number, right down to the specific timeslot. This would be necessary information for someone who is spending advertising dollars. The same would hold true for Sirius advertising. I don't think this info would be to hard to obtain. Unfortunately, I don't have any advertising budget or a company, but maybe a friend of someone out there does.....Give XM a call and get the lowdown on advertising with them.
To be honest I seriously believe it's not outdated. And I've had to deal with market research for years and Arbitron's delivery system is quite efficient. Next to actually plopping down a radio with a tagging device it's about as close as you can come.
The biggest picture is still being missed. Of course in the final tally I sincerely believe That these numbers while not rock solid are fair to start with.
The regular radio ratings are tolerable because Arbitron has refined the system for years and everyone involved knows what to expect. If there's any sort of anomaly that affects one book, people know to wait it out and see how things balance out.
XM was paying Arbitron for CUSTOM audience reports from 2002 until early this year. Those reports were delivered every six months and they were based on telephone polling of XM's subscribers from a list of actual subscribers provided by XM. Those reports, as well researched as they were, still weren't detailed enough, so XM shitcanned Arbitron and went with OTX (this is what E-Lo was referring to).
Those CUSTOM reports based on direct polling of XM's customers wasn't detailed enough, and XM was PAYING Arbitron to do this research. So what makes you think this new report is anywhere near accurate? Do you understand how it was researched? It was compiled from the 6.9% of the regular radio diaries where the respondent mentioned listening to at least one satellite radio channel. In other words, it was an afterthought. What are the odds that the leftovers who just happened to mention satellite radio in their regular radio diaries are a statistically valid sample? And in O&A's case they weren't even on satellite radio for 1/3 of the polling period, so cold hard listener numbers are automatically off by a huge percentage.
The fact that Arbitron gave these numbers away for free should be enough to call its validity into question. They are a multi-million dollar research company who demands confidentiality from its customers and threatens legal action against anyone who releases their breakdowns...but they're going to give away accurate satellite ratings for free? I don't think so.
It's only totally useless if advertisers don't look at it to determine how much money they want to spend. If I'm an advertiser, I'm trusting this a lot more than XM saying - "Oh, trust us, it's a popular show"