• by Ari Rosenberg , Op-Ed Contributor, September 2, 2005

It will be interesting to see the subscription bounce Sirius enjoys when Howard Stern finally launches into radio orbit. The Sirius Web site is using a dynamic count down to his official start date (four months, four days, and six hours as I write) and asks visitors: Will you be listening on the day radio history is made? Prominent instructions on how to purchase a satellite radio plan online now in "three easy steps" follow. The irony of course is that if Howard Stern listeners signed up now, they would miss their daily fix of him for the next four months and four days.

Currently, satellite radio providers Sirius and XM combine for under 6 million subscribers. This is a good number for those who need it to be, but if you compare it to the roughly 20 million iPod units sold to date, satellite radio has not taken off despite offering a superior listening experience to that of traditional radio.

Listening to satellite radio is like going to a popular beach on a weekday in late September. No traffic, no crowds, just you, the sun, and the sound of the ocean playing the shore. Satellite radio has removed the noise that overwhelms the traditional radio listening experience and early adopters are overjoyed. So what is holding up more listeners from upgrading to satellite? It is not the cost. Pulling out your wallet is easy. Pulling out your car radio and replacing it with a new one is hard. Changing is always harder than not changing.

The reactions to satellite radio's entry into the market by traditional radio stations have been hard to identify. Clear Channel, owner and operator of over 11,000 radio stations, introduced an aggressive strategy to reduce the amount of ad clutter on their airways this past year. However, on the Web site's "Q&A" about their "less is more" pricing strategy, Clear Channel denies satellite had anything to do with this move. When asked, "Was the 'less is more' strategy connected in any way to the emergence of satellite radio?" Clear Channel responds, "Not at all. 'Less is more' would have happened with or without satellite radio. If anything, it's more in response to the competition from television than from other radio options. To suggest that the improvements we are making to radio are a reaction to satellite radio is nonsense."

Okay big fella, we believe ya. Bombarding listeners with fewer ads per hour is a step in the right direction, but denying satellite radio has made an impact on this flagship station owner is a red flag for the entire medium. Denying satellite radio is doing something right is the wrong approach for traditional radio stations.

Instead, they should collectively try to mimic the attraction satellite offers listeners while the window to do so is still open. With every new car sold, comes an easier opportunity to make the change to satellite. Once that occurs, there will be no getting that listener back. However, while still on the fence, traditional radio can reel listeners back in.

For starters, make drive time commercial free. Sure, that's where many spots are sold, but it is also where the listener creates their perception of their own experience. Traditional radio stations can stuff a few more spots into the workday, and to make up for lost revenue, sell two daily sponsorships to the commercial-free drive times.

Secondly, offer creative collections of music and play them one after another without the DJ stepping in. The one thing you notice right away with satellite is how the music rolls on as you drive.

Finally, as hard as it is to do, change. The landscape of your business is eroding before your eyes. This is the time you will look back and see the errors of your ways or actions that speak volumes to your success.

Whichever direction traditional radio stations head in, they need to remember this: We're listening.