The Stern Effect

[PrimaryKey]

is wearing off.

Last night, Leno, with Simon Cowell, beat Letterman, with Stern.

This would never have happened 6 months ago.

[Dr. Droo]

Stern was not mentioned as a guest in any advertising either, they
talked about the American Idol chick being on though. Last time around
it was well known he was going to be there because of advertising ahead
of time.

--D

[PrimaryKey]

"Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142351929.969799.196900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Stern was not mentioned as a guest in any advertising either, they
> talked about the American Idol chick being on though. Last time around
> it was well known he was going to be there because of advertising ahead
> of time.

I saw a promo about it -- and I had known about this appearance for several
days in addition.

Stern has ALWAYS been a big draw on Letterman, but apparently not any more.

This matters only because the previous management was stupid enough to pay
3/4 billion for him. Had they paid a reasonable amount, the fact that his
audience has fallen off so radically wouldn't be such a big deal.

[David]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:30:03 GMT, "PrimaryKey" <PK@NOMAIL.com> wrote:

>
>"Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1142351929.969799.196900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> Stern was not mentioned as a guest in any advertising either, they
>> talked about the American Idol chick being on though. Last time around
>> it was well known he was going to be there because of advertising ahead
>> of time.
>
>I saw a promo about it -- and I had known about this appearance for several
>days in addition.
>
>Stern has ALWAYS been a big draw on Letterman, but apparently not any more.
>
>This matters only because the previous management was stupid enough to pay
>3/4 billion for him. Had they paid a reasonable amount, the fact that his
>audience has fallen off so radically wouldn't be such a big deal.
>
Where do you get that figure from?

[doberman007]

Kindly substantiate the 3/4 of a billion claim.

[PrimaryKey]

> Kindly substantiate the 3/4 of a billion claim.

It is my guestimate.

What we know is the original announced contract price was $500M. Then, a
week before the guy gos on the air, it is increased to $610M.

And we know that he gets a revenue share. And his piece of the ad revenue.

When all is said and done, they will be much closer to $750M than they are
to the claimed $500M.

What is amazing is that he was able to meet the stipulated targets with what
can only be characterized as lackluster performance (in terms of the
subscriber draw). It makes one really nervous about how low the other
targets are, what his revenue share is, etc.

This deal was stupid at a half billion, and it is looking more stupid by the
day as the real figures come out.

[Dr. Droo]

PrimaryKey wrote:
> I saw a promo about it -- and I had known about this appearance for several
> days in addition.

Apparently you're the only one who did. A lot of people have been
posting that they were told the American Idol chick would be on but
never told that Stern would be. The reason why people knew was because
of the Internet or because of Stern's show, not because of advertising
on CBS.

> Stern has ALWAYS been a big draw on Letterman, but apparently not any more.

Sure, if he's announced in CBS promos like he was previously I'm sure
he would be a big draw.

> This matters only because the previous management was stupid enough to pay
> 3/4 billion for him. Had they paid a reasonable amount, the fact that his
> audience has fallen off so radically wouldn't be such a big deal.

Once again, you fail to substantiate this claim.

I remark again - 55 million dollars for 21 minutes a week of Oprah
definitely made a lot of sense to XM. If Stern is getting '500 million
for '4 days a week', then Oprah is getting 55 million for 21 minutes a
week.

--D

[PrimaryKey]

>
> Apparently you're the only one who did. A lot of people have been
> posting that they were told the American Idol chick would be on but
> never told that Stern would be.

A "lot of people"?

> The reason why people knew was because
> of the Internet or because of Stern's show, not because of advertising
> on CBS.

As usual, you made my point for me. Stern's only audience today is the
million or so who took out Sirius subscriptions to get him. The other 11
million have moved on.

> > Stern has ALWAYS been a big draw on Letterman, but apparently not any
more.
>
> Sure, if he's announced in CBS promos like he was previously I'm sure
> he would be a big draw.

Well, it is true you can hardly expect CBS to promo Stern's appearance on
the Letterman show to bash their CEO.

But it is all part of the syndrome. America is tired of Stern. Only his
cultish minions give a big ----.

> > This matters only because the previous management was stupid enough to
pay
> > 3/4 billion for him. Had they paid a reasonable amount, the fact that
his
> > audience has fallen off so radically wouldn't be such a big deal.
>
> Once again, you fail to substantiate this claim.

Well, you can argue the fine points if you want to. Technically, they've
only disclosed they're on the hook for $610 million thus far. But we ARE
only a couple months into his 5 year contract. So, if you want to call it
$610 million until the rest comes through, I'm okay with that. But we know
it will be far more than $610 million, and we know it will be closer to 750
than 500. It doesn't matter; it was a horrible deal at 500M, too.

>
> I remark again - 55 million dollars for 21 minutes a week of Oprah
> definitely made a lot of sense to XM. If Stern is getting '500 million
> for '4 days a week', then Oprah is getting 55 million for 21 minutes a
> week.
>

This is about as stupid a remark as I've ever seen. Stern didn't get $610
million for his few hours a week. And Oprah isn't getting 55 million for
her 30 mins a week. This is about the brand. And the Oprah brand is much
more valuable than the Stern brand, and XM got it at 3% of what Sirius paid
Stern.

In fairness, I don't expect Oprah to be hawking XM the way Stern has tried
to pump Sirius. But I also expect Oprah's show will appeal to a much
broader market segment than does Stern's.

[doberman007]

Funny.....

On one hand you call stern an abject failure

on the other hand you state that he will get a share of revenue to the
tune of $140,000.000 over the next 5 years.

Sirius has stated that any other comepensation for Stern is tied to
"Substantial" goals. This means that specified target need to be
obtained in order for additional revenue to be paid out.

Simply stated, you can't have it both ways. Either stick to the
assertion that Stern is an abject failure, or stick to the assertion
that he will be a success to the point where additional revenue is paid
to him

[Dr. Droo]

PrimaryKey wrote:
> A "lot of people"?

Yes.

> As usual, you made my point for me. Stern's only audience today is the
> million or so who took out Sirius subscriptions to get him. The other 11
> million have moved on.

I'm sure if it was announced on CBS that Howard Stern was going to be
on, people would be interested. CBS preferred for it to be a dirty
secret.

> Well, it is true you can hardly expect CBS to promo Stern's appearance on
> the Letterman show to bash their CEO.

Hey they let him talk for 14 months about Sirius and it made record
revenue. Stern crapping all over Moonves could be great TV.

> But it is all part of the syndrome. America is tired of Stern. Only his
> cultish minions give a big ----.

Bubba makes Stern's show seem like Junior high and O&A seem like
Preschool.

> Well, you can argue the fine points if you want to. Technically, they've
> only disclosed they're on the hook for $610 million thus far. But we ARE
> only a couple months into his 5 year contract. So, if you want to call it
> $610 million until the rest comes through, I'm okay with that. But we know
> it will be far more than $610 million, and we know it will be closer to 750
> than 500. It doesn't matter; it was a horrible deal at 500M, too.

Again, your opinion.

> This is about as stupid a remark as I've ever seen. Stern didn't get $610
> million for his few hours a week. And Oprah isn't getting 55 million for
> her 30 mins a week. This is about the brand. And the Oprah brand is much
> more valuable than the Stern brand, and XM got it at 3% of what Sirius paid
> Stern.

Stern isn't getting $610 million anyway. Bubba is getting several
million a year himself amongst other things.

> In fairness, I don't expect Oprah to be hawking XM the way Stern has tried
> to pump Sirius. But I also expect Oprah's show will appeal to a much
> broader market segment than does Stern's.

I don't think a lot of people will care about Oprah because her primary
audience is on TV and she's available for free there. If people wanted
to listen to her on the radio they could buy a 50$ Eton from LL Bean
that can pick up TV audio for free.

--D

[PrimaryKey]

>
> On one hand you call stern an abject failure
>
> on the other hand you state that he will get a share of revenue to the
> tune of $140,000.000 over the next 5 years.

Dobie

Exactly my point. The targets were clearly set too low; Stern brought in
what can only be considered a minimal number of subscribers yet received
this huge stock bonus for having done so. It is fair to expect that his
revenue share and ad share will generate inordinate amounts of income, as
well. At the very least, we know the deal was 610M vs. 500M. He only needs
another 15M to be closer to 3/4B than to 1/2B. There is little doubt he'll
get that.

> Sirius has stated that any other comepensation for Stern is tied to
> "Substantial" goals. This means that specified target need to be
> obtained in order for additional revenue to be paid out.

Sure. Just as "substantial" as required for the big bonus he just got.
Obviously, we'll only know for sure when the payments have been made; but it
would be silly to assume that future goals have more "substantial"
requirements than the one he apparaently surpassed before starting work.

> Simply stated, you can't have it both ways. Either stick to the
> assertion that Stern is an abject failure, or stick to the assertion
> that he will be a success to the point where additional revenue is paid
> to him

I don't know about having it both ways, but I believe he has been an abject
failure to date yet he still received the 30M shares before he ever went to
work.