[Via Business Filter ] Bill Trancer blogs about Howard Stern's brand equity, detailing the drop off in traffic to Stern's website (allegedly work safe -- depending where you work, I suppose).

While Trancer clearly shows that Sirius' acquisition of Howard Stern's radio show is responsible for that satellite radio service's dramatic increase in subscribe base in the past year -- what's known as the Stern effect -- he questions whether or not this move, at the same time, significantly diminished Stern's overall brand value.

Stern knew he would be reaching a much smaller audience after his move from FCC-regulated public airways, to the (at least for now), much smaller universe of subscription-service radio. Aside from the controversial financial deal, worth $500 million, that brought him to Sirius, Stern cited a desire to be away from government regulation as his motivation for the move. He claims he would have retired otherwise, and was prepared to do so, after the Janet Jackson/Superbowl incident in 2004.

I don't know if Stern or his fans are concerned over Stern's "brand value." Sirius is now an equal to XM in the satellite radio wars, and the Stern Effect, even if it has peaked, played a significant factor -- the most significant factor -- in that growth spurt. CEO Mel Karmazin should be happy.

Michael Canfield is a private investor, a business and media writer, living in Seattle. He doesn't own stock in Sirius or XM.

Continue reading Sirius benefits from "Stern effect," but what about Stern?

Sirius benefits from "Stern effect," but what about Stern? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.