• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Article on Sirius XM in NY Post

S

SPRINGFIELDRAD

Since Sirius XM is a NY based company I believe I can post this thread on the board. See todays (Monday August 11th) NY post for the skinny. I'm having a problem with linking articles with my computer.

Can someone link it? Thanks!
 
Why did it take 2 years for a simple merger to go through? Because terrestrial radio is terrified of the potential. I equate it to cable TV. If in 1974 you were to tell me I would have to pay to watch narrow cast TV, I would have laughed. Cable is a pretty big enterprise now beating the networks in some regards. Anyone ever think of not having it, or satellite TV? You'd pay $100 now to have it as most folks do. Satellite radio has huge potential. No Wall Street doesn't see it. They want results now like with every field they rape and pillage. Mark my words, satellite radio will now create whole new ways of competing with your local, single channel, one concept, way of operating, over the air station. From talks with many friends at stations all over the north east, they are terrified.
 
I don't keep up on all this stuff, but agreed. Local Radio knows that it has to stick to that one market to compete. But if people turn to satellite radio, they're screwed either way. Change, and risk alienating your local fan base. Stay the same, and loose viewers to satellite slowly, but surely, because they get tired of the staleness of the music.

There are only two reasons i listen to local radio now...and it's not because of the same old music you hear on every single station being repeated over and over again.
 
I don't agree my friends Satellite has only about what 14 million listeners, mostly on for sterns channel not to mention its pretty much department stores and doctor's offices but getting people to pay for "Air" in global scale is not lucrative, satellite radio has its following yes but will it turn into the new cable.. no Its the same reason that HD radio is not going to take off Because when you think about it People have never really bought a radio, They have bought a car that has a radio in it, in the 80's they bought an 8 track with radio on it. 90's
it was the tape player with a radio, now its with and Ipod attachment etc in the house they will by a nice sound system for there home. They don't say oh yea I cant wait to listen to Hot 97 on this, they are concerned about how there DVD player will sound hooked up to or there video games and radio just happens to be included, but truthfully nobody is running to the store just because a new radio is out nope look @ HD sales. Radio is a cool side piece that people take for granted and have always had for free. so telling them to pay $20 a month for it or go out and buy $100 receiver is like speaking a different language
 
YOur response shows you ar sorely isinforrmed.

"Satellite has only about what 14 million listeners, mostly on for sterns channel"

According to recent ratings, Stern has just under a million listeners a day. Stern tried to make it sound like it was his move to sat that caused the growth but it was Sirius' deals with auto manufacturers and retailers like Wal Mart that sold subs, not Stern. Stern got a great deal for delivering to such a small audience. As for "doctors offices" and "stores", where on earth did you come up with this notion? I have heard sat in one store in the last five years and it was XM in a Mexican take out place. Even if Sirius was big in stores, it could no way make up the eighteen million sat subs, more people than the biggest cable companies have as subs.

" Its the same reason that HD radio is not going to take off "

HD radio never took off because no one marketed it, or sold it to auto manufacturers and retailers so no one has it, let alone that few if any stations offer much of it. Stations are dealing with smaller budgets and to add more programming and staff on additional channels is not something they can do, let alone additional infrastructure costs, and a big reason why HD is a failure. It was an attempt no one ever capitalized on in any way. It was doomed from teh get go. Sat radio is marketed well, and it's showing with the recent merger and plans to grow the industry.

" so telling them to pay $20 a month for it or go out and buy $100 receiver is like speaking a different language"

If it cost $20 a month and $100 a receiver maybe, but receivers the average receivers are about $35 bucks and go all the way up to $275 and subscriptions $12.95. If they sold millions of Ipods at $200+ a $30 sat receiver is well in indiscretionary budgets. The car is a different place than the home that folks spend lots of time in, and folks don't mind having something like SAT for the car.

It's clear you never heard a sat radio. You ought to try it. You obviously have some pretty incorrect notions about it.

Keep your eye on Sat radio. It will double in size in a short time because it offers something conventional radio can't. Mel has some great plans down the road that will change the way you listen to radio. People will easily pay for something that offers them what they want. Mel helped make conventional radio what it is and what he can do for SAT is limitless. Keep watching!!
 
I don't think you can put satellite radio at the same level as cable/satellite TV. Radio simply does not provide the same experience as cable TV. With cable TV I watch mainly sports and movies - obviously radio can not provide the same viewing experience. When I'm at home I almost always have the TV on, and rarely turn the radio on. The only time I turn the radio on is when I am getting ready for work in the morning. I like the local programming on "normal" radio that provides local news, weather, and traffic, something that is not readily available on satellite radio. Also, I know satellite radio has more channels, but from my experience they still repeat the same songs over and over just like "normal" radio that I can get for free. So unless you are someone that listens to some niche format like classic jazz or showtunes you don't need the extra satellite channels.

One other limitation of satellite radio is that it is very susceptible to interference. A few weeks ago I had to pick someone up at a hotel. By simply driving under the awning at the hotel entrance the signal dropped out. This also happens under some larger overpasses too.

Simply put, I have no reason to pay $13/month for this service.
 
My opinion on this topic has been the same since satellite came out...

1. If you live in or next to a major metropolitan area, there is no need for it since your coverages will be from terrestrial.

2. If you live in bumfuk Alaska, you need satellite radio.

Simple as that...as far as the Howard Stern effect, his caters to idiots because his game revolves around farts,tits and ass. That is funny the first few times then only the morons think is is funny after the 100th time..but that is his audience. I know a million people who are more funnier and interesting than him. But he gets paid...which tells me that the people who pay him are even more idiotic than he is, because he is the Jerry Springer or radio.

Has society gone to hell where this kind or programming requires a 500 million paycheck? My God !!!
 
I think that idea of we have radio in major cities so sat radio is not needed misses the point. Sat is like cable TV in that cable started as a way for folks to get TV where they could not receive it, but it was soon realized that for cable to grow it had to be different. It was in that not only could you get more channels, but you could get narrow casting. Sirius is not just like your metropolitan radio station dial. It's far more listenable stations and far more narrowcasting. And personally I find that stations like Classic rock, alternative, disorder, etc found on Sirius are programmed far better than terrestrial radio. I can listen to classic rock on Sirius and hear 15 to 16 songs in a row that are awesome, as if I had my Ipod with me, and not always the kind of songs you can afford to hear on terrestrial radio because of their length, etc. Sat radio is more about choice and narrowcasting that terrestrial radio can't do, so misses me because my moods change and terrestrial radio often can't keep up. Sometimes I want to hear comedy, so can listen to nothing but the best clips from comedians. And other times I want to hear nothing but new wave, or 70's music and can tune to those channels all I want. And to have options to also listen to TV like CNN or FOX, and the narrowcast assortment of talk from left, to right, to independent, to various talk style stations that terrestrial can't have is something very hard to find in many cities, let alone a schedule that works well, like I find on Sirius. So for me it's not as simple as we don't need more because we have radio in our town, it's more like we have more choices and better programming with Sirius than what I can listen to in my town. And as a traveler, it brings 'my towns' music anywhere I go. I know for me NY radio which one would think would be the best in the nation is mostly unlistenable. And best of all, I can drive from NY to Mass and not have to worry about finding a new station. Even better, I now have it also in the house and you'll never see a family fight more over which station we should have on, or to come home and have my wife say how much she loves Sirius as she's been listening all day and tells me they have been playing great music. In fact the radio is now on in my home more than the TV used to be at it's best.
 
If this were 1974 then the sat/cable analogy might work, but this is 2008.

In tech circles satellite (both TV and radio) is considered old hat, with internet-based content being the next big thing. Those people act like wireless internet in cars will be the death knell of sat and terrestrial radio alike, and that IPTV will spell doom for the traditional satellite and cable providers.

Of course, I don't buy that it'll happen in the next 10 or even 15 years, but I don't believe satellite radio is ever going to be huge, either. The sound quality is too poor, reception can be a pain depending on location and the price point drives many people away.

So I guess I'm in the middle, because neither satellite nor the internet will kill terrestrial radio. And frankly, neither will corporate cost-cutting, although it's probably a bigger culprit in the loss of listenership than the first two things.

You guys think New York radio is unlistenable need to visit the country sometime. Around here (central Mississippi) we are all pretty much satellite fed except for sports events and some morning programs. If you love gospel or country, you'll love it, otherwise, music is hit or miss. And when there IS a good station, well, these class A's just don't get out very far.

I love radio, but for casual listening satellite is a winner. There are plenty of pockets in this country that lack mainstream formats that satellite can capitalize on. We've got no top 40 or classic rock here, for example. And if I'm not mistaken, LA and NYC don't have contemporary country outlets. Birmingham has no AAA (yet). And it goes on.
 
In response to the above:

- XM had far more subscribers prior to the merger, so saying Stern is the prime reason people signed up is not quite right.

- Satellite will probably continue to exist on the side, but the next "big thing" will be internet-based radio. There are already prototypes out there enabling you to receive it in your car. At home, we're already there. My guess is that XM/Sirius will try to highlight the fact that you don't need a satellite receiver to hear them, just an internet connection.

- The big danger in all this is that if XM/Sirius finds itself trying to appeal to a broad market, they will start doing the kind of testing/playlist-shortening/format elimination that has made terrestrial a wasteland. A poster above mentions cable TV as an analogy. I see cable TV as a perfect example of what might happen. So many channels that started out as high quality, narrow-focus have switched to reality TV lowest-common-denominator programming. Examples: History, (now featuring Ice Road Truckers) The Learning Channel (now "TLC") (featuring What Not To Wear) , Bravo (now featuring Queer Eye and Kathy Griffin) Arts and Entertainment (featuring Gene Simmons' balls, or something like that), Discovery (featuring Monster Truck Garage, or something like that,) and of course MTV (the pioneer of this trend, with the Real World and now The Hills.) All of these stations used to have very specific focuses - now, they are all so similar (and so crass and broad.)

- So, in other words.....XM/Sirius decides to get "competitive," so they trim back the number of channels, eliminate programming that doesn't score in the ratings, and avoid anything too esoteric (goodbye Deep Tracks.)

- The bright side is that internet radio is limitless, so anybody can offer up stimulating programming. If XM/Sirius becomes dull, something else will come along to pull listeners away.
 
"- Satellite will probably continue to exist on the side, but the next "big thing" will be internet-based radio. "


Probably not. They have been trying with little success with internet radio. It has a strong niche following. I said niche but growth is not anywhere near what would make it the next big thing. As for internet, you are forgetting that satellite is a carrier of anything you want including internet. Even better, they are working on sat interactivity from music downloads, to all the same things your internet does at home. Keep watching. SOme exciting sthigns are going to be announced.
 
Walter Graff said:
I can listen to classic rock on Sirius and hear 15 to 16 songs in a row that are awesome, as if I had my Ipod with me, and not always the kind of songs you can afford to hear on terrestrial radio because of their length, etc. So for me it's not as simple as we don't need more because we have radio in our town, it's more like we have more choices and better programming with Sirius than what I can listen to in my town. And as a traveler, it brings 'my towns' music anywhere I go. I know for me NY radio which one would think would be the best in the nation is mostly unlistenable. And best of all, I can drive from NY to Mass and not have to worry about finding a new station.
Click to expand...


THAT's far more eloquent way of putting it than I've been doing. NY Radio, except for CBSFM is something I no longer listen too now :). 101.9, which used to be smooth Jazz, now plays all the same stuff the other stations play. What's the point of having 7 different stations that play the same music?

And another plus is no commercials. Radio commercials used to be funny and entertaining, far more than TV commercials....but now all you hear are PSA adds, medical adds,etc...same as TV. Ugh.
 
Sat radio only makes sense if you spend a LOT of time in your car at $4/gallon. Thus the appeal is rather small. Internet radio is the next big thing.
 
WTUX said:
Sat radio only makes sense if you spend a LOT of time in your car at $4/gallon. Thus the appeal is rather small. Internet radio is the next big thing.
Click to expand...

I listen to XM at home in the evening and all weekend because of its portability. The same radio in my car does double duty in a home dock, connected to a C. Crane FM transmitter. Can't say the same about internet radio. I also have a boom box for one of my sat receivers, so I can take it outside as well. In essence, more TSL outside of the car than in.
 
My XM listening:
Mon - Fri:
1. 0700 to 0800 in car
2. 0800 to 1745, or later, in office home dock
1800 to 1900 in car

3. Sat: Varies in car.
Sun: Varies in car, barbecues most of the day in backyard and poolside
4. Holidays: Many hours in car.
 
I'll tell you where most of my listening has gone, and it's not anything discussed so far:

Podcasts.

Download when you want, listen when you want. I spend more time listening to shows like Clark Howard, Car Talk, Savage Love and Mike O'Meara out of DC than anything local OR on satellite.

I'm wondering how much podcasting may affect the talk-based formats in the future. The convenience of time outweighs the desire to participate, at least with me.
 
KDRadio said:
People have never really bought a radio, in the 80's they bought an 8 track with radio on it. 90's
it was the tape player with a radio, now its with and Ipod attachment etc in the house they will by a nice sound system for there home.
Click to expand...

I don't fully agree with your statement. Many people will buy whatever it takes to get the content that they want (your comment about how many people bought Sirius just to hear Howard Stern proves that point). I believe you are correct, however, in your observation that the buying habits of some consumers are such that many people don't just buy a satellite radio. They buy one with a car surrounding it.
 
Zach said:
I'll tell you where most of my listening has gone, and it's not anything discussed so far:

Podcasts.

Download when you want, listen when you want. I spend more time listening to shows like Clark Howard, Car Talk, Savage Love and Mike O'Meara out of DC than anything local OR on satellite.

I'm wondering how much podcasting may affect the talk-based formats in the future. The convenience of time outweighs the desire to participate, at least with me.
Click to expand...

+1000 to what you say about the podcasts...which brings up a very very valid point that nobody has actally directly addressed. I will address this point now.

People simply want to listen to things that THEY LIKE. Simple as that. Podcasts are a exact valid solution to what I just said. Seems the terrestrial programming problem is caused by PD's who have no balls and succumb to the corporate boss because he/she is afraid that if he/she gets "creative" with the programming, corporate will fire him/her and then...well, try to find another job in this economy.

Stations suck because corporate is promoting the big picture through their mandates which are not in the direct interest of their audience, ala' JACK FM (that abortion)..face this hard fact my friends. I came up with the idea of a JILL FM to correct the JACKoff FM disaster with CBS, nobody at corporate wanted to listen...to bad.

As far as internet radio I can talk from actual experience here. I had internet radio in my car 10 years ago. Yes, it was expensive because it required an actual laptop wired into your audio system with wireless broadband. It was very cool because it gave me to opportunity to listen to what I REALLY WANTED to listen as well as having general internet access. This setup can be had today for much less today and I would still choose this option over sat radio.

Sat radio is run by typical non-radio jerkoffs, and I experienced firsthand the level of nonsense which goes on when trying to bring content to both XM and Sirius. Not saying all Sat employees are bad, but the good ones are surrounded by the majority of fools and get lost and therefore become insignificant. I would not want to work in an environment like that....hey kinda reminds me of the record industry... :eek:
 
ansky212 said:
With cable TV I watch mainly sports and movies - obviously radio can not provide the same viewing experience. I like the local programming on "normal" radio that provides local news, weather, and traffic, something that is not readily available on satellite radio. Also, I know satellite radio has more channels, but from my experience they still repeat the same songs over and over just like "normal" radio that I can get for free. So unless you are someone that listens to some niche format like classic jazz or showtunes you don't need the extra satellite channels.

One other limitation of satellite radio is that it is very susceptible to interference. A few weeks ago I had to pick someone up at a hotel. By simply driving under the awning at the hotel entrance the signal dropped out. This also happens under some larger overpasses too.

Simply put, I have no reason to pay $13/month for this service.
Click to expand...

Not living in NY anymore I like sat radio because I can listen to the Yankees, get my Steeler football and hear Music formats that I enjoy. I dont get a rock station with numerious generes or rock squished into one format. While i like Guns and Roses, Metallica, The Bravery and Beastie Boys, I dont necessarily want to hear them back to back in a music set, which in my travels acrouss the country and back I have heard. While listening options in NY have a bit more for the individual, the hills of West Virginia, Kansas cornfields and the mountians of idaho leave alot to be desired for some listeners. Not saying anything negative about radio in these parts of the country, but sat opens up options for listeners in areas like this where it wouldnt be economically viable for a local radio owner to do certian formats. And they air talent they have on these stations is great. And for the transpants of everywhere that are in new places, you can always hear your home team on any given sunday.

For alot of people, including myself...its well worth 10-20 bucks a month.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom