Not a good day for XM shareholders

[sammy10002]

WHY would anyone want to continue paying for an XM subscription to hear O&A if they're now going to be available, once again, for FREE? Yes, you won't get to hear the naughty words, but do you really think people will continue to pay just to hear the foul stuff? That stuff never really made my day--certainly not to the extent that I would pay just to hear that extra added "feature".

XM apparently thinks this is a good thing. I, as a listener, won't put much thought into it---other than--"hey, I can now get O&A for FREE again!. Cool!.

 

[SamBuca]

Board members and investors don't care what you or I think. They care about the bottom line. There is no room for compromise or logic.

Look at the entire industry over the last 10 years.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[blabhead]

> WHY would anyone want to continue paying for an XM
> subscription to hear O&A if they're now going to be
> available, once again, for FREE?
From what I have read they are only going to be on in 7 markets.
O&A were not a factor in my XM VS Sirius choice and I think for many other people the same can be said.
I would worry more about the sound quality issues I read about here than this issue.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

> From what I have read they are only going to be on in 7
> markets.
> O&A were not a factor in my XM VS Sirius choice and I think
> for many other people the same can be said.
> I would worry more about the sound quality issues I read
> about here than this issue.
>

7 markets, yes. But look at them. Four very big markets: New York (#1), Boston (#11), Philadelphia (#6), and Dallas (#5). Then there's medium markets Cleveland (#25) and Pittsburgh (#23), and a rather little one, West Palm Beach (#46).

 

[livingfruitvirus]

> WHY would anyone want to continue paying for an XM
> subscription to hear O&A if they're now going to be
> available, once again, for FREE? Yes, you won't get to hear
> the naughty words, but do you really think people will
> continue to pay just to hear the foul stuff? That stuff
> never really made my day--certainly not to the extent that I
> would pay just to hear that extra added "feature".
>
> XM apparently thinks this is a good thing. I, as a listener,
> won't put much thought into it---other than--"hey, I can now
> get O&A for FREE again!. Cool!.
>

If someone who bought XM to hear O&A is dropping it so they can hear a version that's censored, truncated to add 20 minutes of commercials an hour, and possibly delayed a day, they probably weren't that big a fan to begin with.

 

[riccolbert]

> Board members and investors don't care what you or I think.
> They care about the bottom line. There is no room for
> compromise or logic.
>
> Look at the entire industry over the last 10 years.
>

Plus, what is CBS going to be paying XM for the rights to do this. It will help cut down on the debt (maybe not much) and XM will and has recieved how much FREE publicity?

 

[NewsSleuth]

> > Board members and investors don't care what you or I
> think.
> > They care about the bottom line. There is no room for
> > compromise or logic.
> >
> > Look at the entire industry over the last 10 years.
> >
>
> Plus, what is CBS going to be paying XM for the rights to do
> this. It will help cut down on the debt (maybe not much) and
> XM will and has recieved how much FREE publicity?
>

This was clearly not a good move for the company anyway you slice it. Hugh made a deal with the devil, and he'll be kicking himself in the end for it.

The exposure of XM on will have a limited effect. The remaining 2/3 of Howard's audience has proven that they do not want satellite radio, or else they would have followed Stern to Sirius. To think that O & A are going to do what Stern couldn't, sell satellite radio to them, is unthinkable.

Also what does this deal say about how screwed up things are over at West 57th street? Basically CBS is giving a platform for XM to promote, whereas five months ago it ran an ad campaign against satellite radio?

Joel's clock is ticking.