• 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

Satellite Radio study

Comments from the Radio Marketing Nexus...

>
> Satellite radio, for all of its hype, is swimming in
> billions of dollars of red ink. Howard Stern alone will cost
> Sirius 500 million dollars over a five year period. Those
> proponents of satellite radio keep on clinging to this idea
> that millions of people are going to rush out and subscribe
> to satellite radio because of a variety of music, unique
> personalities, and sports. I wish them well. But in my
> humble opinion they are living in a fantasy world.

Pay close attention to the first sentence in the first full paragraph...

http://www.radiomarketingnexus.com/2005/07/satellite_radio.html

(Granted, this is just one guy's opinion, but I think he knows what he's talking about)


<P ID="signature">______________
There's nothing to see here.</P>
 
Re: Music Quality

> I don't understand... Are you people hearing something I'm
> not? I've listened to my XM in three different ways: In the
> car, on the boombox, and routed through the home stereo.
> The sound quality is BEAUTIFUL!!

I agree. I've played my XM for a few other people. Granted none of them were audiophiles, but everyone remarked that it sounded as good or better than FM. The biggest plus in their eyes was the lack of static.
 
Re: Music Quality

I don't know what the FM sounds like in your area, but in the market I live in the sound quality of FM - particularly for formats other than CHR - is dramatically better than satellite. Less compression, better dynamics, better stereo separation, better frequency response, and no digital artifacts.

If you live in an area with fringe FM reception, then I suppose the quality could be comparable. As far as talk is concerned, a decent AM radio station has better quality than the narrow-band, compressed talk on satellite.

I've heard both Sirius and XM in a car, and on the "boombox" unit from XM. The audio quality just doesn't compare - and is certainly not nearly CD quality.

Maybe CHR, in its various flavors, where engineers have been forced to "pump up the volume" - and particularly the bass - can sound as bad as satellite, but that's just bad processing.
 
Re: Satellite Radio Won't Make It

> However, being as cheap as I am, I’m not about to spend
> hundreds of dollars for a satellite radio, then have to pay
> a monthly fee, just to keep entertained for 30 minutes going
> to work mornings.

Entry-level satellite radios are 50 bucks.

Commutes are getting longer, and I'm sure the average satellite radio listener commutes more than 30 minutes to work every day. The monthly fee for satellite is about a quarter of a typical cable or cell phone bill, about a third of a typical broadband internet bill. For many people, that is an excellent value.

> Satellite radio, for all of its hype, is swimming in
> billions of dollars of red ink. Howard Stern alone will cost
> Sirius 500 million dollars over a five year period. Those
> proponents of satellite radio keep on clinging to this idea
> that millions of people are going to rush out and subscribe
> to satellite radio because of a variety of music, unique
> personalities, and sports. I wish them well. But in my
> humble opinion they are living in a fantasy world.

Millions of people already have. Much of the red ink is due to fixed costs, like launching the satellites. If subscriber growth continues as it has, XM will be operating at a profit within a year. Plenty of debt to pay down, yes, but operating at a profit.

> What will happen in five years, or when ever satellite radio
> lifts off (pardon the pun) is that either XM or Sirius will
> merge into one company, or both of them will have to make
> drastic cuts in order to keep shareholders happy while
> paying for these high-priced announcers.

Don't lump both services in the same category. XM hasn't gone on the same sort of spending binge Sirius has. XM isn't paying any of its personalities anywhere near the amount Stern is getting.
 
> While sat radio is not necessarily a bad idea, it is simply
> not realistic for the long term. Sure, XM and Sirius have
> made it to the airwaves, but how long can they stay there?
> My guess....maybe five more years. Maybe! The truth is
> that both companies are still well in the red, and no one
> can do that for very long.

XM is projected to have positive cash flow by the end of 2006. They won't be operating in the red for long.

> Of the two sat radio companies, which will be the first to
> go? My pick is XM, and the reason is their CEO, Hugh
> Panero. He claims that his company will be THE ONE in radio
> in the forseeable future, and that XM will eventually bury
> terrestrial radio. Not only is he living in a dream world,
> but his giant ego will eventually cancel itself out. Huge,
> unfounded egos always do. Panero will fall, and he will
> take XM with him.

Yes, giant egos have always meant the downfall of a radio company, which is why Clear Channel and Infinity are completely failing right now. Oh, wait...

> Terrestrial radio will survive. The reason....it is
> localized (or should be) whereas sat radio can never be.
> The problems with the survival of terrestrial radio are the
> fault of megagroups which remove the local flavor and
> programming of interest to the specific areas wherein the
> stations are located. It is NOT because of sat radio.
> Those guys can't touch us!

You're kidding yourself if you think terrestrial's biggest advantage is localism. Terrestrial's biggest advantage is that it's free. People will choose a compelling satellite show over a poorly done local one any day. Just ask Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Satellite radio will never supplant terrestrial radio, and it will probably never have a majority of the country subscribing. But even as a niche product, getting say, 15% of the total audience, satellite radio can rake in huge profits, and it will negatively impact terrestrial radio.
 
> Satellite radio will never supplant terrestrial radio, and
> it will probably never have a majority of the country
> subscribing. But even as a niche product, getting say, 15%
> of the total audience, satellite radio can rake in huge
> profits, and it will negatively impact terrestrial radio.

The problem is that they still have a very, very long way to go before they get that much of the radio audience nationally.

As has been pointed out time and again across many of the Radio-Info boards, the total number of people nationwide who have <u>ever</u> had XM or Sirius (including former subscribers) is less than the daily listener total for the #1 station in New York City. And that's using XM and Sirius' own numbers.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Satellite Music Quality

I suspect part of the deal is we are conditioned to hearing processed FM.
Satellite radio (either service) sounds/feels "hollow". Not quite as good as a CD yet without the audio processing and leveling we're accustomed to.
 
> > Satellite radio will never supplant terrestrial radio, and
>
> > it will probably never have a majority of the country
> > subscribing. But even as a niche product, getting say,
> 15%
> > of the total audience, satellite radio can rake in huge
> > profits, and it will negatively impact terrestrial radio.
>
> The problem is that they still have a very, very long way to
> go before they get that much of the radio audience
> nationally.
>
> As has been pointed out time and again across many of the
> Radio-Info boards, the total number of people nationwide who
> have ever had XM or Sirius (including former subscribers) is
> less than the daily listener total for the #1 station in New
> York City. And that's using XM and Sirius' own numbers.
>

Agreed. I'm sure XM and Satellite Radio will do well, but it will most likely never overcome terrestrial radio.<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
> > Satellite radio will never supplant terrestrial radio, and
>
> > it will probably never have a majority of the country
> > subscribing. But even as a niche product, getting say,
> 15%
> > of the total audience, satellite radio can rake in huge
> > profits, and it will negatively impact terrestrial radio.
>
> The problem is that they still have a very, very long way to
> go before they get that much of the radio audience
> nationally.
>
> As has been pointed out time and again across many of the
> Radio-Info boards, the total number of people nationwide who
> have ever had XM or Sirius (including former subscribers) is
> less than the daily listener total for the #1 station in New
> York City. And that's using XM and Sirius' own numbers.
>


And with the money they are shelling out... it is like they think they will take over all over broadcasting or something.
 
All the more reason I think our station is going to pass on iBiquity IBOC HD Radio. Why bother?
 
Re: Satellite Music Quality

It's completely down to what you've used to hearing before - what kind of equipment you have, what kind of stations you have in the area, etc.

If you're used to listening to music on AM (before I moved here my station of choice was plaing CHR on longwave AM), then satellite radio is infinitely better. If AM in your area is plain awful (like it is here in the Piedmont Triad of NC), then listening to satellite radio for your talk radio shows would be a better option. If FM reception is spotty (as it is in some places for me) then satellite radio often gives better stability. If content is what you're after, then satellite radio is definitely giving more choice. If you have substandard radio receivers and/or speakers then it doesn't matter whether you're listening to - it's all just as bad. If you travel long distances then satellite radio is also for you since there is no such thing as a national radio station.

If however your favorite stations are on FM, you can get them loud and clear and you have a good quality radio reception setup then yes, it beats satellite radio in terms of sound quality, especially on the talk channels. If you are also a person who appreciates a quality of sounds vs the actual sound itself then satellite radio may not be for you.

Mark.
 
> Terrestrial's biggest advantage is
> that it's free.
>


Good point!
 
> > > Satellite radio will never supplant terrestrial radio,
> and
> >
> > > it will probably never have a majority of the country
> > > subscribing. But even as a niche product, getting say,
> > 15%
> > > of the total audience, satellite radio can rake in huge
> > > profits, and it will negatively impact terrestrial
> radio.
> >
> > The problem is that they still have a very, very long way
> to
> > go before they get that much of the radio audience
> > nationally.
> >
> > As has been pointed out time and again across many of the
> > Radio-Info boards, the total number of people nationwide
> who
> > have ever had XM or Sirius (including former subscribers)
> is
> > less than the daily listener total for the #1 station in
> New
> > York City. And that's using XM and Sirius' own numbers.
> >
>
>
> And with the money they are shelling out... it is like they
> think they will take over all over broadcasting or
> something.
>

That's exactly what XM's Hugh Panero thinks! He's even said so himself. What a freakin' pipedreamer that dude is!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom