Big Trouble In Satellite Radio
XM Radio had a big shakeup announced in their SEC filings yesterday as Pierce Roberts Jr, a director with the company,
announced he was leaving the company due to a disagreement with the
board over strategic direction. In and of itself this wouldn't be a newsmaker, but it became public that Roberts felt a
crisis was looming: “Given current course and speed there is, in my view, a significant chance of a crisis on the
horizon,” Roberts wrote. “Even absent a crisis, I believe that XM will inevitably serve its shareholders
poorly without major changes now.”. Shares fell, analysts analyzed, and the question on everyone's lips is
whether satellite radio can generate enough revenue to sustain it's growth. XM CEO Hugh Panero doesn't seem worried: he
expects XM to reach profitability from its operations by the end of this year, with subscription revenues reaching $860
million. He also said he expects to have 9 million subscribers by the end of the year. Okay then.
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. What you're forgetting is the access (exlusive to XM) to Major League Baseball and soon to be exclusive NHL. In addition, XM has simulcast of Fox and CNN. Those were the selling points to me. I rarely listen to the music. IMO, they should scale that back in favor of more channels dedicated to niche genres. i think satellite rocks. I've listened to terrestrial radio in MONTHS
Posted at 3:26PM on Feb 16th 2006 by AP
3. What you're forgetting is the access (exlusive to XM) to Major League Baseball and soon to be exclusive NHL. In addition, XM has simulcast of Fox and CNN. Those were the selling points to me. I rarely listen to the music. IMO, they should scale that back in favor of more channels dedicated to niche genres. i think satellite rocks. I haven't listened to terrestrial radio in MONTHS
Posted at 3:27PM on Feb 16th 2006 by AP
4. In their report today, XM said that their cost per new subscriber went up 39% over a year ago. This metric seems to go up every quarter. When that keeps going up along with your cost of talent (Oprah=$55 mil. over 3 years), something's got to give. I think Big Radio, cable cos. & telcos are looking at XM & Sirius as possible bargain-basement purchases before or after these services file Bankruptcy.
Love & Peace, Clarence
5. Right -- if you're just interested in traffic, weather, and local sports, then you're going to be more interested in terrestrial radio (or the upcoming digital radio). Internet radio offers the best choice for music, since satellite radio is still limited -- yet how are you going to get that Internet radio in your vehicle? Someday soon there will be wireless Internet available everywhere for your vehicles, but not today. (Until then, podcasting is as close as you're going to get to Internet radio in your car.)
All this is to say that it's true -- satellite radio doesn't seem to have much to offer, unless you're driving cross-country and want to listen to the same station. (If that station exists on your XM or Sirius' network.)
Posted at 12:58AM on Feb 17th 2006 by Harold J. Johnson
6. I found XM fairly limited - their music programming selections are too vanilla for my tastes. I'm using my iPod ... a huge amount of music I actually like and about 20 podcasts I regularly follow. When I need up to the moment, there is the car radio for NPR news.
much better (and cheaper) for my case
7. Harold - "yet how are you going to get that Internet radio in your vehicle?"
By using one of these: http://www.playsforsure.com/SearchResults.aspx?searchtype=GetStarted&cat=SubscriptionEnabled . Just like the portable CD player of yesterday, you can download Gigs of subsrciption songs onto the DAP of your choice and then plug it into your car's stereo, either through a cassette adapter or preferably a line-in plug. Now you have all the music you want on your DAP and all of your local coverage on your AM/FM. Much cheaper, better selection, listen to what YOU want, more local coverage. The only disadvantage is possibly worse reception and missing a few satellite exclusives (Stern, national sports deals, etc.).
Posted at 1:27PM on Feb 17th 2006 by Chris
8. I rarely listened to terrestrial radio simply because there was never anything on that I wanted to hear. Even if there was the occasional song I liked, it would be played to death. The thought of satellite radio was an instant turnoff for me. Now they want me to pay for something that I won't even listen to when it's free? Are you out of your mind? Then a funny thing happened, Howard Stern went to Sirius... and I had to go with him.
I can honestly say that for me, his move was one of the greatest things to happen in entertainment. I went for Howard but I'm now raving about the overall product. There's just so much content available and so much variety. I'm actually watching less tv now and listening to the radio more. There's always something on at least one of the stations that I want to hear - always. There's even a station (shameless plug) called First Wave that sounds like someone raided my record collection from high school and college and they're playing all of it. It's freaking amazing.
I've listened to both XM and Sirius and there's just something better about Sirius, Howard Stern aside. The programming and variety just feel better on Sirius. If he had gone with XM, I know I wouldn't have been as happy and satisfied as I am right now.
It may not be for everyone, but I got a lifetime subscription and I viewed it as entertainment I'm paying for much like everything else in this world - movies, dvd's, cable tv, etc. Sure you can listen to the radio for free, but you can also watch tv for free. Look at the difference between 'free, over the air' tv and cable and tell me it's not worth it. It's the same with satellite radio. In today's media landscape where just a few megacompanies dominate the 'free' radio markets, the variety and depth of satellite programming is unbeatable.
Reading back through what I wrote I realize it sounds like I'm a shill for Sirius, but I don't work for them or anyone connected to satellite radio, I'm just a thrilled consumer.
Posted at 1:52PM on Feb 17th 2006 by josh
9. I rarely listened to terrestrial radio simply because there was never anything on that I wanted to hear. Even if there was the occasional song I liked, it would be played to death. The thought of satellite radio was an instant turnoff for me. Now they want me to pay for something that I won't even listen to when it's free? Are you out of your mind? Then a funny thing happened, Howard Stern went to Sirius... and I had to go with him.
I can honestly say that for me, his move was one of the greatest things to happen in entertainment. I went for Howard but I'm now raving about the overall product. There's just so much content available and so much variety. I'm actually watching less tv now and listening to the radio more. There's always something on at least one of the stations that I want to hear - always. There's even a station (shameless plug) called First Wave that sounds like someone raided my record collection from high school and college and they're playing all of it. It's freaking amazing.
I've listened to both XM and Sirius and there's just something better about Sirius, Howard Stern aside. The programming and variety just feel better on Sirius. If he had gone with XM, I know I wouldn't have been as happy and satisfied as I am right now.
It may not be for everyone, but I got a lifetime subscription and I viewed it as entertainment I'm paying for much like everything else in this world - movies, dvd's, cable tv, etc. Sure you can listen to the radio for free, but you can also watch tv for free. Look at the difference between 'free, over the air' tv and cable and tell me it's not worth it. It's the same with satellite radio. In today's media landscape where just a few megacompanies dominate the 'free' radio markets, the variety and depth of satellite programming is unbeatable.
Reading back through what I wrote I realize it sounds like I'm a shill for Sirius, but I don't work for them or anyone connected to satellite radio, I'm just a thrilled consumer.
Posted at 2:00PM on Feb 17th 2006 by josh
10. Sure if you like Howard's cheap antics then sirius is the way to go. I have had XM for two years now and I refuse to listen to FM or AM anymore. The biggest difference is the lack of commercials. 1/3 of the air time used to be sucked up by them and to go back is insane. I am a music junkie and have large ipod music collection as well but I like having radio as well. It is awesome for long drives. Also, having MLB is a must for me and I can't pick up WGN from school so with XM I can still listen to all my cubs games. I have also tried sirius and I found the selection to more limited and the actual sound quality to be lower. Neither can replace the need for cds/ipod entirely but it is a welcome addition.
Posted at 5:10AM on Feb 21st 2006 by john q. public
1. Sure XM and Sirius have a few interesting features such as Howard Stern, live news, traffic, weather, etc. But if one is just interested in music you can get a subscription for Yahoo Music Unlimited that will allow you to listen to as much music as you want in nearly as many genres as you can think of (on the computer as well as anywhere you take your portable (including your car)). And it will cost you less than half the price of satellite radio. For many people this make way more sense than satellite (and you can just use AM/FM for weather, traffic, sports, etc.)
Posted at 2:42PM on Feb 16th 2006 by Chris