Companies management can't fix: Sirius & XM

Just like Cable TV has Radio now. Why not allow the merger and also allow them to develop other products as well, such as another satellite TV company. I like satellite radio and think it his a quality service. You talk Apple i-Pods so compact and mobile and then the consumer goes out and buys a boom box type set up and your back to a stationary type product. I think a lot of this blogging is just self serving based on what an indivudual is invested in. Yes, I own satellite radio stock and don't appreciate all the negative comments as I feel that is what is resposible for the low stock prices. Everyone I know who has Satellite Radio loves it so it can't be all bad.

The Majority of Satellite radio''s PROGRAMMING IS BULLSHIT

Sat radio is great! And since every automaker has it in their new cars, it isn't headed for trash can.

BUT, if either start putting ads on the music
channels, then I would dump the stock and
start using an I-pod in the car............

Hi, I know from reading your past columns that you are anti "Sat radio" and you are especially negative toward "Sirius",having said that your recent comments reflect why the FCC will most definitely approve a merger. Thank-you for posting a hidden positive for Sat radio.

This has to be one of the most absurd and shallow arguments ever put in print. 13% extrapolated across US adults who have the disposable income to potentially pay for the service equals at least 30 million people in the US and Canada. I'll take that. More importantly, of the poll sample, how many had actually used the service and/or were truly educated to its feature/functionally. I don't know a single person who has the service that doesn't love it (in addition to their iPod). The author's conclusions are extremely parochial and completely missing the boat.

There's a distinct difference between bashing sat-rad stocks -vs- bashing sat-rad as an entertainment medium. If you live in an environment where you don't have an abundance of terrestrial radio station choices, or you travel long distances regularly (truckers, etc.) and don't like searching for new stations every hour, or, you just love those specialty talk-shows, then sat-rad is very desirous. I listen to XM's jazz stations regularly because there are no commercial jazz stations in the metro Charlotte area. If I weren't getting XM sat-rad with my Direct TV service, I just might pay the cost to subscribe. However, I'm not going to anti-up just to have it in my car for typical 45-min or less local excursions; I've got a 6-dics CD changer and dozens of CD's. So, sat-rad service; it's worthwhile for those want it.

Now as for sat-rad stocks; consider the real reason that the merger is a bad idea. I wrote about this last month, so for those of you who didn't get it the first time:

It is cost prohibitive for the new entity to continue running two separate incompatible systems. So, while they could transmit all shows over both systems, allowing you to hear Howard and Snoop-Dog on the same radio (an XM radio or a Sirius radio), it's not cost effective to continue operating both satellite systems; one will have to go in order for the new entity to become profitable. So, once they decide to eliminate either system, whose going to buy you that new radio? If you've got an XM radio and they switch all the shows over to the Sirius sat-rad network(or, vice-versa), you're S.O.L., right? Will the new company supply 6 million new radios for their existing subscribers that they need to flip over to the new network? When you're charging the kind of money that wireless carriers are charging monthly ($39 - $99), then you can afford to run two networks while you give equipment upgrade incentives for customers to opt for the new dual-band phones. But when you're only getting $12.95 monthly, and it's a luxury expense, as opposed to wireless phones (still mostly used for serious communications), it's a different ballgame.

That said, the outlook doesn't look good for sustaining the existing customer base, not to mention expanding to new customers. The expansion process is severely hindered because both companies don't seem to understand that their content doesn't create enough demand to substantiate a subscription. Give people something unique, not another celebrity (whom they can't see; the Pamela Anderson deal on Sirius rates amongst the stupidest things that any company has ever done in the entertainment industry!!! $5 million dollars pissed down the toilet. NASCAR? Try turning to a race on TV and close your eyes; see how long you can stay tuned-in! Do you now understand why the "respectable businessmen" at these two companies are "clueless" when it comes to providing unique content that would entice people to shell-out $12.95 per month. Trust me; even if the merger did happen; the stock would still tank!

I don't know how ipods could replace radio. ipods are like record collections, which have always existed. Radio is where someone else serves up things you don't know.

I agree neither of these companies need to be paying these outragious salaries for these so called celebrities. It is way to much money and that is the same problem TV has with the sports they offer and the celebrities they have They are paid way to much just like most CEO's at most companies. The salaries of all are unreasonable and limits need to be set to benefit the customer and the share holders.

The last comment posted by gslv is absolutely correct. Many people think that the IPod argument is flawless and is the new wave of the future in terms of listening selection. But it provide NO NEW MUSIC. Users cannot listen to new tunes in their car, just the ones they've uploaded. Add wifi all you want to these devices. Good luck getting a steady wifi signal in your car driving from place to place.

I'm aware that you can listen to Apple's Iradio stations through Itunes. But then you have to use a music catelog program that #1: charges you $1 for each SONG and #2: doesn't allow you to download mp3s, compatible with any medium, without external software, that Apple continuously works to ban from Itunes downloads.

I'm not saying one will win out. I've had just about enough of the music I have on mp3. I need something new. And I'm certainly not going through Apple software to get it (especially considering their media player, Quicktime, changes settings without letting you know constantly). I can get my music from commercial free stations, although still a bit programmed, a much wider variety is available with Satellite Radio.

If commercials are added (one reason why Sirius bought out XM in this deal), then it changes everything. But in the meantime, keep falling in line with the criticizers of cable TV of the past (notice now it is the "unusual" to NOT have cable TV), and I'll keep on with my exclusive talk programming, metro weather and traffic, and commercial-free, almost-tv-like tuning of delicious Satellite radio.

Clearly the author's of these anti sat radio blogs have alterior motives. Siri is already profitable! it's just making up it's debt now as every fiscal quater passes. Also, there are too many different challes to even have to sell ad's on the music challes you can sell them on others. Siri regardless of the merger is here to stay.

THE DEAL IS GOING THROUGH NO MATTER WHAT. LOOK AT WHAT THE CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO GET WITH THIS NEW SERVICE. CHEACK OUT THE CONFERENCE ABOUT THE MERGER ON SIRI.COM. IF THE COMPANIES DON'T RAISE THE PRICES, THE COMPANY WILL GO UP AND BE A SUCCESS. SO DOUGLAS.. PLEASE CONSIDER THE CONSUMER BEFORE YOU TALK CRAP ABOUT THIS GREAT MERGER. THE FCC ONLY CARES ABOUT THE CONSUMER..CONSUMER..CONSUMER! I CAN TELL YOUR JUST EITHER A "PLAYER-HATER", AND GUY MAD BECAUSE HE DID NOT BUT THE SIRI STOCK AT THE RIGHT TIME, OR YOUR TRYING TO GET PEOPLE NOT TO BUY SO IT KEEPS ON GOING DOWN AND YOU BUY AT A LOW,LOW PRICE. YOU AND I BOTH NO THAT SATELITE RADIO IS THE FUTURE. LOOK AT CABLE OR SATALITE TV. BEFORE IT WAS FOR FREE AND THE PROGRAMMING WAS OK BUT THERE WERE SO MUCH BETTER CONTENT ON SATELITE AND CABLE SO EVERYONE NOW HAS SATELITE OR CABLE EVEN THOUGHT IT COSTS ALMOST 50 TO 60 DOLLARS A MONTH .

Alex sounds like someone losing his shirt in the over priced stock and hyping the deal hoping for salvation.

Doug is right on taregt and Barry's comments ring true. The merger is a desparate move by money losing companies. Even if it happens, and it may, it will be too little too late. Wireless internet radio will offer more programming, more selection, and cheaper. Only those cross country drivers and remote residences will opine for Sat-Rad.

Douglas,

I love how you smart guys keep bashing satellite radio. Lets roll the tape, Free radio hated it when TV came on, Free TV hated it when cable came on, the cable companies hated satellite TV, and so it goes. The fact is, after sometime, these companies either started their own companies or tried a bit harder to make a buck. This is what its all about, making money! Satellite Radio is adding new subscribors every day and their losses are narrowing. These companies will make it and this merger will make them even stronger by adding talent and choices for the consumer. How many companies make money after 2 or 3 years? I love my SIRI and have 4 subscriptions and do not own an i-pod. What talent does an i-pod bring to the table. If anything the i-pod will go the way of the 8-track and sattellite radio is here to stay! JPK