Why Satellite Radio Will Fail

Ronald Epstein · 05-06-2007, 05:04 AM

I am so happy that someone has finally posted an
article that touches upon many of my complaints regarding
satellite radio these days....

Click Here

I left Sirius a long time ago because their playlists were
so shallow that it became FM radio without the commercials.

Now XM has slowly started tightening their playlists as well.

On top of that, sound quality is as bad as ever, coming very close to
AM radio.

It's amazing how much different satellite radio is from 5 years ago.
It evolved from something revolutionary into the very thing that drove
most of us from FM radio.

Very sad.

Chris · 05-06-2007, 10:39 AM

I admit, I'm in the crowd that loves Satellite Radio. But I'll be honest: in four years, I haven't turned to a "music" station for more then 10 or 15 minutes. Even when I listen to "regular" radio, it's mostly to listen to AM Talk Radio.

In that market, and live events, there is just nothing that compares to satellite. With full sports coverage of all sports (NFL, NCAA, etc.) you can really follow along with your team.

When breaking news events happen around the globe or in another part of the country, I can depend on SIRIUS news channels to have more updated current information then I can get almost anywhere else.

As an information medium, I can't think of anything I enjoy more then Satellite. Admittedly, I can't think of when I've run into dead spots, but I'm sure it happens areas with a lot of obstructions then out on the plains

That having been said, XM finally did something last week that made my jaw drop because of how freaking brilliant it was:

Quote:

XM radio broadcasts the audio performance of Ender's Game!
The audiobook is being serialized on XM's literary channel. The episodes will air on XM Channel 163, and will air during the week at 4:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 8:30 p.m. (EST) and on Saturday nights from 12:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. EST, which is primetime for the PST listeners (9:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.).

Audiobooks. On Satellite Radio. Holy crap. I have been campaigning for this since the beginning. If SIRIUS or XM would serialize a book where you could listen for a week or more have it broken up into 5 parts or 10 parts, I would absolutely be there.

This to me is what Satellite Radio is about.. offering me something that no matter what, I can't get on regular radio. This is where I think the reviewer (and no offense, Ron, but you too) miss the point entirely.

When I do listen to music on SIRIUS, I appreciate greatly that I hear the unedited, uncensored cuts as they are on the album.. which puts XM and SIRIUS in a position where FM Urban Contemporary / Rap just pales in comparison with how lame it really is.

But it's the live events that sell. It's the things that you can't reproduce in any other media because of how they are done and what they offer as a combo. Bombing in Iraq? I can flick to BBC, PRI, Fox or CNN and get varying viewpoints. End of the day on the stock market? Flick over and I can get the analysis.

That's the kind of stuff that (for me) makes Satellite sell. NFL Draft? I can flick over and listen to live interviews with players as they are drafted in depth. NFL games? I can hear both calls. I'm in Florida visiting the inlaws? No problem, I still have my favorite Chiefs Radio call.. I'm in KC away from my other team (Tampa Bay) and I can listen to the home call out of RayJay and be content.

Those kind of things are the intangibles.

Maybe if I listened to a lot of music channels I'd be dissappointed, but I have certain listening habits. (I have the same "Mix" MP3 CD in my car of about 200 songs that I could listen to in a constant loop or on random forever

But for me, it's the live events that is what makes or breaks satellite. Radio is only as good as what makes it original. And I'm happier now then I've ever been with SIRIUS, because the offerings on the talk and sports side are, at this point, really finely honed products that have become must listen material.

TheLongshot · 05-06-2007, 09:06 PM

Well, one problem is that the guy is a Sirius listener and is equating similar problems to XM that aren't nearly as widespread. For example, the playlists on XM aren't nearly as narrow as they are on Sirius.

The same goes for radio personalities. Sirius has been notibly weak on that front, getting the old MTV crew to do the 80s station is more about name recognition than real ability. But, on XM, there was a lot of lobbying in getting Eddie Trunk back on Da Boneyard to do his show, and the response to him has been great. Sure, some are forgettable, but there seems to be less of those guys on XM.

While there have been problems on some channels, there are others which I wouldn't change a thing on. The challenge is running so many music channels and keeping the quality good. I don't envy anyone that job.

While SatRad is the only way people can get non-CC programming in a car, Satellite will continue to exist. Fact is, there isn't any other option for music discovery (at least for me)

Jason

Ronald Epstein · 05-07-2007, 04:53 AM

You both bring up great points, particularly dealing with content.

Let me clarify my position on this satellite radio dilemma....

The problem has nothing to do with content, in my opinion. No
doubt, XM and SIRIUS provide far better entertainment value than
FM radio. That is the single reason why I still subscribe.

The bottom line is that there is an obvious problem that has affected
growth in this industry. Both XM and SIRIUS can't meet subscriber
expectations and both companies continue to lose money.

One of the biggest problems I see is overpriced subscription rates
and the fact that both companies are trying to copy FM radio with
their music programming rather than being more eclectic. Furthermore,
the sound quality on both services has deteriorated to the point where
music is noticeably distorted. I remember the days when XM music
rivaled CD quality audio. Today it rivals FM, and on a few music channels
it sounds more like static-free AM.

As much as I abhor the Sirius music philosophy, I am all for the two
companies merging. In fact, I think it's essential they do. The end
result will be a reduced $10 subscriber fee along with expanded bandwidth
which (I hope) will contribute to raising the bitrate so that music doesn't
sound distorted.

Just imagine if this industry, with its newly combined bandwidth, could
tout itself as the ultimate entertainment mecca with sound that rivals
HD-Radio, all for $10 a month?! Can you imagine what that would do
for satellite radio?

TheLongshot · 05-07-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

One of the biggest problems I see is overpriced subscription rates
and the fact that both companies are trying to copy FM radio with
their music programming rather than being more eclectic. Furthermore,
the sound quality on both services has deteriorated to the point where
music is noticeably distorted. I remember the days when XM music
rivaled CD quality audio. Today it rivals FM, and on a few music channels
it sounds more like static-free AM.

Well, first you say it isn't about the content, then you say that both services are becoming more FM-like, which is about content. Which is it?

Personally, I disagree that XM is trying to copy FM radio. Even with some of the content being watered down, I still think what XM is doing is far better than what is broadcast OTA. I understand why some of it is being done, because XM is a public company and they need to answer to the stockholders, which is why XM has to push to get bigger. Personally, I would be happy with XM if it just stayed as a niche service and serviced the niches that it covers and lets Sirius take the general audience, but I understand why that can't happen.

I don't think XM is overpriced at all. When you get right down to it, for the price of a CD a month, you get tons of commercial free music, and that's if you don't take any of the deals that come down the pike.

No, price isn't the main issue. The main issue is selling the customer that paying for radio is a good thing. Fact is, a lot of people are used to the fact that radio has been free for years. It is a big hurdle to get over for some people.

I had a coworker who was a big O&A fan before they went off the air. When they came back, he was sort of happy, but wasn't willing to pay for XM just to listen to them.

My father-in-law got to listen to some XM when he rented a car on a business trip and really enjoyed it, but he also thinks that paying for radio is too much.

Course, these are the same type of people who pay $50-$60+ a month for cable or satellite TV, which for the most part you can only get at home. But, people were convinced that that amount of money was worth it. Satellite Radio needs to figure out how to convince people that their service is just as nessicary.

As for Sound Quality, it doesn't really bother me. For me, it is all about the content, and if you cut content to increase SQ, it might not matter because the content might not be there. Hell, I've lost two of my most loved channels since I started subscribing. If I lose any more content, there may not be a reason for me to subscribe anymore.

Quote:

As much as I abhor the Sirius music philosophy, I am all for the two
companies merging. In fact, I think it's essential they do. The end
result will be a reduced $10 subscriber fee along with expanded bandwidth
which (I hope) will contribute to raising the bitrate so that music doesn't
sound distorted.

Just imagine if this industry, with its newly combined bandwidth, could
tout itself as the ultimate entertainment mecca with sound that rivals
HD-Radio, all for $10 a month?! Can you imagine what that would do
for satellite radio?

Certainly, you are displaying a nice rosy picture here, but that's assuming that everything works in our favor. The problem is, the bad is more likely to happen than the good.

Sirius and Mel is going to be running the new company. I don't completely trust them, and a lot of XM customers think along those lines. All I know is if Lee Abrams gets his walking papers, I'm going to cancel the next day.

Also, there are no guarantees that the prices will drop. Remember, they still have to pay for Stern, the NFL, Oprah and MLB, amonst others.

There is also the question if it will really happen. If Echostar and DirectTV couldn't sell their merger, with the cable industry being a major competitor, how can Sirius and XM sell this one?

I'd love to see more bandwidth so that I can get back the stations that I lost and maybe gain a few more, but I'm not hopeful.

Jason

**HTF Ads**

Ronald Epstein · 05-07-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Well, first you say it isn't about the content, then you say that both services are becoming more FM-like, which is about content. Which is it?

My apologies for not clarifying that further. My bad.

When it comes to talk and sports, there is no argument that
satellite radio beats FM radio. It is talk radio these days that
keeps me an XM subscriber.

Satellite certainly also offers more music choices than FM radio,
but sadly, the programming is becoming more like FM. Playlists
continue to be cut, resulting in the same "hits" orientated channels
that FM is renowned for. Additionally, the sound quality is really
no better than FM radio. These days, I'd rather listen to CDs than
listen to music on satellite. It's the music content that I find is
suffering and the subject of most complaints on the subscriber forums.

Quote:

No, price isn't the main issue. The main issue is selling the customer that paying for radio is a good thing.

I'll agree with you on that. However, I think in order to convince
more people to go satellite radio, $10 a month is more attractive
than $13. Which brings me to this point....

Whether you trust Mel or not, it was he that told Congress that
if the companies merged, subscriber rates would fall to $10 a
month. If he's lying about that, he's gonna end up taking a lot
of shit for promising it.

As for convincing the public that satellite radio is worth the price?
I think the merge COULD help that if done right. That bandwidth
needs to be used to raise the bitrate on the music channels to
CD or HD-Radio quality. If you can do that and charge subscribers
$10 a month for a total entertainment package, I think you can
effectively sell satellite radio and it would help kill the HD-Radio
movement.

My own personal opinion is that Sirius will use that bandwidth
for video purposes and not raise the music bitrate. Sadly, I find
that too many people just don't care that the present quality of
satellite radio music sounds like garbage.

TheLongshot · 05-07-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Satellite certainly also offers more music choices than FM radio,
but sadly, the programming is becoming more like FM. Playlists
continue to be cut, resulting in the same "hits" orientated channels
that FM is renowned for. Additionally, the sound quality is really
no better than FM radio. These days, I'd rather listen to CDs than
listen to music on satellite. It's the music content that I find is
suffering and the subject of most complaints on the subscriber forums.

Well, the main channel that gets complaints like that is Ethel, which I'll leave to the subject matter experts on that one.

I can say that it is true about Da Boneyard to a certain extent. Mostly, the focus seems to be primarily on the biggest bands of the era and not a lot of room left for the more obscure bands. But, back when Logan was running the station, complaints on the board were all about the obscure crap that was played on the station and how people were having a hard time hearing the songs they recognised back in the day.

That is what I think drives a lot of this: people tend to resist the unfamiliar. That's why we are getting some cuts in the playlist. Personally, I don't like it, but I understand it from a business standpoint.

Course, that attitude is not universal. Stations like Fine Tuning, Deep Tracks, The Loft, and XMU are as good or better than ever. That's why I think the balance is hard to find for some of these stations. It is particularly bad if the listener is expecting a certain rotation of music. For example, for Da Boneyard, there are those who expect that everything will be all about the heyday of 80s hair metal, when really the genre is broader than just that.

As for SQ, I'm probably one of the few that isn't really bothered by it. Maybe it is because I don't expect a lot of quality from it, or maybe it is because I do most of my listening in my car, where the quality may not be best anyways.

Quote:

Whether you trust Mel or not, it was he that told Congress that
if the companies merged, subscriber rates would fall to $10 a
month. If he's lying about that, he's gonna end up taking a lot
of shit for promising it.

I really wonder if that is going to be realistic, particularly since it will be a while before things are finalized. With all the deals out there that both companies have made, you have to wonder.

Quote:

My own personal opinion is that Sirius will use that bandwidth
for video purposes and not raise the music bitrate. Sadly, I find
that too many people just don't care that the present quality of
satellite radio music sounds like garbage.

Almost guaranteed, and it may be the only thing that saves them, considering the popularity of DVD players in cars. Personally, I don't think video has any business being in a car. I'm old fashioned that way.

Jason

Brent T · 05-07-2007, 03:16 PM

I for one absolutely love sat radio. I have turned on all of my friends and family to it and they can't stop talking about it. Not one of them has ever mentioned sound quality as an issue (Sirius users) and neither have I.

I listen to my sat radio in the car for about 8-9 hours a day and I will agree that the sound could be better, but then again so could my system in my house that cost me well over 5K. However it sounds better then my local FM stations (philly) and the quality of the sound is far superior to to any AM talk station.

As for the play lists...

Once again far better then FM. I guess if you only listen to one sat station you will hear the same song every few hours, however sine