Re: Why Satellite Radio Will Fail
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