XM > Sirius > Local Radio
By floor9 on Feb 19, 2007 in Central PA, Technology
It’s all over the news today. Sirius and XM have announced their intention to merge. It’s unlikely that the deal will go through (think Echostar and DirecTV), but it’s an interesting consideration. As an XM subscriber since early 2002, I’ve been around almost since the beginning of the satellite revolution. I’ve pointed out time and time and time again that there are many reasons to make the jump to satellite radio:
XM and Sirius each have 75+ commercial-free music channels. Neither provider offers true CD quality, but what they do offer is far superior to anything bumping around the air locally. Wink probably has the best-tweaked signal in the area, and it’s nothing compared to Sirius on a bad day. On XM, I get 24/7 coverage from CNN, Headline News, Fox News, NPR, ABC, and others. In fact, listening to current events as covered by the BBC provides an interesting contrast between US media and the rest of the world. Both providers have mainstream channels in just about every genre, but each also have plenty of obscure material as well. XM has a channel dedicated to nothing but B-side 70s alternative rock. Less obnoxious personalities: Aside from Opie & Anthony (XM) and Stern (Sirius), morning shows are few and far between. Some of the channels have DJs. Some do not. Hearing a satellite DJ is more like talking to a friend about music you both like and less like hearing a washed-up-30-something pretending to be a “hip” 20-something awkwardly blurting out things like “OMG COFFEE LOL BRITNEY FTW!”
In their defense, the local stations argue that they’re the only source for local news and weather. Aside from the Internet, that is. And newspapers. And TV stations. And wireless devices. The locals also argue that “nobody” will “ever” pay for radio; this explains why they all used to forefit a considerable portion of their daily advertising to run anti-satellite-radio commercials (these were virtually halted when it was realized that they caused an explosive growth in satellite subscribers, demonstrating the #1 rule of advertising: never give free promotion to your competitor).
Their final line of defense is the ol’ “but only a moron would pay for radio when they already have FM for free” line. Ironically, I’m sure that both Cumulus and Clear Channel have bottled water in their office vending machines. You know, right next to the free water fountain. The fact is that local radio has gotten so bad, over 14 million people are willing to pay $10 per month to hear something better. To date, I haven’t yet met anyone (who doesn’t work in radio) who has tried one of the providers and said “You know, I really like local radio better”.
Satellite radio is a step in the evolution between traditional AM/FM broadcasts and fully mobile IP-based services (such as CD-quality streaming of your entire personal collection wherever you are). But it’s far better than anything you’ll find locally.












It would seem that traditional broadcasters are opposing the merger on the grounds that consolidation is bad for the industry. Oh, the irony. Weren’t they all built by consolidation?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/19/news/companies/xm_sirius/index.htm?postversion=2007021914
Interesting | Feb 20, 2007 | Reply
The problem is that FM radio tried to appeal to too broad of an audience and ends ups not appealing to anyone.
Josh | Feb 20, 2007 | Reply
Right, and right. According to the NAB, the problem of the day is now that satellite radio is begging for a government buyout. Never mind that both companies are on track with (Sirius) or ahead of (XM) their initial, ten-year-old forecasts.
Terrestrial radio has enjoyed a tightly-controlled industry, free of competing formats for the last 40 years (with a nod to the short-lived spar between AM and FM). Now they’re being dragged kicking and screaming into the fight of their lives. Rather than fix what’s wrong and attempt to win back consumers with a positive experience, they’ve chosen to launch repeated smear campaigns.
floor9 | Feb 20, 2007 | Reply