I think the ad issue is meaningless. Both services have no ads on their music channels. Period. To me, the real difference is between their respective mix of service offerings. Sirius has a much stronger news, public affairs, sports (*ALL* NFL, NHL, NBA games), international content (WRN with content from two dozen international broadcasters, as well as BBC News 24/7 and soon CBC Canada) and topical discussion line-up. If your interests skew this way, Sirius is the better choice for you. If you're looking for a greater emphasis on music, XM should get first consideration (although Sirius does fine there as well, as far as I'm concerned.)

John Figliozzi

----- Original Message -----
From: (airwaves-digest)
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:15 am
Subject: airwaves-digest V2004 #148


airwaves-digest Wednesday, July 14 2004 Volume 2004 :
Number 148

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 2004 16:48:48 GMT
From: (D Ray)
Subject: [Airwaves] Deciding XM or Sirius ? Here's a review.

Hawkeye wrote in message
... Its not that hard. If you
are a redneck its XM...Nascar and the
Bozo..along with all that crap...If you like sports its Sirius. NFL
and no Bozo...Both have good music. Doctors ,,,,Doctors do it
now do
it now.. yes XM plays the same ads over and over on all
channels.
There are no ads on XM music channels, just like Sirius. Both have
ads on talk channels. XM has more music channels and less talk.
Hence, fewer ads than Sirius.

wrote in message ...
I think the ad issue is meaningless. Both services have no ads on their
music channels. Period.

XM eliminated the commercials (not to be confused with promos) on all music
channels in February.

When it came time to decide, I asked myself which cell phone company I
really loved. The answer- none. Therefore, if you love cell phones
with mandated contracts and everything in the companies favor, you go
with Sirius. That includes a years non-refundable subscription,
perhaps a "lifetime" subscription which is good for only the lifetime
of one single radio. Wanna change cars? Change to fancier receiver?
You lose the money and have to buy another subscription. Higher
activation fees. Found this out at the last minute and went with XM
for that reason. No regrets.





On 14 Jul 2004 14:29:14 GMT, wrote:

I think the ad issue is meaningless. Both services have no ads on their music channels. Period. To me, the real difference is between their respective mix of service offerings. Sirius has a much stronger news, public affairs, sports (*ALL* NFL, NHL, NBA games), international content (WRN with content from two dozen international broadcasters, as well as BBC News 24/7 and soon CBC Canada) and topical discussion line-up. If your interests skew this way, Sirius is the better choice for you. If you're looking for a greater emphasis on music, XM should get first consideration (although Sirius does fine there as well, as far as I'm concerned.)

John Figliozzi

----- Original Message -----
From: (airwaves-digest)
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:15 am
Subject: airwaves-digest V2004 #148


airwaves-digest Wednesday, July 14 2004 Volume 2004 :
Number 148

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 2004 16:48:48 GMT
From: (D Ray)
Subject: [Airwaves] Deciding XM or Sirius ? Here's a review.

Hawkeye wrote in message
... Its not that hard. If you
are a redneck its XM...Nascar and the
Bozo..along with all that crap...If you like sports its Sirius. NFL
and no Bozo...Both have good music. Doctors ,,,,Doctors do it
now do
it now.. yes XM plays the same ads over and over on all
channels.
There are no ads on XM music channels, just like Sirius. Both have
ads on talk channels. XM has more music channels and less talk.
Hence, fewer ads than Sirius.

On 11 Aug 2004 06:11:29 GMT, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:

One can only hope that XMSirius (yeah, they'll merge, eight to five by
2006)will kill the market value of local stations so that people who
want to do radio can afford to buy them.

Ain't gonna happen. Even if XM and SIRIUS merge, they'll have only a
fraction of the audience of terrestrial radio. The current subscriber
count is less than 3 million and that's spread over 200+ channels.

I believe it'll be many years before satellite radio becomes a
significant threat to radio. It'll take even longer before ad agencies
get the kind of numbers from the channels that accept advertising.
Agencies have to buy on environment rather than buying buy the
numbers, as they're used to doing.

I have both XM and SIRIUS. I generally listen to Classical, Jazz,
Oldies and a few other non-commercial channels. That means I'm
unreachable by advertisers.

Rich

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...
On 11 Aug 2004 06:11:29 GMT, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:

One can only hope that XMSirius (yeah, they'll merge, eight to five by
2006)will kill the market value of local stations so that people who
want to do radio can afford to buy them.

Ain't gonna happen. Even if XM and SIRIUS merge, they'll have only a
fraction of the audience of terrestrial radio. The current subscriber
count is less than 3 million and that's spread over 200+ channels.

I'm not sure I agree with your count, Rich. I'm not disputing the subscriber number,
but isn't it fair to say that anyone listening to any Sirius or XM program ISN'T
listening to coventional radio. Thus, there's radio listening, and not-radio
listening (XM and Sirius). Point being that it's of no particular significance as to
WHAT program is being listened to, just that it's not radio. And using that
criteria, 3 million subscribers equates to more than 1% of the U-S population - even
more when considering only those who use radio. Isn't it fair to say that this,
assumed to be uniformly distributed, also means that Sirius and XM (assuming all
subscribers are listening at once...a big assumption, certainly) would be similar to
an in-market radio station with a 1 share, a level that many stations in
densely-served markets would consider to be a success? If this share grows by just
one order of magnitude, it's going to start hurting traditional broadcasting.

I believe it'll be many years before satellite radio becomes a
significant threat to radio. It'll take even longer before ad agencies
get the kind of numbers from the channels that accept advertising.
Agencies have to buy on environment rather than buying buy the
numbers, as they're used to doing.

But Sirius' and XM's business model doesn't require advertisers....it's subscription,
and the subscription model is more efficient than the advertiser-supported model (as
XM seems to have found out). We don't got to show you any stinkin' ad agencies, and
could care less what numbers they're looking for!

I have both XM and SIRIUS. I generally listen to Classical, Jazz,
Oldies and a few other non-commercial channels. That means I'm
unreachable by advertisers.

Except, you've noted, when you listen to NPR. And NPR's programming on Sirius does
do underwriting announcements, too, you know. Not exactly being deluged with
advertising matter, true, but it's still a far cry from being an advertiser-free
zone. So considering how desireable NPR listeners are, it might just be the bleeding
edge on where satellite "advertising" dollars starts seeping to.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



Rich

On 14 Aug 2004 16:58:49 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with your count, Rich. I'm not disputing the subscriber number,
but isn't it fair to say that anyone listening to any Sirius or XM program ISN'T
listening to coventional radio. Thus, there's radio listening, and not-radio
listening (XM and Sirius). Point being that it's of no particular significance as to
WHAT program is being listened to, just that it's not radio. And using that
criteria, 3 million subscribers equates to more than 1% of the U-S population - even
more when considering only those who use radio. Isn't it fair to say that this,
assumed to be uniformly distributed, also means that Sirius and XM (assuming all
subscribers are listening at once...a big assumption, certainly) would be similar to
an in-market radio station with a 1 share, a level that many stations in
densely-served markets would consider to be a success? If this share grows by just
one order of magnitude, it's going to start hurting traditional broadcasting.

Since you're using the percentage of population figure, it wouldn't be
share. It would be rating, a much smaller figure. The percentage of
the total population listening to anything is far less than the
percentage of persons using radio at a given time.

I'm also not convinced that satellite subscribers are regular radio
listeners. If they are, they're probably not listening to satellite
exclusively and are sharing the time with conventional radio.
Remember, the traffic and weather channels serve only a small segment
of the population and fewer within that population actually listen to
it or know it exists.

I believe most satellite listeners left radio some time ago and are
sampling the new medium. Unfortunately for me much of what I disliked
about terrestrial radio has been taken to the sky: mindless, yelping
jocks on some channels mispronouncing the names of local cities I got
XM and SIRIUS to get away from the Party Martys of the world (there
are many others) only to find they're there. I turn it off just as I
turned off my FM radio before it.

But Sirius' and XM's business model doesn't require advertisers....it's subscription,
and the subscription model is more efficient than the advertiser-supported model (as
XM seems to have found out). We don't got to show you any stinkin' ad agencies, and
could care less what numbers they're looking for!

Approximately 40 of the 100 channels are commercial. I assume they
hope for some ad income. How will they convince an agency that people
are listening to commercials? There's no reverse data stream that
monitors what I listen to.

Except, you've noted, when you listen to NPR. And NPR's programming on Sirius does
do underwriting announcements, too, you know. Not exactly being deluged with
advertising matter, true, but it's still a far cry from being an advertiser-free
zone. So considering how desireable NPR listeners are, it might just be the bleeding
edge on where satellite "advertising" dollars starts seeping to.

Neither service claimed to be advertiser free. Both said that
non-music channels would carry spots. Until recently, even some music
channels did. I've always expected News, Talk and entertainment
channels would be commercial.

Part of what terrestrial radio sees as competition involves listeners
moving to some other service and advertisers doing the same. I haven't
heard any broadcaster complain that satellite radio is siphoning ad
dollars away.

Rich

On 14 Aug 2004 16:58:49 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with your count, Rich. I'm not disputing the subscriber number,
but isn't it fair to say that anyone listening to any Sirius or XM program ISN'T
listening to coventional radio. Thus, there's radio listening, and not-radio
listening (XM and Sirius). Point being that it's of no particular significance as to
WHAT program is being listened to, just that it's not radio. And using that
criteria, 3 million subscribers equates to more than 1% of the U-S population - even
more when considering only those who use radio. Isn't it fair to say that this,
assumed to be uniformly distributed, also means that Sirius and XM (assuming all
subscribers are listening at once...a big assumption, certainly) would be similar to
an in-market radio station with a 1 share, a level that many stations in
densely-served markets would consider to be a success? If this share grows by just
one order of magnitude, it's going to start hurting traditional broadcasting.

Since you're using the percentage of population figure, it wouldn't be
share. It would be rating, a much smaller figure. The percentage of
the total population listening to anything is far less than the
percentage of persons using radio at a given time.

I'm also not convinced that satellite subscribers are regular radio
listeners. If they are, they're probably not listening to satellite
exclusively and are sharing the time with conventional radio.
Remember, the traffic and weather channels serve only a small segment
of the population and fewer within that population actually listen to
it or know it exists.

I believe most satellite listeners left radio some time ago and are
sampling the new medium. Unfortunately for me much of what I disliked
about terrestrial radio has been taken to the sky: mindless, yelping
jocks on some channels mispronouncing the names of local cities I got
XM and SIRIUS to get away from the Party Martys of the world (there
are many others) only to find they're there. I turn it off just as I
turned off my FM radio before it.

But Sirius' and XM's business model doesn't require advertisers....it's subscription,
and the subscription model is more efficient than the advertiser-supported model (as
XM seems to have found out). We don't got to show you any stinkin' ad agencies, and
could care less what numbers they're looking for!

Approximately 40 of the 100 channels are commercial. I assume they
hope for some ad income. How will they convince an agency that people
are listening to commercials? There's no reverse data stream that
monitors what I listen to.

Except, you've noted, when you listen to NPR. And NPR's programming on Sirius does
do underwriting announcements, too, you know. Not exactly being deluged with
advertising matter, true, but it's still a far cry from being an advertiser-free
zone. So considering how desireable NPR listeners are, it might just be the bleeding
edge on where satellite "advertising" dollars starts seeping to.

Neither service claimed to be advertiser free. Both said that
non-music channels would carry spots. Until recently, even some music
channels did. I've always expected News, Talk and entertainment
channels would be commercial.

Part of what terrestrial radio sees as competition involves listeners
moving to some other service and advertisers doing the same. I haven't
heard any broadcaster complain that satellite radio is siphoning ad
dollars away.

Rich

On 15 Aug 2004 04:16:48 GMT, Rich Wood
wrote:


I believe most satellite listeners left radio some time ago and are
sampling the new medium. Unfortunately for me much of what I disliked
about terrestrial radio has been taken to the sky: mindless, yelping
jocks on some channels mispronouncing the names of local cities I got
XM and SIRIUS to get away from the Party Martys of the world (there
are many others) only to find they're there. I turn it off just as I
turned off my FM radio before it.


I just returned from a visit with some relatives and found their media
habits interesting, and rather discouraging.

Their radio listening, such as it is, is confined almost exclusively
to music on public radio. And most of their music listening is from
CD's, not radio. They get 100% of their broadcast news from
television, totally ignoring NPR, one of the country's best all-news
radio stations, and a multiple-Murrow-award winning news/talker. In
my time with them no radio in their house was ever turned on, and the
car radio (as opposed to the CD player) was used only sporadically.

Of course, these people are "55+," so radio doesn't want them. And
their 19-year-old son has an XM subscription. I've never heard even
one of his favorite bands on the air anyway, so I'm pretty sure radio
is completely irrelevant to him.

Hoping I can hang on for a few more years...

Mark Howell