On 4/11/11 1:07 AM, Kevin M. wrote: >>> Thus, I think your argument actually supports a model that I think you are >>> against, which is a very tightly bundled package. > Except that the business model has failed in satellite radio. Not > enough people are buying into it; they either don't want those options > or cannot justify the expense.
I think you've hit it on the head here. Most cannot justify the expense, especially when there is a "free" version that they can get over a regular radio. Also, NAB ran a very successful campaign when satellite radio launched to put into everyone's mind that they would rather listen to local radio; for local news, talk, weather, and emergencies. That's something SiriusXM really can't overcome. Whether it's true or not, the average listener thinks they're listening to someone in their town playing music (or otherwise) for them. And they like to support the hometown media outlets, regardless of which corporate conglomerate owns the station. And if they really want, the more tech-savvy listener can use their smartphone to stream music from one of many different types of services; Pandora, Slacker, or even radio "from home" via Clear Channel's iheartradio. What niche does that leave for SiriusXM? They're a haven for long distance road travel, or rural locations with one or two locals; otherwise it's a cheaper version of in-store music. Their smartphone apps and Internet listening are mixed into everything else that's available over the web. It's hard to justify the in-car expense if your travel time in the car (most cars now have satellite built-in) is going to be small intervals; the programming offered by SiriusXM - even with Stern - isn't anything that you're going to stay in your car for because you "have to hear it". (XM before the merger was like that as a hook to get subscribers, but the cost to produce that type of program outweighed the need to reduce costs.) The problem for me is that, as a long time XM subscriber, I've become accustom to having someone program music for me without any commercials. When I turn on an FM station and hear a 5-10 minute block of commercials, I cringe! Playing from my personal music library on an iPod works too, but then it's difficult to hear anything new. I think the next game changer, coming very soon, will be a Netflix-esque music service from the likes of Apple - listen to your personal music library, and if you let us mix in some new music and other stuff, we'll discount the cost for you to "store" your music on our cloud. Eventually you just buy a license to listen to your music without having to upload it. This is what services like Pandora and Slacker Radio elude to now, but without the ability for you to access songs you want to hear like an iPod does. And I think (in a lame attempt to bring this back to TV...) that Netflix, Hulu and other video streaming services are already bringing this same concept full circle back to the television market. Cable has adapted by becoming your Internet service provider. Make no mistake, the announcement that Netflix is buying original programming is huge. No need to subscribe to cable TV anymore, except for live coverage of sports, breaking news, or your local stations (for that sense of community). The only thing keeping the likes of SyFy, Cluu, etc. on the air is that they are essentially commercials for old content (TV shows) with even more commercials surrounding them. Sean. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
