10-Foot Tall, Bullet Proof,...and Here,...Initial This Time Order:

Yes,...as I see it, the Radio Industry made a mistake by accepting ad money, to run spots for a new service; Satellite Radio.

Sure!...A lot of slick haired, gigolo wannabees, and tight(it's a shame they didn't have it in her size)skirts...made quota, but behold the surprise factor, fueled by the armor of overconfidence.

So,...if the Industry had it to do...all over?

Sure, Luther, and the newspaper business screwed the pooch 90 years ago by accepting ads for that new upstart, radio.

Scooter Lesley said:

So,...if the Industry had it to do...all over?

Click to expand...

Radio accepts ads for TV, does it not? In fact, back in the day, a lot of rock radio stations were very excited to do FM simulcasts with TV. It introduced their audience to the idea that they could watch their favorite stars sing, while listening to it on the radio. A couple years later, this TV service premiered featuring rock music 24/7. And rock radio gladly played Dire Straits singing "I want my MTV." We got to move these refrigerators, got to sell these color TVs. You were part of the conspiracy.

Sure, you could go stick your head and in the sand and pretend people don't have other options. But they do and they did and will in the future, as well.

Satellite radio has its purposes and uses. Worked on that rulemaking and wrote a paper on it. Will it replace terrestrial? Nope. Hasn't and won't. Cable didn't replace TV, either. And the Internet won't replace terrestrial either.

In 2014, if ever, you cannot think delivery mechanism. Think content. Then deliver it however your audiences want to get it.

We shall correct the bumblings of JethroM first: Sheeeeeeeesh! I am drastically underwhelmed, as usual. You can listen to the Radio, and still drive. You can't do so, while reading a Newspaper....Not comparable! Aside from the benefit of tangibility, Print has its Reaper, the Internet. If they all ankle, we will have to find an alternative Birdcage liner! Terr Radio still has a good grip, but Corporate America is the arthritis, therein. Your post is not on Topic.

Off topic, Billy Bob? Hardly. Your point (off the top of your head as usual) was that radio stabbed itself by accepting ads for Satellite McRadio. My counter-argument is that there's no difference between that and newspapers (an established advertising medium) selling space to advertise radio (a more than potential competitor.) Of course, plenty of newspapers played both sides of the street by starting or buying radio stations, and some still operate them.

Let's see now, you can't read a newspaper while driving. True, but you also can't use the Internet while driving either. Or at least you shouldn't, but in your case you probably do anyway. Comparable? Yup. Go gobble another bag of pork rinds.

Again,...you can not drive, and watch TV...a keen grasp of the obvious! So, Radio running ads for TV shows, is just revenue. The uniqueness was once there, but TV no longer needs Radio to Broadcast in Stereo...Fixed! Both can Promote the other, yet neither of the two can strike a death blow or induce free bleeding.
Radio was aware of what Sat Radio was, but just didn't believe that it would succeed. Saw it as running a $3,000 dollar schedule, then the singer oafs his ankle, and the concert is cancelled the day of.

You really think satellite has struck a "death blow?" Really?

They have less than 8% of the audience OTA radio has. How is that a death blow?

Scooter Lesley said:

Again,...you can not drive, and watch TV...a keen grasp of the obvious! So, Radio running ads for TV shows, is just revenue. The uniqueness was once there, but TV no longer needs Radio to Broadcast in Stereo...Fixed! Both can Promote the other, yet neither of the two can strike a death blow or induce free bleeding.
Radio was aware of what Sat Radio was, but just didn't believe that it would succeed. Saw it as running a $3,000 dollar schedule, then the singer oafs his ankle, and the concert is cancelled the day of.

Click to expand...

That is absolute crap.

The major broadcasting companies knew from the beginning of the rulemaking to allocate sprectrum to the service what it was and hoped that it would succeed. Clear Channel and Hubbard among others were early investors in SDARS. In fact as part of Clear Channel's investment, XM carried 10 Clear Channel Stations and Clear Channel supplied programming to another of other channels.

As pointed out above, 8% is hardly a death blow. Right now subscribership has stalled out as 4G/3G becomes more common and people are using their phones in their cars as audio devices.

...and that....that is absolute manure:
A. Chicken
B. Horse
C. A Compost Combo

You are attempting to report that Clear Channel has a bunch of Smarts! Sheeeeesh! They have profected the art of making poor decisions. Dud-fan,...You will never get anyone else on this board to agree with you, unless his "A"-ness decides to log in, with another of his spouting. Terr Stations that once rode 7 & 8's, now settle for 4 & 5 shares....the product is Awww-ful,...so Awww-ful, that people will pay to get what they want.....CC listenership in the toilet!

DavidEduardo said:

Even being generous and accounting for the cars with several occupants, it's not going to be more than a 4 share at best.

Click to expand...

And while a 4 share is great for a single station, we're talking a 4 share split among 100 stations.

Scooter Lesley said:

...and that....that is absolute manure:
A. Chicken
B. Horse
C. A Compost Combo

You are attempting to report that Clear Channel has a bunch of Smarts! Sheeeeesh! They have profected the art of making poor decisions. Dud-fan,...You will never get anyone else on this board to agree with you, unless his "A"-ness decides to log in, with another of his spouting. Terr Stations that once rode 7 & 8's, now settle for 4 & 5 shares....the product is Awww-ful,...so Awww-ful, that people will pay to get what they want.....CC listenership in the toilet!

Click to expand...

How about reading the stockholders and proxy reports and quarterly updates both Sirius, Clear Channel, XM, Hubbard and others are required to file with the SEC? Or what about the FCC records that XM/Sirius are required to file as licensees of both the ground and space spectrum?

It's there in black and white. And it has been for decades. I see the Annual Reports and Proxy every year since I am still an XM/Sirius shareholder.

It's really time, Scooter, to get another hobby. Clearly Momma didn't teach you grammar or not to call someone a liar unless you had concrete proof.

What may/not be reported in those figures are the private service subscribers. XM/Sirius market in-store music services delivered on channels not available to consumers. They also use part of their capacity to deliver data.

Scooter Lesley said:

Terr Stations that once rode 7 & 8's, now settle for 4 & 5 shares....the product is Awww-ful,...so Awww-ful, that people will pay to get what they want.....CC listenership in the toilet!

Click to expand...

Depends on the market. In most bigger cities, CC stations are usually top rated. There are quite a few stations that still get double digit shares. And the only real attraction for Sirius is the lack of commercials. Or an occasional fringe format unavailable in a town, like bluegrass or opera. That's what people pay for. I have listened to the decade stations (80s on 8) and find them to be more repetitive than OTA.

Before I cancelled by subscription because I was not driving long distances, I mostly listened to a lot of the things you couldn't get on OTA radio: Bloomberg Radio, MSNBC, CBC, and the like. If you wanted talk and didn't want NPR or Conservative Talk, XM was a great value. Widely available high speed wireless broadband is going to put a dent in XMS unless they evolve into radio cable... At the time I was up for a job at XM, they were still trying to create almost all the content themselves...

DudeFan said:

At the time I was up for a job at XM, they were still trying to create almost all the content themselves...

Click to expand...

They still are for the most part. Most of the music channels are in house, except for a few they've outsourced to Steven Van Zant or other outside contractors. Oprah does her own stuff at her own studio. Same with the other brands. The play by play sports is done outside. But most of the stuff I'm aware of comes from their own studios around the country. Very inefficient operation. They've got millions tied up in expensive studios in expensive locations, like in the Time Warner Building in NYC. Much cheaper for Malone to move it all to Colorado.

The DC studios and offices for XM (Sirius was HQ'd in NYC; XM in Northeast DC) were absolutely spectacular. Mucho dollars were spent on renovating the former bakery into a high-tech wonderland in the middle of a terrible neighborhood.

Had the company not gone through it's first of many financial crisis, I would have supervised all the outside contractor agreements. Not a bad gig for a junior attorney. The first HQ before it was renamed XM was in the basement of a building on a side street in NW DC.

The DC facility however is owned by the company, while all the other locations are rented. One would have thought after the merger, they'd consolidate in DC to save money, but that would have meant Mel would have to leave NYC. XM also has a NYC studio, and the combined company has two very expensive locations there now, including the Sirius headquarters at Rock Plaza.

I hadn't read the annual reports or 10-Q's close enough to know whether they kept DC. I assumed that they had, if only as back up. John Malone is cheap enough that he may close much of NYC and have programming mostly back in DC. They had a Florida backup facility at one time, too. Mostly receiver R&D was there. My guess was that Malone basically wanted the spectrum and the orbital slots. But he has much experience running multi-channel and satellite businesses. The real challenge for the company will be from 4G audio.