Forget The Merger, Charge More $$ For Access To Stern Channels

[Those RRRRs]

Why not? On cable TV, we pay more for premium channels. Since Stern's salary is what is costing so much money, perhaps Sirius can charge an extra fee to those who want to hear Stern's channels to offset the costs and profit/loss margin. Those of us who don't care about his channels can continue to pay the $12.95 per month.

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but does someone have a better solution or credible evidence as to why this may not be a good idea?

 

[dave73]

Why not? On cable TV, we pay more for premium channels. Since Stern's salary is what is costing so much money, perhaps Sirius can charge an extra fee to those who want to hear Stern's channels to offset the costs and profit/loss margin. Those of us who don't care about his channels can continue to pay the $12.95 per month.

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but does someone have a better solution or credible evidence as to why this may not be a good idea?

I believe certain content should cost extra. Not just on Sirius, but XM as well. I would like to see Howard Stern cost extra. That way, I wouldn't have access to the channel. I don't want to listen to his show. I would like to see my display show premium content, or subscription content extra. Whatever it should say for certain content, it should tell me that it's content that costs extra to listen to.All I really got Sirius for was the music.

 

[torchit]

You know, you can block channels. :

 

[almaniac27]

Yeah, why make Sirius/XM go through the effort of doing that to Howard's channels? You can either a) block the channels or b) just don't listen. [EDIT]

[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[FrankF]

You're kidding, right?

Just block out the channels you do not want to hear, that's what I do. It's bad enough that I'm paying $20.00 per month for two Sirius receivers. I don't need to be paying any more just so I could hear Howard Stern. Now if this stupid merger goes through and they do indeed raise the prices too much and mess with the music channels (not to mention fire the air talent) I'll cancel my subscription and invest in HD radio.

 

[Those RRRRs]

Yeah, why make Sirius/XM go through the effort of doing that to Howard's channels? You can either a) block the channels or b) just don't listen. [EDIT]
[EDIT-inflammatory]

Wow. [EDIT] Attacking one's principles and/or beliefs is your answer? What does any of your jibberish have to do with the topic?

It's not a matter of objecting to anything. I suggested it as a business decision to help pay for the costs of Stern's salary. That's all.

[EDIT]

[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[vchimpanzee]

Why not? On cable TV, we pay more for premium channels. Since Stern's salary is what is costing so much money, perhaps Sirius can charge an extra fee to those who want to hear Stern's channels to offset the costs and profit/loss margin. Those of us who don't care about his channels can continue to pay the $12.95 per month.

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but does someone have a better solution or credible evidence as to why this may not be a good idea?

I agree! I say regulate the basic channels, and put filth on the ones people pay special for.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Re: You're kidding, right?

Just block out the channels you do not want to hear, that's what I do. It's bad enough that I'm paying $20.00 per month for two Sirius receivers. I don't need to be paying any more just so I could hear Howard Stern. Now if this stupid merger goes through and they do indeed raise the prices too much and mess with the music channels (not to mention fire the air talent) I'll cancel my subscription and invest in HD radio.

Oh, well, I thought my idea was good. Yes, this is the reason not to.

I have another suggestion, though. Why not make two receivers free with the subscription and then charge extra for more. One receiver for the car, one for home. I don't have a computer at home.

 

[FrankF]

Re: You're kidding, right?

I have another suggestion, though. Why not make two receivers free with the subscription and then charge extra for more. One receiver for the car, one for home.
[/quote]

I like that idea. I'm sure that they will do that as a last resort in order to get new & keep current subscribers somewhere down the line.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Re: You're kidding, right?

I was shocked to read I would have to pay for a second receiver for home. I was having a hard enough time figuring out how to get started. Of course, I have another post on here that says Sirius has lost me anyway. Only XM still has a chance with current programming.

 

[Those RRRRs]

Of course, I have another post on here that says Sirius has lost me anyway. Only XM still has a chance with current programming.

Slow down captain. I wouldn't buy another receiver, cancel any subscription, or sign up for any service with either Sirius or XM until the future of these companies is determined. You won't be a happy camper if you buy another receiver and find out in two months that's it's worthless because it doesn't receive the channels that will be introduced if this merger takes place.

I stand by the extra $$ for Stern suggestion. Here's why: I estimate that only one half at best cares anything about listening to Howard Stern. Since his salary is costing the company so much money, not only will a few extra dollars per Stern listener help pay for those costs, it will also assist Sirius in determining how many subscribers are actually buying the product because of him. This will allow Sirius to determine a monetary value for his salary when his contract is re-newed.

Bottom Line: (And I dare someone to challenge me on this one)

Many of us are disillusioned with the product anyway since they cut DJ's on some stations including Sirius Gold which is one of their more popular channels. We are paying the same amount of money per month for channels that are now less entertaining and aren't worth as much money as they were when we signed up for the service. Since our subscription is now worth less to us, than why shouldn't those listeners who are in it for Sterns' ridiculous and inflated salary pay another dollar or two for their continued satisfactory service? It's not a jealosy thing on my part, it's basic supply and demand economics.

After all, if they can pay him $5,000,000, than there should be no reason that we can't we have a lousy $10 an hour moldy oldy DJ on Channel 5. Anybody want to tell me I'm wrong?

 

[Oldies man]

The only people who may try to argue with your statements may be those whose moral compasses are pointed towards the sewers and enjoy Stern on Sirius. You're 100% correct. Sirius's decision to contract with him to attract additional subscribers has reduced the performance on other channels. It pains me each month to know that my subscription fee to Sirius is providing financial income to Stern. It would be nice for those that enjoy listeniong to his garbage, they should pay a premium fee to receive it. The premium subsription numbers would also substantiate his salary and/or marketing performance.

Sirius 5 has tremendous potential but it unfortunately is turning into a nice sounding jukebox. It's so ironic that the decades where the announcer was so important; the 50's and 60's, are now the channels with little announcer involvement on Sirius. After the sixties and evolution of FM rock radio, the annoucers took less prominent roles and with corporate expansion, eventually we ended up with what we have now in terrestial radio, 20 somethings with little or no music knowledge opening a mic and reading liners. It's going to be interesting to see the result of the merger (if approved) on the channels 5 and 6.

 

[Oldbones]

Many of us are disillusioned with the product anyway since they cut DJ's on some stations including Sirius Gold which is one of their more popular channels. We are paying the same amount of money per month for channels that are now less entertaining and aren't worth as much money as they were when we signed up for the service.

After all, if they can pay him $5,000,000, than there should be no reason that we can't we have a lousy $10 an hour moldy oldy DJ on Channel 5. Anybody want to tell me I'm wrong?

I for one prefer the music channels jockless. If I'm gonna pay $14/mo I don't want to hear some yappy dj doing pseudo-60s formatics in an attempt to sound "authentic" and/or retro. By definition any jocks are gonna be pretty generic since the service is national. Stern at least has his own schtik (as tired as it is) and a very loyal fan base.

 

[Those RRRRs]

I for one prefer the music channels jockless.

There is certainly a legitimate audience who agrees with your perspective. Judging from posts I've read, I believe you are in the minority. That being said, there is a sense of being "jipped" now that we are paying the same amount of money for a service without DJ's. I think those of us who see it that way have an authentic argument.

I don't want to hear some yappy dj doing pseudo-60s formatics in an attempt to sound "authentic" and/or retro.

I opine that that's because you haven't heard it done correctly in a number of years. I don't know of anyone on the air today who has the ability to do an authentic sounding 50's and early 60's style of radio. The yahoo's on the air today who try it usually end up sounding like idiots. But if someone went on the air and pulled it off, it would be well received.

By definition any jocks are gonna be pretty generic since the service is national.

To a certain degree yes. But Channel 5 plays enough obscure tunes to feed into a real personality oriented host with enough rock and roll that it doesn't matter when he plays a backseat bopper on the platter of chatter from the legendary and smooth Mr. Clyde McPhatter.

 

[stljohn]

The only people who may try to argue with your statements may be those whose moral compasses are pointed towards the sewers and enjoy Stern on Sirius. You're 100% correct. Sirius's decision to contract with him to attract additional subscribers has reduced the performance on other channels. It pains me each month to know that my subscription fee to Sirius is providing financial income to Stern. It would be nice for those that enjoy listeniong to his garbage, they should pay a premium fee to receive it. The premium subsription numbers would also substantiate his salary and/or marketing performance.

Sirius 5 has tremendous potential but it unfortunately is turning into a nice sounding jukebox. It's so ironic that the decades where the announcer was so important; the 50's and 60's, are now the channels with little announcer involvement on Sirius. After the sixties and evolution of FM rock radio, the annoucers took less prominent roles and with corporate expansion, eventually we ended up with what we have now in terrestial radio, 20 somethings with little or no music knowledge opening a mic and reading liners. It's going to be interesting to see the result of the merger (if approved) on the channels 5 and 6.

You know I've found that the most smug and judgmental people are usually doing the most dirt. You remind me of Rush criticizing drug users while maintaining a colossal addiction or William Bennett lecturing America on morals while literally gambling the house away.

Do yourself a favor, take the advice of others on this thread and if you don't like it don't listen and keep your thoughts on what you think is "moral" to yourself.

Secondarily Sirius music content was set prior to Stern's signing. But I'm sure that you won't let facts get in the way of your right wing spin.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Of course, I have another post on here that says Sirius has lost me anyway. Only XM still has a chance with current programming.

Slow down captain. I wouldn't buy another receiver, cancel any subscription, or sign up for any service with either Sirius or XM until the future of these companies is determined. You won't be a happy camper if you buy another receiver and find out in two months that's it's worthless because it doesn't receive the channels that will be introduced if this merger takes place.

I haven't bought anything yet. When I saw how complicated and expensive it was all going to be I decided not to. And it turns out I have a good radio station where I live. The one I had before is no longer my only choice.

 

[chgodave]

Stern's shows provide exclusive content for Sirius and its subscribers, one of too few channels which actually do that. Not just one show, but 2 channels with fresh content every day. Several of the comments seem to overlook the fact that subscriptions to Sirius have more than doubled, and that's in the MILLIONS, since Howard started on there less than 1 1/2 years ago.

This, while so much of XM's content, including Stern 'rip-off' artists Opie & Anthony, is heard on AM/FM radio. Oprah appears for about 1/2 hour per week on "her" channel.

To those who claim there should be an extra charge for the Stern channels, I'd suggest contacting your cable company to pay extra for those channels which are not over-the-air in your local market. It's a different version of the same thing you are asking for.

It's really not about Sirius vs. XM. It's about satellite radio attracting millions of subscribers every year. If the AM & FM stations were competing with each other and making an effort to provide quality content, millions of people wouldn't be forced to pay anything for satellite radio.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Slow down captain. I wouldn't buy another receiver, cancel any subscription, or sign up for any service with either Sirius or XM until the future of these companies is determined. You won't be a happy camper if you buy another receiver and find out in two months that's it's worthless because it doesn't receive the channels that will be introduced if this merger takes place.

Hey, wait, XM and Sirius should look at this post. Because this is as good a reason as any not to go through with the merger. New subscriptions may go down if they don't call it off.

 

[torchit]

I agree! I say regulate the basic channels, and put filth on the ones people pay special for.

One man's filth is another man's poetry.

What say we keep Stern on basic, since the whole "uncensored" feature was the selling point for a lot of us ... and put the religious channels on a premium tier?

 

[torchit]

You know I've found that the most smug and judgmental people are usually doing the most dirt. You remind me of Rush criticizing drug users while maintaining a colossal addiction or William Bennett lecturing America on morals while literally gambling the house away.

And let's not forget "Pastor" Ted Haggard - a "man of God" whose "upward moral compass" was unquestioned until his love for meth and male hookers became public knowledge ... and lying about it when he got caught. Or Republican representative Mark Foley, who claimed to be a footsoldier in the fight against child exploitation ... and then got caught propositioning underage male pages for sex. Or Republican representative Ed Schrock, who co-sponsored anti-gay legislation ... and then dropped out of public service when it became known he was cruising for homosexual sex on a telephone dating-line.

One thing you can say about Stern is that you never have to wonder about where he stands. He's a truthful man, more truthful than a lot of these so-called "defenders of public morality".