Busted: Carmel Group has already defined Satellite Radio's competitors
In the recent Carmel Group study, Senior Analyst and Chairman Jimmy Schaeffler writes an analysis about the proposed XM-Sirius merger, and drafts point-by-point blows combating each argument in favor of the merger.
One key aspect that Schaeffler argues against is the definition of the competitive landscape. Here's a quote from the Carmel Group report:
"Sirius and XM make an argument that is critical to the success of this proposed merger. They state that their competitive landscape presently includes all forms of terrestrial radio (i.e., analog AM and FM, digital HD and Internet radio), as well as digital services such as MP3 devices and music-to-cellular telephones. This position is ludicrous. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth."
Note that I added the emphasis on the "ludicrous" statement. That's something that the media is picking up on very heavily.
But exactly how ludicrous is this position? Exactly how far from the truth could it be? Not too far I guess, because Jimmy Schaeffler took that position himself in a Carmel Group article written in October 05, 2005:
"...satellite radio, with more than seven mil. subscribers, and its competition comes in the form of traditional analog AM & FM radio, as well as burgeoning services like MP3 players, terrestrial radio, and video- and Internet-to-the-vehicle. "
Now that's not a selectively snipped quote. Read the full article yourself - it goes on to outline and describe satellite radio's competition, and what obstacles they will face in the years to come.
This is an article that was written (free of any funding from the NAB) only a year and a half ago by The Carmel Group, and it explicitly defines satellite radio's competitors. But yet an NAB commissioned report by the same group suddenly claims that any such definition is "ludicrous."