There's a perceptive piece making the rounds in the AP, Satellite Radio Draws Stars, that spotlights the celebrity talent that frequents the airwaves of satellite radio.

While there's a quick mention of XM, the piece really revolves around Sirius and buzzing celebrity society within their walls. From Jamie Foxx, to Martha Stewart, to Tiki Barber, to Cardinal Edward Egan, to - yes - Howard Stern; the article perfectly illustrates how Sirius' celebrity strategy is spurring the growth of the satellite radio medium.

Celebrity talent is most likely one of the reasons why Sirius is doing so well at retail. People are looking for familiarity when they make a decision. The term "satellite radio" is ambiguous to someone who hasn't heard it. So when they're staring at a display in Circuit City, they're going to choose the service that contains the most familiar names (unfamiliarity is intimidating to most).

Whether or not they spend much time on the air doesn't actually matter, celebrities have a wide reach that connects with the consumer at a personal level. And as soon as you make that connection, you're one step closer to a sale.

Thanks sternfan73! 

Woohoo! Here's video of the satellite radio mention on the Simpsons.

Thanks to the boys over at Sirius Uplink for the video!

You know a medium has reached key milestone in our mainstream culture, when it gets mentioned on the Simpsons.

So was the case when during last night's Simpsons episode ("Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times") when Homer showed off his new satellite radio. Sure, it's not going to make anyone run out of their house to the nearest Best Buy, but it pretty damn cool.

Gee, that looks strikingly similar to a Sportster. SSG has a pretty good thought as to why.

[SSG via Sirius Uplink]
Thanks Joshua!

(Side note: I've been trying to find the video for this all day... anyone have a clip of it, please email me and I'll post it.)

Jeffrey M. McCall, professor of communication at DePauw University, published an essay blasting the satellite radio industry in the Indianapolis Star. It's not necessarily an inaccurate piece (mostly about the hurdles of 2006), just one riddled with spin and snide comments that are meant to lead the reader to a theoretical conclusion.

Curious too. Because even though he uses words like "struggling" and "dismal" to describe the satellite radio industry, he doesn't seem to have a problem with boasting about regular radio's "local identity" and how "powerful" the NAB is.

Interesting, because only a year ago Professor Jeffrey M. McCall said this about terrestrial radio, "They need to go back to their strengths, having somebody local there. Think about the stations that don't have [a] word of local news anymore." But but... I thought that was one of their key strengths? Did terrestrial get back that "local identity" in the past year?

Of course, in that same article, McCall hints that the FCC should impose indecency regulations on the satellite radio industry. And only a few months later Jeffrey McCall is quoted as saying, "I don't know that radio is important enough in people's lives to pay for."

Hmmm... anyone get the feeling he doesn't like satellite radio? Naahh.

BusinessWeek has a good article today on the state of HD Radio and hurdles that terrestrial radio face in spurring adoption.

One interesting section of note:

The problem for the broadcasters, who continue to see their audience become fragmented and struggle to boost ad revenues, is that HD radio "is not a new offering. It's a defensive move," says Ted Schadler, an analyst with Forrester Research (FORR). "It's better radio, but it's not a whole lot better radio." He calls it a replacement product and likens it to the transition from black-and-white to color TVs.

"People still got a picture and their shows on black-and-white so they waited until their sets went on the fritz. Then they bought a color TV." For 2007, the industry will sell a few HD receivers, but 10 years from now, everyone will have one. "It's that kind of thing. It will happen without a ripple," says Schadler. 

The only difference with this analogy is that color TV was "cool" - HD Radio, in this rapidly evolving technological environment - is being challenged by a heck of lot of other "cooler" things.

Now let's flip it around (because I can't bring up HD Radio without talking about Satellite Radio)... what about satellite radio isn't "cool" enough to the consumer?

[BusinessWeek]

So yeah, it's a slow news day, so I'm forced to post something about this story in today's New York Times. Normally this would get ignored, but yeah, it's the Times and I'm kind of fond of them lately.

The whole basis of the piece is about the "mysterious" appearances of Howard Stern's Sirius show on terrestrial radio. As we all know this is pretty much old news since the FM mods were fixed last year, but of course some older receivers are out there excessively emitting away. If anything this is fodder for the NAB (among others) to continue crying for a satellite radio recall.

So kudos to Patrick Reilly, Sirius spokesman-extraordinaire, for giving up absolutely nothing that would help fuel the NAB's effort with this quote, "All satellite radios need to be approved by and in compliance with applicable F.C.C. rules, and all of our radios are compliant."

As a result, the piece needs to hunt around looking for another "potential suspect" that's causing Howard to bleed into the free airwaves. The thing that's curious is that no one ever seems to bring up over-emitting iPod adapters - which, considering the marketshare and number of FM transmitters built for the iPod - could very well outnumber over-emitting satellite radios.

[New York Times] 

A replay of Howard Stern's appearance on David Letterman will air this Thursday, January 25th.

This apparently is a rerun from Stern's December 12th show as Gwen Stefani is listed as the musical guest. Luckily enough, you can just watch that episode here.

[CBS via Sirius Backstage] 

There's an interesting article in today's New York Post about the possibility of XM and Sirius no longer be signing, or renewing, the high-cost programming deals as they did in the prior years.

Deals like the NFL, Howard Stern and Martha Stewart on Sirius' end; with the MLB, and Oprah Winfrey on XM's end; were cited as being some examples of the lucrative deals signed. And of course the New York Post hints that these "rich paydays will expire when the contracts do."

But the fact of the matter is that the very earliest any of these contracts will expire is in 2009. If this article was written one-year ago, the headline most likely would have had a completely different tone. (Ah, the fickle media.) A lot can change in the next two years, and the circumstances in which a deal would be renewed would be based on the conditions when the contract is up.

Of course, the lack of newly signed "lucrative deals" shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Management from both Sirius and XM have said that the major content deals are over. And there's no doubt that either company would evaluate the value of each deal to determine it's renewal cost (or if it would be renewed at all).

Rightfully so, as both companies are in the business to make money, not sign deals at any cost.

Now what if XM and Sirius were to merge? RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank is cited in the article stating that, "a combined XM/Sirius would be able to negotiate a 20 percent decrease in each contract upon its renewal" thanks to the lack of competition in a merged entity.

Then again, what if the renewal deal wasn't lucrative enough for the content provider?

[New York Post via SSG]
Thanks Gary!

Joe Nocera has a nicely written piece in today's New York Times, I Want My Howard Stern and Oprah, that takes on the consumer's viewpoint... and he actually is in favor of a Sirius + XM merger.

It's an intriguing take on the situation, especially since in my half-hour conversation with Mr. Nocera the one quote he chose to include was the following:

"Choice is always a good thing," said Ryan Saghir, who blogs about satellite radio at Orbitcast.com — and opposes the idea of a merger.

It's an appropriate quote though because when I boil down my feelings on the rumored merger, especially from a consumer's standpoint (and one who subscribes to both services), I do believe that choice is always a good thing.

The article goes on to point out that since both services are mutually exclusive from each other, it actually reduces the amount of choice for the customer. This is especially the case when you look at automobile purchases, "nobody chooses a car based on whether it carries XM or Sirius," the article points out.

A significant aspect to highlight, especially for merger-hopefuls, is that former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt (who led the commission when it passed the rule preventing a satellite radio merger) said that he believes that the rule he helped formulate should be repealed. As Mr. Levin put it, "Circumstances have changed." (For those who are trying to keep pulse of what the FCC's underlying stance is on the possible merger, this may be your best indication yet.)

Nocera continues on with the theory that vehicles will eventually be Internet-enabled, at which point satellite radio will be "just another technology fighting to keep pace with the Internet." That with just under 14 million subscribers, satellite radio "has had a modest impact," and will eventually need to compete with "the greatest business model destroyer ever created: the Internet."

What Nocera fails to notice is that satellite radio is growing faster than any other consumer product sans the iPod. A fact that was highlighted in the New York Times only a couple weeks ago. While his piece is refreshingly fair and unbiased, the reality is that auto manufacturers are notoriously slow to adopt personal technologies (e.g., iPod jacks, Bluetooth, etc), and that the realistic expectation Internet in the car is quite a long ways away. It's not necessary for XM and Sirius to merge in order for them to survive.

But back to the issue of choice.

From a consumer's standpoint, it's not a merger that will allow for the increased availability of choice. Mergers never lead to more choice for the consumer (*cough* Comcast *cough*). XM and Sirius are far more than just Howard and Oprah, or NFL and MLB - the majority of what we listen to is music - and the result of a merger would be the inexcusable loss of the unique programming styles from both services. Those who say that the music offerings from XM and Sirius are "essentially the same" have obviously never listened to them.

No, the consumer doesn't need a merger. What the consumer needs is interoperability. Interoperability is something that is also mandated by the FCC, and hopefully soon, it's something that is becoming a reality.

[New York Times (subscription req'd)]