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.
DePauw Professor Blasts Satellite Radio
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.orbitcast.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/2491
1. The "local content" issue is a terrible argument and the only thing the NAB can argue.
2. When a person opts for sat radio, he/she can still listen to local content, as the auto still has AM/FM capabilities.
3. He does not recognize that retail sales will decrease because more and more OEMs are installing them in their cars, obviating the need for an add-on unit.
4. I've changed my mind for Sunday: Go Bears!
I read the piece over the weekend. Sadly, his assessment is more accurate than anything I've heard or read coming from Sirius and XM.
I'm on the Prof's side on this one.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
What a Prick!
Not only do I get the feeling that he does not like satellite radio but also.
1. He has a lot of students who catch up on their sleep in his class.
2. He eats his TV dinners alone with nothing more than a text book and his lecture notes.
But seriously does he research his topics because isn't the Satellite Radio industry growing faster than Cable TV and Mobile Phones?
Let these professors and anybody else for that matter, keep complaining, and fighting for a medium(FM radio) that is going to be dead in another 10 years.
I don't agree with everything in the article, but he has a lot of stuff exactly right -- especially the part about overpaying for Stern.
There are some accurate facts in there --
a) The Sirius cartoon video initiative is downright stupid and cannot even BEGIN to cover the cost of the bandwidth, and
b) The average person knows Stern is on satellite radio but doesn't know which service he is on. When he buys a new car, the salesman will say, "It has XM" and he'll say, "Is that the one with Howard Stern?" and the salesman will say, "I don't know" and the customer will say, "Okay". That's the end of it.
The billion dollars Sirius is spending on Stern will, in the end, be shown to have been one of the top 3 worst decisions in the history of satellite radio (the other two being SIRI's choice of PAC and the idea of using 3 satellites in Molnyia orbits rather than two GEO as XM did).
Yeah, this guy know what he's talking about. He read it in another article, so it must be right..
F for effort! get off your duff and do some actual research!!!
Amazing how much satellite radio bring out the Love/Hate in everyday people.
Click on the Link for the article and read
the comments ... they are hilarious !
Yes they are. Here's the links to the two pages (so far) of comments:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/T8268J0RGFK60S9P8
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/T8268J0RGFK60S9P8/p2