Mark Ramsey of Hear 2.0 is suggesting it just might be. He considers the fact that Howard Stern is now streaming online to be a pivotable moment for Sirius Satellite Radio as a company - transforming them from a company that sells radios to one that sells content.
Instead of the "pain" the customer feels of having to plunk down cash for a receiver, now subscribing to Sirius is "as easy as buying a book on Amazon." According to Ramsey, the online streaming alone will again re-ignite the subscription flame and send the hoards running towards Sirius with credit cards in hand.
Now, I'd love for Mark's scenario to come true though honestly I don't think it would happen. He's making it a bit bigger of a deal than it really is. But hey, he's trying to make a point here. Stern is online now and there's one less barrier of entry to listen to him. The Radio itself. Will it drive more Stern fans to subscribe? Maybe, but it's not like Sirius was advertising "Howard Stern is coming... all over America (but not online)." Instead I think it's an added benefit for current subscribers, and probably will drive WoM from subscribers to non-subscribers.
But back to the Radio itself. Is the satellite radio receiver yet another hurdle for adoption? Or maybe the receivers are still just too complicated (Bob Lefsetz's biggest complaint) for Joe Sixpack to give a shit about it?
One of the advantages that terrestrial has - other than being free to listen to - is that the AM/FM radio is ubiquitous. They're EVERYWHERE and for the most part are SIMPLE to use. Yet satellite radios need to be setup with suction cups and vent clips and long wires and antennas that need to be pointed in wacky directions. Imagine Joe Sixpack's surprise when he buys a "plug and play" receiver, only to realize that it has no speakers?
Yes, Mark's point here is that terrestrial needs to stop looking at HD Radio to solve their problems, and instead look at their weakness (content). But the message applies right back to satellite, only we should look at our own weakness (complexity). Because in order to listen to all that great content, the consumer still needs to know how to turn the radio on.
[Hear 2.0]
do you mean "in"?
As far as SATRAD simplifying I have to back a quote, "You can't FIX stupid." If the customer is too dumb to understand points on a compass he can't have SATRAD, oh well.
Stern is available al a cart via Sirius online? Thats what that Mark guy is basically saying. Oh well. I will never hear it, unless O&A play some of his dribble to make fun of his obscurity. Maybe they will play on the CBS portion so the majority of his old listeners will be able to hear it also. Those cheap assholes.
I have to agree with at least your take (without reading his article). I have 3 XM and 3 Sirius radios, just so nobody here thinks I'm pro or anti a particular service. I was setting up my Sirius Replay and I have to say it has been the BIGGEST pain trying to find a signal. There is no way that satellite radio could go mainstream without having a little thing like signal taken care of.
I also agree that it's still way too difficult to install. On my one XM it was an OEM GM, which started me on the whole satellite radio experience and it was one of the greatest features of my truck. It integrated just like FM, and everyone knows how to use it in the car because it's not intimidating. What XM and Sirius need are to either use each individual radio as a repeater (so if one gets a signal it transmits it to another radio, similar to gnutella, if that's even possible) or something extremely innovative.
Stern was great for satellite, whether you're an O&A fan or Stern fan. While I don't think he's going to be the reason there's a content shift, he made people aware of satellite radio, and made "Joe Sixpack" want to make a techie plunge.
Thanks for listening. -Matt
ArhArh: yeah, good catch, I fixed it.
History Guy: It's more about just general complexity than antenna aiming. Most people will just throw an antenna infront of a window... if they get a signal, cool, if not they'll either fiddle with it or return it to Best Buy.
But signal is only one part of the problem. There's so many steps to getting to actually listening to satellite when someone buys a unit. With every step (hardware setup, antenna aiming, FM modulation, etc) you lose more and more people.
Matt hit it right on the head. OEM integration makes the experience SEAMLESS. It's pre-installed and so it's as simply as turning on your radio. Hence why it is, and will remain to be, the main driver to subscriptions.
This is good stuff.
My buddy got a home and car dock for his Sportster for christmas. He uses the home dock all the time but he still hasn't hooked up the car dock portion. He says he'll do it "sometime this summer."
It takes 10 minutes only if it takes you 8 minutes to unlock your car door.
Stern streaming online is great for me as I can't get him at work, but the hardware definitely needs to improve. I never had to climb up on my roof to install an antenna for any terrestrial radio signals.
The radio in satellite radio is ABSOLUTELY and UTTERLY holding them back. It's just like those silly commercials that aired a while ago:
"Oh my god, so and so told me he liked me on IM last night"...."Did he tell you over DSL or Cable???"
I listen to XM for one reason alone - content. The fact that entire company revolves around the satellites only gets in my way. There is SO LITTLE bandwidth that has been spread SO THIN that now satellite radio has a hard time keeping up with terrestrial in terms of sound quality, and it no longer anywhere near CD quality.
XM and Sirius need to realize that while the satellites serve a very important purpose, they are extremely limiting in so many ways. If I want XM's fantastic content, I have to install a unit, find a signal, and put up with subpar quality. There is always online streams, but quality is also subpar (although actually better than the sat feed in most cases), and its locked to my computer.
Whichever company, XM Sirius, or other, will take that first step, and start podcasting out high quality content, with high (at least 128kbps) quality, will get my money. Then I could just upload a few hours worth of music, the day's news, and a game or two, and listen to it at my leisure. I am more than willing to pay extra for this possibility. Hell, if they wanted to keep it freeish, I wouldn't even mind if they locked it down so you couldn't REW/FF/Skip, just to make the RIAA happy, as it would essentially then be emulating radio, without the terrible quality and signal probs that come along with the satellite.
There are many things such as news, sports, that benefit very much from the "live" nature of radio. But none of them are useless when recorded/downloaded.
I completely agree with the complexity issue. I have 3 sat radios. My wife & children all love it. My mother-in-law would like it too but there is no way that she could handle the complexity of the receivers. She gets very frustrated when things don't work easily. She needs a receiver with a built-in loudspeaker that has only volume & channel selection controls. Even the preset tuning is too much for her as the channel numbers that are announced wouldn't agree with the buttons. Please, Sirius & Xm...how about a really simple table radio?