Mel Karmazin wrote an editorial piece on Sirius-XM's proposed A La Carte packages, which was ran today in the Washington Times.
Karmazin said that "nothing I've touched though has come close to changing the consumer experience" like the pricing packages. He added that it's a "first-ever in subscription media." A distinction that I think the FCC has likely recognized as well. For Chairman Martin, I don't think it's just a "first," but also a victory against other forms of media who have been reluctant to provide a la carte.
Mel doesn't resist the chance to call out the NAB either (and he should).
"We believe a strategy of increased choice and lower price points will build our subscriber base and allow us to become a stronger competitor in the audio entertainment marketplace. Apparently, our giant competitors in terrestrial broadcasting agree. The National Association of Broadcasters and its allies have opposed the merger of Sirius and XM, arguing that the merger will be anti-competitive."
"...it seems to me the NAB isn't afraid the merger will foster too little competition. It's afraid it will foster too much," Karmazin added. "However, the efficiencies and cost savings we realize from the merger will allow us to compete more aggressively with terrestrial radio, the 800-pound gorilla that still dominates the industry."
I think it's good that Karmazin focuses on the competition between terrestrial radio and satellite radio, because that's an argument that is easily won. Many people tend to have an issue with saying that satellite radio and iPods compete, saying that the mediums are complimentary and not substitutable. But the thought that terrestrial and satellite compete head-to-head, on a nationwide basis, is something that I think many people can recognize. Especially those reading the Washington Times.
There's much more to the op-ed piece, I highly recommend reading it.
Ryan, do you think there's any chance XM & Sirius go the 'a la carte' route even if the merger *doesn't* go through?
"Ryan, do you think there's any chance XM & Sirius go the 'a la carte' route even if the merger *doesn't* go through?"
No chance in the near future. A la carte is expensive. These companies are losing money hand over first. The only reason they want to offer it is to hopefully gain merger approval. Its a money loser in many, many ways...
>>> I think it's good that Karmazin focuses on the competition between terrestrial radio and satellite radio, because that's an argument that is easily won.
This is really hard to understand. They are, after all, in two totally different businesses, offering two totally different products, and every one of the 15 Million subscribers to satellite radio believes satellite radio is a significantly better product than terrestrial.
It is sales talk and misdirection.
Do railroads compete with trucking companies? Does McDonalds compete with Ruths Chris? Does Ford compete with Harley Davidson?
stack...when XM went out for a day a while's back...did you just sit there listening to silence for the whole day?
also...just wondering...if XM/Sirius bumped their "dues" up by, say, 50%...what would you do? how about 100%?
>> stack...when XM went out for a day a while's back...did you just sit there listening to silence for the whole day?
The so-called outage didn't affect me significantly. I listened to XM just as I always do, although with slightly degraded reception.
>>> also...just wondering...if XM/Sirius bumped their "dues" up by, say, 50%...what would you do? how about 100%?
I kept XM after they increased their prices. That's the only real point of reference I have. However, XM is worth more than I'm paying. I would, however, dump Sirius if they raised their prices, as I don't listen to Sirius with any frequency because it sucks.
However, I would hasten to add that your question isn't relevant to the issue of whether there are "substitutes" for satellite radio, if that's what you're getting at.
the fcc should hammer both for the failure to launch the promised interoperable/dual devices which is mentioned in the currently published 47 cfr section 25.144
merger or not it needs done
Who cares about the interoperable radio? That would fix nothing. If the merger fails, the FCC should require ALL sat. radios sold be required to offer both XM and Sirius. The interoperable radio is really no help- because no one will pay to build it (and few will buy it). But if the FCC required all radios to offer both XM and Sirius- consumers can have either (or both) in any new car they purchase.
Guess who wouldn't want that to occur?
its a mandate and was not meet .if it was, maybe neither company would be in the shape they are currently.oem and cunsumers would all be better off..
dumpus,
When XM went out I watched TV. Terrestrial Radio is no substitute or competition. But I guess TV must be because that's what competes for my attention. XM or video games or internet or TV, never regular radio.
If the customer likes the satellite radio service enough, they choose to pay the extra cost for satellite radio over free radio. Stack, how is that not competion?
Put it this way: Ford is coming out with a diesel F-150 next year. Nobody else in the U.S. makes 1/2 ton diesel pickups yet. Because they chose to offer something that no one else does, do they no longer compete with other car manufacturers?
The fact that satellite radio chooses to provide more channels than free radio does not make them a distinct market. They are forced to provide more service to convince people to leave free radio. Again, how is that not competion?
You can hate Sirius and the merger as much as you want, but there is absolutely no question that satellite radio competes with terrestrial radio. Satellite is better than terrestrial radio, but "better" does not equal "distinct".
Do marbles compete with baseballs?? They are both round.. I guess what I'm saying is that I started watching this merger talk thing and felt back in the beginning that satellite radio does compete with all media regardless of what or where.. That being said I think that the two companies would still compete as one or as individual companies and be fighting for a piece of the entertainment pie, be that magazines or newspapers, or the internet or whatever.. What I dread with the merger is a change in too many music channels, either in philosophy or the loose "charter" that each channel has.. With XM I would hate to see Mel ditch the O&A show, regardless of what you might think of it, nor would I want to see them add channels for the N.F.L. and force everyone to pay more for what we don't really want.. The "ala cart" package looks good, if they stick to it..
If I had a vote in this merger I think I would vote for cheese on my burger.. In other words I'm glad I don't have to decide yes or no...
Do railroads compete with trucking companies?
What kind of idiot would ask a stupid question like this? These two forms of transporting goods are fierce competitors. Next you will saying the the US Postal Service does not compete with FedEx or UPS. Where the hell are you from, Arkansas?
What kind of idiot would ask a stupid question like this? These two forms of transporting goods are fierce competitors.
Thats what I was going to say, well not the idiot part.
Fair enough, lousy example
I was thinking in terms of pre-container (in the 70s) when railroads and trucks tended not to compete so directly. With the advent of containers, the competition is much more head to head than in the old days.
The point holds, though -- there are tons of examples one can give where businesses are technically in competition but in real life they aren't direct competitors. This is the situation with terrestrial versus satellite. McDonalds/Ruths Chris; Mack Trucks and Ford Trucks; GM and Harley Davidson; there are many, many examples where I might choose one of two diverse products.
That is, after all, what is happening here -- you have consumers choosing satellite radio (product B) over terrestrial radio (product A).
you have consumers choosing satellite radio (product B) over terrestrial radio (product A).
Are you saying this is not competition? Just what ARE you babbling about?
Karmazin said that "nothing I've touched though has come close to changing the consumer experience" like the pricing packages.
==================================================================
What? who the hell is he lieing too? He is the one that started 20 miniutes per hour of commercials.
Merger is a great idea and there is no reason for it to be taking this long. Exxon/Mobil merger took less time and all of Rupert Murdoch's acquisitions took less time. Satellite radio is not a necessity like gas. It is a choice and there is alot of competition out there. There is no debate and the FCC and our government are all corrupt!
When the merger goes thru, or should I say, "If it goes thru"...will Sirius subscribers be able to listen to the NHL games again? XM now has the exclusive rights to the NHL games for 11 yrs. Thanx.