Mel Karmazin on Charlie Rose: Google is "F-ing with the magic"

To be honest, I could care less since I canceled my sub (wife still has one). I just think Mel needs to quit complaining since this is a PAID service where ad revenue should not be the main source of revenue. My point is Mel is still thinking like a terrestrial radio exec and this old way is not how radio is moving.

Mrwirez, I think it's more likely that Karmazin will result in the ultimate destruction of satellite radio than its salvation, but only time will tell.

But, Ranger, what Karmazin's doing here isn't complaining about Google but expressing nostalgia for the time when there was no way to hold the media accountable for the quality of results produced by advertising.

Consider this statement: "You buy a commercial in the Super Bowl... and you had no idea if it worked! You had no idea if you sold product... if it did any good," Karmazin said. "I loved that model."

He's expressing sarcasm toward himself and his own industry, not attacking Google.

Right, Mel is running the company into the ground as he gets you to pay for something you say you hate. And "commercial free", eh? You mean like, Pink, Nashville, Sunny, Rock @ Random on XM? Funny how you think it is so clever to say SiriusFM when it is your beloved XM who partnered with Clear Channel and began operating with commercials on all their channels at it's inception. Mel is laughing all the to the bank with your discounted fees. He and Sirius will be around a lot longer than your lame Home Theater site. Oh, yes, and internet radio works great in the car.Please ban this repetitive troll, Ryan.

Not EVOLVE? Are you joking? That is EXACTLY what Mel did. While OTHERS clung to an old, antiquated, DYING Ad based business model, Mel saw the writing on the wall, and embraced a NEW, WORKING, THRIVING sub based business model.

And you say he's complaining? Did you not WATCH the interview?

He WAS an old ad man who was JOKING in a fun way of how Google came along and F'd up the OLD way of doing things....and how he's GLAD he's in the SUBSCRIPTION based model now...because those that depend on ad revenue like newspapers and terrestrial radio are all HURTING. DUH!

This interview HIGHLIGHTS exactly WHY Sirius is in an amazing position. Now that they are merged and not bleeding cash with each other, SiriusXM will finally turn a PROFIT this quarter and never look back.

Much like Apple was scoffed at when they set up their itunes music store, Sirius will be embraced and the envy of media companies who are scratching their heads on HOW to MONETIZE their content that people can get for free on the internet.

Sirius has figured out a way to do this, to the tune of nearly 20 MILLION PAYING customers and growing. They are in nearly EVERY new car and are in a great position going forward.

All those that bashed Sirius before are waking up to this fact. The recent price action indicates this shift in perception.

Debt is no longer an issue. Yes, past debt is still out there, but not due for YEARS. With their credit rating increasing, SiriusXM can refinance or pay it down no problem. They are also in the position to start buying back shares soon. So the two biggest issues(debt and dillution) are no longer a problem.

Add to that the synergies and contract renegotiations taking place, and SiriusXM is saving even MORE cash.

Now Liberty Media is hinting about possible GLOBAL expansion of SiriusXM since buying up European/Asia sat radio company WorldSpace and the future is looking even BRIGHTER for Mel and company.

Bottom line, SiriusXM is in a great position with the BEST business model to address the over supply and lack of demand for OLD Ad based companies.

Yup. With the merger complete, debt and dilution no longer an issue, and growth looking good....SiriusXM a virtual MONOPOLY is sitting pretty. :-)

You've done a better job of speaking up for Sirius XM than the company generally does for itself, but let's look at a few of your statements: Twenty million subscribers and growing? Not lately, however. Since the channel merging, they've seen a blend of weak growth and subscriber declines. Yes, the economy's been bad, but do people come back when their budget improves, after having dumped pay radio during lean times? Neither of us have the answer.

You also credit Sirius with attracting 20 million people to satellite radio. This is false. Sirius and XM did that as independent companies. Now that Sirius is running the whole show, Karmazin and other Sirius execs have, in fact, presided over the first listener declines in the history of satellite radio. As somewhat of a one-trick pony that's been far too heavily reliant on one guy -- Howard Stern -- Sirius and its generally shallow content do not seem to resonate well with the type of sophisticated listener satellite radio needs to attract. XM had somewhat more balance, and as a result may have generated more devoted subscribers.

You're right -- the monopoly should have helped satellite radio: They had two independent systems comprising 300 channels and a bunch of happy customers. Now they've alienated over half of them by eliminating what they signed up to get; meanwhile, other emerging technologies are courting those who have been disenfranchised. Given this, I would not use the metaphor "sitting pretty" to describe the company's current state.

No, I'm just sad. And no amount of back and forth is going to get either of us to like a different persons program, no matter how clever we are.

Or think we are.

You should sell your SXM stock. You have obviously drank too much SXM kool-aid and smoked too much Karmazin weed. The musical tastes of the Europeans are much more sophisticated than the content that Mel could ever dream up.

And, the Clear Channel offerings on XM have a history of not being too bad. I haven't listened to them a lot lately, but they tried to hit some areas the XM commercial-free channels were missing.

You're also right about the "freebies" you'll be offered if you try to cancel. There's a new wrinkle in that, too: The last time I talked to them, several months ago, when I went down to one radio, I was offered four months free on the two radios I was deactivating. I accepted. A few weeks later I got the credit card statement -- same full-price I had been paying. Called again, and was told that the offer had never been made (no record of it), but they could do that for me now, and it would take effect next month. I said okay. The following month, again, full bill, no discount. The third time I just flat out canceled and didn't accept the promotions, and that did take effect.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that two such mistakes were made, but perhaps some of the special subscriber-retention offers are being conveniently "lost."

Here's how bad things have gotten. I was driving around in the car, listening to Sirius. The music was getting so monotonous - repitition/never anything new - that I decided to switch to terrestrial just for the hell of it. I live in upstate NY; a frigid hell hole inhabited by half human/half Sasquatch looking mongrels, descendants originating from generations of incestuous relationships. Oh yeah.... I turned to the only FM radio station worth a damn in this entire area - WEQX -FM, broadcast from Manchester VT. It is a modern rock/alternative station, and within 20 seconds I was thinking to myself, "This is how to program a radio station!" The playlist is enormous, they play new music all the time, and go out of their way to introduce up and coming bands. I kept it on for about 1/2 hour, and then switched back to Sirius. I came away from this little experiment with one thought emblazoned in my mind; my, oh my, how much Sirius/XM programming has deteriorated! This FM terrestrial station PUTS SIRIUS TO SHAME. I'm a guy who hadn't listened to terrestrial for over 3 years, mind you.

If this company does not make a concerted effort to improve the SHIT PROGRAMMING.... satellite radio is doomed. I hate to break this to all of you "Mel is a genius" disciples, but content is king - and this is exactly why satellite radio is skating on thin ice on a warm January day. Their music content, and music programming, is horrendous. If it stays like it is, there is no way they will ever be able to survive.

That I can turn on a FREE terrestrial radio station, and enjoy the music far more than what I can listen to on the PAY SERVICE I subscribe to, can only be summed up in one word: DISGRACEFUL!!!!!

Hey Steve O, you spelled repetition wrong. I'm sick of your complaining, man. Why don't you cancel, you whiny bitch!?!

One thing I have thought about with regard to Sirius XM's music programming is that their strength -- having dozens of music channels with pigeonholed formats -- is both a blessing and a curse. If I were them, I'd look at developing more "listener-centered" formats rather than music-centered. I think this is what standout terrestrial stations do, because they have only one program with which to keep listeners tuned in.

Consider a channel such as Lithium. People who like 90s alternative probably also like other music with a similar sound, such as current songs by groups such as Seether. But, I rarely hear this -- it's a steady diet of 90s, and not a very comprehensive representation even of that. I think it would be preferable to look more at the profile of the person who is going to listen to a certain channel -- age, gender, lifestyle, etc. -- and try to create a "complete experience" that keeps this person engaged. This is what X Country did for me. Spectrum isn't too bad in this regard, and it has the desirable sound of a terrestrial progressive rock station, but it has a tighter playlist than it should.

I would agree if I thought the company had a clue about what listeners may like. Even XM's Music Lab thought jam and progressive rock go together because they are experimental, ignoring that listeners of both sub-genres don't like each other's music. Let's just go with the subgenres and make the radio much easier to change channels on the fly, putting the control with the user. Voice activation is a must for on the road. Don't assume other than the subgenres that Slacker radio has defined for example. Slacker is the musical choice, both from a sound quality and selection standpoint. Spectrum sucks IMO.

One more comment, Spectrum is in no manner a progressive rock station. Do your research, check out Slacker's progressive rock channel, and every internet progressive rock channel including Murow and Aural moon.

X country was a gem, the folks here in the DC area on XM get it, they truely understood alternative country. Outlaw country is not alternative country, however there are classic country, outlaw, first wave country, and bluegrass, which influenced alternative country, that alt country listeners would appreciate listening to. However, let the listener decide when to listen outside the subgenre.

Ultimately, bandwidth limits how many unique channels a service can have, making some conclude that some channels will be need to be mixes. I say not required at the same time. In fact the subgenres can be time slot sequenced, and with radios that can time record, everybody can be happy. Forget believing blends are optimum.

Voice activation and smart non-real time storage permit maximum personalization.

XM is canceled in March for me, Slacker radio is ordered.

What you say would make sense if "subgenres" had hard edges and definite borders. But, even among those whose music is included in a specific category of music, there is often disagreement about what to call it.

Progressive rock is a great example. I have, in fact, done quite a bit of "research" of progressive rock stations, if you want to count thousands of hours of listening to the radio as research. Because this subgenre spans decades and many different specific trends, every progressive rock station/channel/internet broadcast will have its own flavor and focus. For example, a station catering to younger listeners might focus on 90s progressive rock, while one targeting and older audience might target earlier music -- and that's only one simple and obvious example. There will also be a "sound" they want to have, whether it's more mellow or energetic, and numerous other things. Just loading up a computer with every song that someone decided qualified as progressive rock and playing them on "shuffle" does not make a radio station or channel.

As an additional example, X Country's format was variously called "alternative country," "progressive country," and "Americana," and if you look at definitions of those terms, there's overlap.

So, no matter how you look at it, someone is going to have to make decisions about where a subgenre starts and stops, and what part(s) of they want to try to represent on a certain channel or station, so they might as well make these decisions with a conscious effort to identify the kind of listener they're wanting to attract.

One other comment: I am interested in what you said about having channels that have "shows" that feature specific slices of a subgenre or other narrow content. However, if this is the yardstick by which we should judge, say, Outlaw Country, it should be noted that they do have shows that have more similar formats to what X Country did -- such as Dallas Wayne's show.

But, I think this only works to the extent that all of the shows still have the same general flavor and appeal. For instance, X Country had "Rogue Calls," and other shows that were excellent and pushed the boundaries a little. But it's not suitable, to me as a listener, to record four hours a day of Dallas Wayne so I get to hear what I want rather than stuff I don't like, and it's too much bother. Put something out there I can listen to 24/7, and I'll be happy.

One could make it seem impossible to create a station which caters to the progressive rock genre, but Slacker does as good a job as anybody. Progressive rock is in fact a genre which fuses with rock, many sorts of music outside rock, and a given song may have slow, fast, soft and hard parts.

I understand what you mean about having to record what you want to listen to, however it could be invisible to you with a radio that cached channels. Some of the channels would air for example, half of the time of a physical channel. How many people listen to a channel 24 hours a day? Memory is cheap, and more channels devoted to more subgenres can be created.