Orbitcast vs Carmel Group in New York Post
Friday, April 6, 2007 at 6:51 AM
Tags:
Looks like the media is picking up on the inconsistencies in The Carmel Group's analysis. The New York Post, who incidentally had the exclusive on the Carmel Group anti-merger study, features a quick follow up article highlighting my "Busted" post.
As always with media interviews, only a snippet of the conversation makes it to print, but the quote Peter used I think effectively sums up my feelings on the situation. Of course Jimmy Schaeffler is going to defend his position, but I think the message was conveyed effectively.
One thing I want to point out:
I have no problem with research companies changing their position. It happens all the time because the marketplace evolves (hmm). But the fact that he used such harsh wording like "this position is ludicrous" in his report, without any acknowledgment that he took that exact position himself in an earlier, non-commissioned article - that's really what irks me.
Anyway, check out the NY Post article, it's a quicky but pretty cool to see the word is getting out about this.
Digg It!
Featured Entries
From the Forums...
Search Orbitcast:
Latest Poll
Satellite Radio Websites
Sponsored Links
Comments
Now MP3 players and internet radio aren't mature enough to be competitors? SURE! LOL
1. Over 100 million MP3 players have been sold.
2. Internet radio has more listeners than satellite radio. Millions more.
Posted by: MUSCLE13 ? | April 6, 2007 7:50 AM
Someone should state what muscle said above to the press--That is a VERY strong point---I think the NAB is being so aggressive that it could turn FCC off but unfortunately, the lobby are very strong(but not right here)
Posted by: gary | April 6, 2007 9:28 AM
Don't forget about the 300 million AM/FM radios that have not reached maturity yet.
Posted by: Rich ? | April 6, 2007 9:38 AM
i don't understand his clarification at all!
MP3 players and internet radio were competitors to SATRAD in the earlier report, but now he states, "MP3 players and other devices may become competitors to satellite radio in the future, but they aren't mature enough today to be legitimate rivals - meaning at the time Sirius-XM filed their merger documents."
Posted by: bluenote78 ? | April 6, 2007 10:03 AM
bluenote78: That was pretty much what I said when I talked to the Post. In October 2005, these were clearly competitors, but now 1.5 years later they're simply "potential" competitors? How does that work?
I also brought up that the iPod is HARDLY a "nascent" product (see here), though he chooses to lump it in as one.
Posted by: Ryan Saghir ? | April 6, 2007 10:26 AM
I'm glad the post picked up on this. I hope the investors pick up on it too!
Posted by: Tim | April 6, 2007 10:40 AM
"But Schaeffler points out, and the report clearly states, MP3 players and other devices may become competitors to satellite radio in the future, but they aren't mature enough today to be legitimate rivals - meaning at the time Sirius-XM filed their merger documents."
Even a superficial glance at "today's" audio market can confirm that with small exception (HD radio) none of the listed technologies opposite satellite radio can be considered immature or even burdgeoning.
Perhaps Schaeffler can point out which one exactly is ill suited to be viewed as competition for satellite radio?
Posted by: Thrawn | April 9, 2007 5:54 PM