Both Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) have launched individual websites that discuss the proposed Sirius-XM merger, as well as give users the ability to take action through various means.
SIRIUSmerger.com and XMmerger.com both allow users to easily contact the FCC to voice their opinion (in a far easier way than going direct to the FCC), spread the word about the merger related websites, and you can also contact them directly to voice your opinion about what you think on the merger.
Sirius' version features audio from CEO Mel Karmazin talking about the merger, while XM's version features Chairman Gary Parsons doing the same.
I especially like the "What people are saying" section that shows notable quotes from from various folks in Congress as well as from the many groups that support the merger.
(Side note, both websites also link to Orbitcast off the homepage. Effectively bringing a huge smile to my face this morning.)
The launch of both websites coincides with advertisements published today in Communications Daily, The Hill, The Politico and Roll Call, highlighting the growing list of organizations voicing their support for the XM-Sirius merger. Read the text of the ad after the jump...
Ad text:
SIRIUS and XM Radio.
The people who support our merger are as diverse as our programs.
Among the groups that have voiced their support:
- League of Rural Voters
- National Consumers League
- National Black Chamber of Commerce
- Hispanic Federation
- The Latino Coalition
- League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
- New York State Federation of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE)
Ryan,
A little off topic , but where's the 'E-mail this article' link on the articles ?
They should use a big picture of a bull's asshole as the background for both of these web sites. They're both full of bull shit.
The truth is slowly coming out if all the fanboys of this merger would care to read it.
The plan to offer cheaper service has now been clarified to indicate that they are talking about cheaper than buying both current services or cheaper if you would like less service.
Here is how it is stated on the XM site:
"Once we merge, you will have better pricing choices. Subscribers who want their current subscription package will not have to pay any more after the merger. There will be new subscription packages priced below our current offerings. And the best of both XM and SIRIUS will be available at a lower cost than the price of subscribing to both services separately."
I guarantee that those who are happy with their current service and do not want anything from the rival one are going to be disappointed after the merger. They will be paying the same price and will likely see some favorites be replaced by "equivalent" channels from the rival service. (Folks are kidding themselves if they think this will not happen. The combined corporation will be looking to reduce duplicate costs.)
Remember kids: corporations are not your friends.
Both websites looked like they completely plagarized each other. Just like how Hugo Chavez homogenizes the media in Venezuela. I can see what we are in for if/when the merger passes. This is already not looking good.
Better prices? I'll believe that when I see it. More choices? How are they going to do that? More compression?
I love the idea that these two companies that launch 100 million dollar satellites are some kind of mom and pop, indie operations that will get tainted by the evils of a "big business" merger and god forbid actually be able to make a profit.
You're really stretching there Jason.
God forbid two companies trying to merge have similar merger promotion websites. That's a sure sign that satellite radio will alienate their paying subscribers after the merger. Good detective work.
Well, at least they got their stories straight. I wonder if Karmazin and Parsons rehersed with each other.
The merger will result in substantial price increases, lower quality programming and less diversity in programming.
Rather than competing with each other to provide the most cost effective, highest quality, and most diverse programming, the merged companies will provide only enough cost control, quality, and diversity in programming to prevent the majority of their subscribers from canceling their service. In other words, they will provide the lowest common denominator service.
The merger will reduce the quality of the music channels by eliminating the incentive to provide 100% commercial-free music programming. The NAB's very vocal opposition to the merger is probably based on its belief that its members will lose millions of dollars of advertising revenue to these "commercialized" satellite radio music channels.
The merger will greatly reduce the diversity of talk radio programming because this genre is easily relegated to a very small number of "big ticket" (i.e. big salary) talk radio personalities. Only one or two of the "big ticket" comedy, right wing, and left wing talk radio personalities will survive the merger.
The merger will also greatly reduce the incentive for innovations in the hardware (e.g. receivers) that delivers the programming. The Sirius Stiletto probably would never have been developed if XM's Pioneer Inno hadn't preceded it.
Last, but not least, it would be absurd to approve the merger because one of the two current providers cannot survive without it. The market for satellite radio, though very limited, is large enough to support two well-managed, fiscally-responsible providers. It is not large enough to support a poorly-managed, fiscally-irresponsible provider that pays $500,000,000 to a single talk radio personality. Let Sirius be bought out by a company that can make it work.
Zooboy, etc. -
So because they will be so powerful after the merger, they will do whatever they can to lose their subscribers by cutting service quality? Are they going to forget about that 2.5%/month churn rate and give subscribers more reasons to cancel? Are they going to forget the fact that they will need to nearly double the current subscriber base to reach a profit? Will they be able to get those subscribers by cutting programming and raising prices? Or will they alienate customers just because they're a monopoly and people will have to subscribe no matter what?
Here's a multiple-choice question for you:
You are running a luxury entertainment source based on a subscription business model. The business needs a substantial increase in revenues to make a profit. What do you do?
A) Try to wring more money out of subscribers by cutting programming, and HOPE that they don't cancel.
B) Maintain/improve programming, hardware, and prices to get MORE people to subscribe.
I don't know which business schools Mel Karmazin and Co. attended, but I'm assuming they know that B is the correct answer. The fact that they are merging does not change the fact that THEY NEED MILLIONS MORE SUBSCRIBERS TO SURVIVE. They will still be forced to give people a reason to send them money every month.
Am I missing something here? Is satellite radio such an essential service that all subscribers (and millions of future subscribers) will keep paying for whatever level of service the merged company provides? Do they not have incentive to improve the service to get more people to subscribe?
Let me dumb it down a little bit here:
BETTER SERVICE = MORE SUBSCRIBERS = MORE MONEY FOR MEL
CUT PROGRAMMING = CANCELLATIONS = LESS MONEY FOR MEL
JB,
Given Mel's well-documented career in the radio industry, he will probably hit us with a small price increase (after his token price freeze with the FCC expires)and tell us that he has been forced to bring commercials to the music channels to avoid a bigger price increase. He will also use the cable company ploy of giving us a few more music channels "for free" to make us think we're getting more for our money.
You and I aren't going to fall for any of this, but millions of other people will. The people who compose the NAB may be duplicitous and deceitful, but they aren't studpid. This can, and will happen, particularly when internet radio begins to fade away because of the recent royalty ruling and the cell phone companies follow Mel's lead for their radio programming.
MINDLESS MILLIONS + INCREMENTAL PRICE INCREASES + COMMERCIAL REVENUE = A FUCKING FORTUNE FOR MEL
JB again,
All of this silly merger stuff aside, are you really that good at recognizing other peoples' writing styles that you can tell which other monicker I'm using on Orbitcast. Take a stab at it, and let me know. I promise to let you know if I get stabbed.
Where in Mel's "well-documented radio career" has he hit subscribers up with a small price increase?
So your real fear about the merger is that people will be tricked into leaving the free alternatives to pay more and get less from satellite radio? Is that it?
Less than 50% (and declining) of trial subs become paying subscribers, and 2.5% of subscribers leave EVERY MONTH. The early adopters have already adopted the service, and each incremental subscriber will be harder to convince than the previous one. That's why retail growth has dropped off so much at both companies. They will have to increase the value of the service to convert the next generation of subscribers, and the increase in programming from the merger (along with other benefits) should allow them do that.
Do you really think that Mel will be able to trick an already fickle subscriber base, as well as millions of reluctant trial subs, to pay more money for less programming? Which business school did you go to?
Millions of people will pay for satellite and/or cell phone radio if the programming is much more diverse and interesting than the programming on terrestrial radio.
Mel knows this, and he will use it to his full advantage. He was the king of advertising revenue when he worked for the terrestrial radio industry. This made him millions, and he's looking to make more millions. He won't do that if he spends most of the merged company's revenue on new and/or the best possible programming and hardware. He also needs to redeem himself with the shareholders.