The Washington Post's Marc Fisher has spoken out in opposition to the Sirius-XM merger in a recent article in the "Style" section of the publication.
It's actually a very well formulated argument, and while this may surprise some folks, I'm not going to pick it apart simply because I'm in favor of the merger. I actually would like everyone to take the time to read it - regardless of what side of the fence you're on - because he has some decent points in there. If you're pro-merger, or anti-merger, truly thinking about all sides of the issue can prove to be beneficial.
First, Fisher points to media consolidation as an example as to why the merger wouldn't be in the public interest.
The past decade has provided convincing evidence that corporate consolidation in radio and other media leads to dramatic cost-cutting, which results in less local programming and lower quality.Why wouldn't the same happen in satellite radio?
This is probably the biggest and best argument against the merger. If media consolidation has proven to be "bad" in the past, then why should we think it wouldn't continue this trend? Now, I'm promising not to pick this apart, but it's my opinion that free radio and subscription radio are two entirely different beasts, and so there really isn't any precedence to settle upon. And I'll leave it at that.
Another issue that Fisher raises is that the A La Carte pricing would actually end up being a bad thing for satellite radio. He points to the cable industry's own argument that the less popular channels are being subsidized by the subscription fee. As such, all the less popular channels would disappear.
But the example is again flawed because the A La Carte packages still are from a selection of 50 or 100 channels, not on a channel-by-channel basis. So it's not the popular channels that are paying off, it's the $6.99 or $14.99 subscription packages that subsidize all the channels. And the increased choices will undoubtedly lead to an increase in subscribers.
So as a result... oh wait, I wasn't going to argue against this article. Sorry, couldn't resist. Do you agree or disagree with Marc Fisher's points? Give a holler in the comments.
[Washington Post via Bearing Drift Ohio]
UPDATE: I incorrectly labeled Fisher's article as being an "editorial" which was incorrect. It's part of Marc Fisher’s column which runs in the Washington Post's "Style" section. Just want to make sure that's clear.
I don't think I've seen a single good photo of Mel Karmazin. God he's hideous.
On the same subject, I love how Gary looks in that photo. The caption should read "Guess who's the REAL boss here?"
The WaPo article was awful btw. I like how he thinks Sirius/XM reach "13 percent of U.S. households"..... stupid ass doesn't realize that subscribers != households.
I don't think you can compare the comsolidation of terr radio with sat radio since sat is NATIONAL radio, while terr is not. "Less local programming" on sat radio? Huh? The only "local" programming is traffic weather, which is broadcast nationalliy.
The reason why Ryan doesn't want to comment on this article? Because it's got so many holes in it, there's really no reason to waste his time.
Never did any law ban a merger and he got the price per month wrong. It was Sirius that upped the price and XM a short time later did the same.
I know they say they do not need the merger but i doubt XM can survive with Sirius taking so much market share
The author of this piece is in the position of defending the subsidizing of content most people don't watch or listen to, in the name of "diversity." I for one, would favor being able to pick and choose which cable TV stations I can get. I'm sick of subsidizing Spanish language programs, holy rollers, music video channels and the like. Why should I subsidize what others like? Let them pay for it.
And as far as the old song and dance about "localism" it's a pretty useless argument when the ADVANTAGE to satellite is that you can listen to the same station from coast to coast.
Again, it doesn't mean there are all pluses to a merger, and all minuses. In the grand scheme of things, like a war we didn't have to fight or children starving, it really doesn't get me too excited. Whatever happens will happen.
Wonder how much the NAB forked over to the Post for this little tyrade article. This is a luxury subscription service. I think both companies, and the genius of radio Mel, knows they can't raise prices too far, or they lose customers. This article is cleary biased a day before shareholder vote. This is exactly why this story was released today, because of the shareholder vote.
The arguments in the Post article are vague and quite weak. Consolidation of many industries incl. media and telecom is essential for their very survival and thus their ability to remain a viable competitor, particularly with the rate at which convergence of media businesses is taking place.
Recent mergers of large media and telecom companies have not adversely affected competition. Even cable TV, which had an effective monopoly for several years in many local jurisdictions (as evidenced by their ability to continually raise prices with impunity) is now beginning to feel the heat from satellite and the phone companies.
The issue is not, consolidation, but whether there will remain effective competition. There is overwhelming evidence that there will still be plenty of that even if XM and Sirius are allowed to merge.
The argument that a la carte programming choices would be the death knell for fringe channels is not at all convincing for the reasons mentioned above and due to the emerging "long tail" business model which IMHO is quite applicable to satellite radio.
The merger should greatly enhance the ability to offer a greater breadth and depth of niche programming making sat. rad. an attractive, low cost, one-stop-shopping choice for mobile and home audio entertainment. Eventually, sat. rad's current offerings can progress seamlessly along the "long tail" continuum to include more customized radio stations a la Slacker and Pandora all the way to "all you can eat" customized playlists for a monthly subscription.
Funny. This guy first says the cable "monopoly" is bad, and then uses their own arguments for why a la carte is bad. Make up your mind buddy.
He fails to understand the whole point. XiriuM is facing competition from AM/FM radio. If media consolidation was so bad, then a stronger satellite competitor would be good.
at least mel had his teeth capped
Hey! Stop making fun of BaBaBouy Senior
This is probably the thing that concerns me the most about the merger. Granted, I'm no fan of the way Sirius operates, and that includes the early days before Mel, and that's why I don't want XM 'tainted' by what I don't like about Sirius (and this isn't a stupid Howie/O&A thing either, I could care less). I don't think that a combined company would stoop to the level of FM radio, but I definitely would expect a big change in the quality, since no matter what they say they're not going to try as hard. I fear that a lot of good stuff like Artist Confidential and the shows hosted by legends like Bob Dylan will give way to more watered down programming. And Mel Karmazin's a moron. Should lock him and David Rehr in a room together and let them make scary faces at each other until they die.
Six words on why the merger is a bad deal: you will pay more for less. Maybe not the first year, or the second, but eventually you can count on the specialty channels to disappear and the prices to rise.
Consolidation is destroying what's left of terrestrial radio. I see no reason to let the same thing happen to satellite radio.
My two cents are found on the h/t link to Bearing Drift Ohio (Thanks Ryan)
>> The merger should greatly enhance the ability to offer a greater breadth and depth of niche programming
How so? No bandwidth is freed as a result of the merger; and in fact, existing channels' bandwidth allocations are going to have to be squeezed to get enough for 10 channels of ala carte. So, please explain how they are going to put up a "greater breadth and depth" of niche programming. They have committed to making substantially the same channels available to customers of both services, so where is this additional bandwidth coming from?
I couldn't agree more with StackPointer - this merger is bad for all those that love satellite radio and is about money, not "the music" or the content. I have been on the "inside" and there are not a lot of business decisions based on content - in fact very few. The real issue is one that StackPointer explains and that I am amazed is not brought up more - THERE IS NO MORE BANDWIDTH!!! You will not have greater choice unless you go out and buy a new radio - that is not even on the market yet. How does this help consumers? How does this help existing customers. I can only imagine the rants that will be posted this time next year should this merger go through. People will be screaming that they get less and pay more, how their main reason for loving satellite radio (insert channel here) has been replaced by another terrestrial sounding station and the only way to get the combined service is by buying a new radio that is $400+. If you love satellite radio, you should hate this merger.
What I really am worried about is how much the government is going to regulate the new company should the merger be passed.. This was the biggest hurdle in my mind of weather I wanted to support this merger.. The price of programming isn't that much of a worry as much as what happens to the programming on my favorite music as well as talk channels.. And yes I agree that when a company gets too big that most of the time the service suffers, both the product and the customer service which is shaky to start with.. It really is the over all package that I look at, not just the programming.. and that is what is going to happen here is the new company will nearly double in size over night, literally, and if you thought getting a radio turned on was hard before the merger, think what it will be like when the call center is moved to India.. As a cost cutting move that would only make sense.. One of many ways to trim the bottom line, and Mel is nothing if not a bottom line guy..
Why wouldn't the same happen in satellite radio? This argument is based on a trend, not a law of nature, and it's therefore a horrible argument. First of all, the 2 companies are making a point of avoiding the same fate as other mergers.
Look, why does this require so much thought? Having 1 radio is easier and cheaper than 2, and even if it's not cheaper, it's still worth it. Just merge already.