The music. The music scares me.
I'm actually not so concerned about the prices. Hell, I never really expect the current rates to stay where they are anyway - like death and taxes - subscription services are destined to squeeze the subscriber as much as possible. The good news? If the two companies merge, the government will actually get the chance to lock-in prices (for at least a few years).
I'm definitely not concerned about my receiver(s) not working either. Sirius and XM need to stay in business afterall, and usually that doesn't mean alienating half of your subscriber base. I know my current hardware will do just fine in the years to come. And I'm actually happy about the thought of reducing the number of wires I have everywhere (which will make my wife happy too).
And I'm really not concerned about commercials. I don't see commercials suddenly creeping into my music channels. That's the core of satellite radio's business. Getting rid of commercial-free music would be like Victoria Secret's getting rid of the sexy. Like Jose Cuervo without the alcohol. If they ever do introduce commercials, it'll be as part of a free service - at which point I won't care - because I'll continue to pay for not hearing them.
Nope, it's those "synergies" that scare me.
We all know what the word "synergies" means. It means overlap. It means redundancy. It means someone's job. It means channels that don't make "the cut" because the numbers don't justify their existence.
Yes, there's no need for two CNNs or two ESPNs. I see those "synergies." But what about the Vox and the Metropolitan Opera channels? What about the XMLM and Hard Attack channels? The Real Jazz and Pure Jazz channels? The System and Area 33? And what about the unbelievable talent behind those channels?
See there's another value of satellite radio - it's beyond just "commercial-free music" - that's a line-item on the marketing collateral. Satellite radio basks you in music that you just don't hear anywhere else. Music that has died from our free airwaves (if they even made it on the air at all) and that actually lives on in satellite radio.
It's not just a matter of cost-savings, it's a matter of bandwidth. Add one channel, and you need to take away another. How do you determine which stays and which goes? Easy. You look at the numbers.
A team from both Sirius and XM will probably be looking at their own research (if I remember correctly, XM uses Arbitron and Sirius uses Simmons) and will determine which channels get the highest listenership based on a certain demo. They'll send out the surveys, crunch the numbers, put together a pretty little "preso for distro" (ugh, corporate-speak sucks) and they'll come up with a homogenized conglomeration of channels that are what the numbers determine as the "best of both services."
And that's exactly what is killing terrestrial radio. Bland, pre-programmed playlists of "hits" set on auto-rotation with a perfectly timed voicetracked cyberjock cuing in just before the vocals. People may not notice, but that doesn't mean they're not feeling it. Most can't say it, but there this imperceptive "thing" that's missing from terrestrial radio. You just don't realize how much terrestrial radio sucks, until you get satellite radio.
And I'm just afraid of satellite turning into terrestrial - all in an effort to be more streamlined.
I hope the folks from both XM and Sirius, those who are looking at the "synergies" between the two, realize that it's not all about numbers and efficiencies. It's not about how many corners you can cut before the listener notices (or cares). There's something to be said about intuition. About skill. About art. There's something to be said about the back-catalog. The B-side. The hidden gems. Appealing to the Long Tail can actually be profitable at the same time as enlightening to listeners. The two can coexist.
I'm not saying it needs to be a service full of uber-deep playlists. Far from it. You need to have the hits. Some people don't want to be "challenged" by radio - they just want to have some fun while driving to work. But give the choice. Don't kill the discovery. Keep it an artform... not a system. As Lefsetz puts it, it's not radio, it's religion.
When you have two companies suddenly colliding together - with the accountability to "make it work" - there's the tendency to focus just on the tangible numbers, and to forget the intangible reason why we all joined this religion.
And damn, that scares me.
Maybe with the bandwidth freed up, we can get back the online only channels too. Special X, anyone? Even though it's nothing like it's original self, it still is a niche area not filled by any channel on either service, and I don't count the occasional songs played on the comedy channels (and horribly compressed at that).
I totally agree. I would be really disappointed if channels like the Loft, X-Country, Fine Tuning, Sirius Disorder, or Underground Garage were modified or eliminated. That would cause me to really re-think whether or not I even need satellite radio (although I guess I'd "keep" the lifetime subcription I have for one Sirius unit).
Tin Foil hat time.
2x the bandwith and you are worried about selection and off track songs?
guess what if they dont do something they are going to have to lay off even more dj's and then it becomes even more pre programed crap
If deep playlists have been important in attracting subscribers, they will stay important. I don't see any reason to worry. There have always been people wanting more; that won't change, but there's no reason to expect it to get worse.
In fact once they get to interoperable receivers there is the ability to provide even broader music choices. Its not immediate, but will happen over time.
Well thought out write up Ryan...it's a big thing to keep in mind since this merger can be a blessing or a curse or a little of both. For now I'm learning to enjoy what we have....plain ol XM.
As much as I despise anything religion, I agree. You hit the nail on the head for this Sirius subscriber.
I'll also add the naming convention to this as well. I prefer my classic rock stations to have the word "Classic" in them. Classic Vinyl, Classic Rewind. To me, Lucy, Fred and Ethyl were characters on a 50's sitcom... not descriptive names for alternative and classic rock music.
As for playlists and automation, I would dump satellite radio in a second if that started to happen. I love listening to the DJs I grew up with, not "Jack" and his everyone else bots.
Great read and glad to see someone is on the same page I am. Now if the minds that matter at XM and Sirius can read this or at least be on the same page, I'll continue to give them my $150/ yr for programming I like to hear.
2x the bandwidth doesn't mean that they will use it effectively. There's a whole lot of incompatibilities between the two spectrums, and both XM and Sirius are saying you won't need to upgrade radios. That leaves one option--streamline programming so you have virtually the same channels on both systems.
Ryan's correct about the Terrestial problem. The big concern I have is the fact that XM seems to "buck" the trend while Sirus seems to cave more often. Mel worked with the RIAA, XM had the balls to fight them. XM has outspoken programming guys like Lee Abrams, while an ex-jock at Sirius says management has utter disdain for their audience and interacting with them on message boards and other things.
I'm not trying to pick on Sirius at all, but I made a choice for satellite radio based on what I read about their playlists and selections. I would hate to see that go away.
To be honest Ryan, I believe that they will start figuring out ways to add commercials. Maybe not for classical, jazz, or ambient/easy stations, but I could see the hits and decade-themed channel suddenly being taken over with commercials--less than you'd see on the regular radio, but pundits such as those on Business Week predict this.
My biggest fear is the fact that the car people are having a significant share of the board. What I could see happening is profits not being good, the car people taking over, and selling this out to Clear Channel or Music Choice or something akin to that, them using the bandwidth more for car services and only having 20 channels to choose from.
Ryan, we are on the same page. If the merger ruins the music, I'm done. It will take more work on my part to have the music I want in my car, but I will not pay for the mistakes that FM makes. I can get that for free.
I agree with Ryan. I've been saying since the merger rumors started that it would mean hundreds of jobs lost and "specialty" channels cancelled. Anyone wanna bet me that it WON'T mean that?
Competition brings out the best in business. Mergers are always bad for the consumer.
Ryan,
You hit the nail... Exactly what I have been fearful of since I heard the rumors of a merger. I jumped into SR because I could hear stuff I could not hear elsewhere. I was exposed to artists and cuts that I might not ever have known about. I am a dual subscriber but a major fan of the Loft and think XM has an edge in terms of playlists and variety. Nothing like it on Sirius. Coffee House or Spectrum would be a bad replacement - although I enjoy them as well.
Couldn't agree with you more. I've been worried about my favorite station, Hard Attack's fate since the merger went public. When the number-crunchers trim the fat, I doubt they'll recognize that, to the enthusiast, there's a world of difference between Sirius' Hard Attack & XM's Liquid Metal.
The only problem with this "theory" is you assume its not happening now. Why would Sirius/XM not be doing this now? Only when they merge do they suddenly become interested in producing stations that have the most listeners?
What you are really implying here is that fans of a particular station on XM or Sirius might lose they decide to go with the similar, but more popular, station on XM or Sirius. But who is to say that such an under performing station might not have been changed in the future anyway?
Under your theory, prior to merger, XM and Sirius just don't care if someone is listening to their stations or not. I just don't by that.
Synergy probably means dumping Bubba the Cunt and Pharrell and turning Howard 101 into the Virus.
PNess:
How do you keep both subscriber bases happy (i.e. maintain their current service) and take advantage of twice the bandwidth? The answer is, you can't. The merged company will not alienate listeners by ending service, so the bandwidth situation is really the same as it has been, until they can get everyone on new receivers that allow reception of both service's space. And that won't be for a while.
what will happen is a merger of channels like the best parts of the 80s channels and just have one 80s channel the met will stay the met , willies place will stay willies place.hard attack will stay hard attack i hope
the dont get rid of sirius 24.
Very nice article you wrote... I'm not too scared about anything but am more interested to see what happens a year or two after the potential merger.
You know, nobody is gonna be 100% happy about it. Everyone is gonna lose a channel they love, or a channel they really like now will change in some way or another. Sure, not all the channels will change I'm sure, because after all what works is what works. But I definitely agree with Ryan. It's not just about the numbers, it's about giving the listener something they can't get in commercial radio. Or at least, present it to them in a way they can't get it elsewhere. So yes, i think parts of this murger will probably suck. and some people probably won't stay subscribed because a channel they like got either taken away completely or bastardized in some way. When you have two different companies taking different approaches to the same thing and those two companies mmurge, it sure as hell makes life a hell of a lot more interesting.
Music is the #1 reason I am a subscriber.
If a merger=less music choice I believe customers will be alienated
I certainly hope they don't take away my Sirius Top 40 station, which is vastly superior to XM's Top 40 station.
Seriously people, Sirius and XM know better than to start taking away specialized music stations. They'll just remove duplicate channels like 80's hits, and they can free up that bandwidth to make MORE niche channels (or better sound quality). That said, I doubt any changes at all will be made to the channels for several years while they work out the technical issues.
Great post Ryan, and I have the same fears.
95% of my listening is music, and 70% of that is on XM due to the larger playlists on many channels. If they start taking away channels that they "think" are the same, then I will surely leave.
There are channels on both services that should never be touched, changed, or even combined.
There is very little overlap between the two services, and anyone who is a dual-sub, like myself, will tell you this. The programming philosophy of Lee Abrams on XM is second-to-none, and I hope he is in control after the merger.
Yes, the decades channels are similar, as well as a few other "hit" oriented channels, but this is about as far as the "synergies" go.
Time will tell what will happen.
Those of us with single band radios will have less music choices. The music channels (my guess is Sirius' music channels will bump XM channels) will be divided between the two spectrums, freeing up space to add features like backseat children's videos. If a genre you like gets bumped to the other spectrum, well you can just get yourself a new radio that gets both. Sure the new brick sized dual chip radio will cost more, but with an extra monthly fee, you'll get the functionality to get almost as much music as you have now.
There is no such thing as "duplicate" channels. If you haven't heard both services you don't get it. While both services have channels that play similar music, they are in no way the same. As one poster said, Hard Attack is not Liquid Metal. Combining channels or doing away with one deemed to be "not as good" is purely subjective. The elimination of channels or integration of them is the most frightening thing about this proposed merger. Most people, just like TV, only listen to a handful of channels. Losing one of your favorite or having it change to its detriment does not help the consumer. How much does one channel matter? I almost cancelled when XM moved Liquid Metal to online only. Had they not returned it to the regular line-up I was gone. I would think every single subscriber is going to have an issue with at least one channel that used to be their favorite if the merger happens.
PFreak: Exactly. As a dual subscriber I can honestly say that both services have their strengths. But that's only my opinion, and I may be in the minority. If the numbers show otherwise, guess who loses?
rjr: You're absolutely correct. They have already done that, and if you read any of the message boards, you'll see the level of dissatisfaction that comes about whenever there's a channel change. Now guess what happens when you merge both offerings together?
Ryan wrote:
"As a dual subscriber I can honestly say that both services have their strengths. But that's only my opinion, and I may be in the minority. If the numbers show otherwise, guess who loses?"
------
Exactly, and no, you're not in the minority. Most people (new subs) don't research enough to know this before they buy, they just assume them to be the same. But many of us know the music offerings are VERY different between the two, so your fears (and mine) are warranted.
Who's channel gets the ax during these "synergies". This is the question.
I don't believe that they will remove niche programming but instead try to remove redundancy. The problem is who defines redundancy. The Decades channels are close enough to merge them, but keep the MTV VJs. XM's Standards, Broadway, Movie and Country stations are superior, plus XM has a '40's station, no problem there. Merge Alt Nation and Ethel, OK. Lucy and Lithium, OK with reservatons. First Wave and Fred, No Way. I love First Wave but I have to be in the mood for Fred. First Wave is my favorite and the reason I switched to Sirius. Of course, every station is someone's favorite.
I totally agree with many of the posters - if you've listened to both services, you will know that very little is the same. I am a jazz & new age listener, and I would not want to lose either stations. Watercolors is far superior to Jazz Cafe, so that one I wouldn't mind losing, but Spa 73 is nowhere similar to Audiovisions, and I wouldn't want to lose either. On the other hand, with Lee Abrams in charge, Spa 73 would probably be far less repetitive, which would be good! But most genres are different, depending on which service you are talking about. If they homogenize the whole thing, I'm gone.
I'm interested to see what DJs are kept. I'd be worried if I was one of the lower rung DJs on any of the channels. I imagine most of the bigger names will be kept, but they could also get the ax during cost cutting.
Mojo Nixon better be safe
Pat St John works on about 10 channels so he's fine
Cousin Brucie has to stick around just for Howard's impersonation of him.
Hopefully the music will stay the same. I have a teacher who loves Sirius and would hate if the new company doesn't have an audiovisions/spa 73 channel.