5 Reasons a Merger Won't Save XM and Sirius

By David LaGesse

Posted: June 16, 2008

Word came early today that the Federal Communications Commission appeared likely to let satellite radio pioneers XM and Sirius come together. The companies say they need to merge to keep their business thriving in the face of growing competition. Ha. If they thought they had problems, it's gotten worse in the 16 months that their merger proposal has languished in Washington bureaucracy.

Subscription growth at both XM and Sirius has dramatically slowed, as Silicon Alley Insider recently showed. The companies partly blame the slow economy and confusion caused by the drawn-out merger approval. But at least five competitors are on the rise that could help snuff satellite radio:

The iPod. It was one thing to have consumers carrying their portable music with them on streets, subways, and planes. But car-trapped listeners are the core audience for satellite radio, and most new dashboard stereos have jacks for attaching MP3 players. That allows people to be their own DJ, no longer subject to the blandness of conventional radio and less hungry for the niche stations on satellite.

Digital radio. New digital broadcasts answer satellite's sound quality. With the new technology, traditional radio stations now promise CD-quality music over FM broadcasts. The increased efficiency of digital tech means the stations can also offer subchannels of alternative streams. The digital broadcasts require new receivers to be heard, but prices are coming down and more cars are rolling off assembly lines with the capability.

Internet radio. Listeners can get thousands of radio stations streaming around the world across the Web, making webcasts a major competitor to all other forms of streaming music, talk, and news. Some of the programming comes from traditional broadcasters, but many more are from amateurs and pros with their own webcasts. The only question is how to get Internet radio when on the move, and that question is already being answered by numerous wireless technologies.

Cellphones. New, high-speed data networks mean people can get music streamed to their cellphones, many of which can double as media players and attach to car stereos. Some carriers already offer their own streaming music services. But wireless Internet also means that Web radio can compete with satellite wherever people are—or drive. You can check out a new application that iPhoneAtlas.com says will be available soon for the iPhone that will ease listening to Web radio via AOL.

WiMax. Streaming music over a new wireless network with purported superbroadband speeds remains a vague promise for the future (which is true of just about anything to do with WiMax). But WiMax backers say it could replace just about anything now delivered by satellite, cellphone, or even broadcast. At least one radio professional has tested Internet radio across WiMax, reporting with enthusiasm on Kurt Hanson's Radio and Internet Newsletter blog.

Paying the bills

Mr. LaGesse is correct.

While it's true that Howard Stern and Bubba have large followings, the question is, "Are they large enough to sustain the service?" Probably not and music fans, once exposed to both satrad service (5 or 6 genres on 120 channels for $9.95/ month) and theradio.com (20 to 30 genres for zero dollars per month), are likely to make the intelligent choice. (I'm so grateful to DirecTV for adding XM channels to their service. I was within a week of spending $200 for a receiver and subscribing to the service. Then I saw the limited variety XM offered and put the money to better use.)

Satrad has a temporary advantage by being currently available as a mobile service but that is going to change drastically in the near future.

Dave L. of WI @ Jun 19, 2008 11:22:59 AM

Content alone won't pay their bills

I think comments about the unique content on SatRad are interesting and valid. But I question if selling their shows across other delivery systems will pay their bills.

I think their business model was to get a premium for content because it could be delivered where there were few competitors. My story argues there are now more competitors. Maybe no one of them is a huge threat. But all of them will discourage subscriptions at the margin, and that's where the profits are.

SatRad will have its place, I'm sure, but it won't be as dominant as envisioned when they paid big $$$ for all that talent. Something's got to give, and I suspect it will be the shareholders (of which I am not one, and never have been, except perhaps through one of my very bland index mutual funds)

David LaGesse of MO @ Jun 18, 2008 13:11:05 PM

satrad

and a boba boeey to ya all.

jit of OR @ Jun 18, 2008 00:05:20 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Places

Search for the perfect place for you and your family.

Best Careers

Careers that offer strong outlooks and high job satisfaction.

Car Rankings & Reviews

Make an informed choice when shopping for your next car.

advertisement

Slide Shows

15 Government-Heavy (and Recession-Resistant) Cities

Cities that have lots of government workers have proven recession-resistant.

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!