Satellite Radio for free?

[OFFmason]

Hey folks, it seems as though Satellite Radio is generally a poor vehicle for profit, but I was pondering one little thing.

Why not operate on a similar basis as terrestrial radio? Free satellite service with advertisements as the primary source of profit. As it stands now, the model simply is NOT working. It might make sense to try it out, even with steep operating costs.

I think this would surely expand the listener base, and advertisements would therefore be seen as reaching a larger consumer base.

Running along side the channels we've come to know on the satellite radio dial, I would also create an internet-esque sector of satellite radio, a wild-west of sorts, where you can choose to listen to unregulated channels created by listeners and new talent beaming their signal all over the world.

Make me the new SIRIUS/XM CEO -- I'm bored.

[Leeham]

Why would they take a risk?

They could still lose a lot more from no subs than they gain in listenership in the first few years, I don't know much about their situation but I figure they are in heavy debt.

They can't afford to be worse off then they are now.

[Reaper G]

Isn't excessive commercial advertising one of the biggest problems with terrestrial radio?

[Ballbuster1]

Isn't excessive commercial advertising one of the biggest problems with terrestrial radio?
Exactly. If they didn't get subscription money then you have nothing
different from regular radio and people won't be interested.

[punchingmunchki]

Also, I would think that if they didn't charge for subscriptions, ala cable or sat. tv, wouldn't they then be under more scrutiny from the FCC ?

[fandango86]

Commercial free music is the reason over 60% of people buy satellite radio.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Too bad SIRI-XM has left the programming to a bunch of half witted retards (no offense to retards).

[IsThatATrain ?]

Too bad SIRI-XM has left the programming to a bunch of half witted retards (no offense to retards).

None taken

:action-sm

[TEXAS TRUCKER]

Also, I would think that if they didn't charge for subscriptions, ala cable or sat. tv, wouldn't they then be under more scrutiny from the FCC ?BINGO! If it's available to everyone free they would have to make EVERY channel FCC friendly and that would suck a big one. It destroys what satellite radio was all about in the first place.

[OFFmason]

Look folks, they took a massive gamble with Stern's payout and that had absolutely no positive result. Although satellite revenue may be growing, the speed at which this medium is becoming profitable is astoundingly slow and losses are still being accrued. I would wager that under the current model, satellite radio will increasingly become toxic to potential investors and will collapse.

Under my little plan there may very well be room for channels that do NOT have advertisements and what not, but popular radio channels should have sources of profit coming from advertising. Ultimately, shows like O&A WILL and DO have advertisements because humans can only speak for so long before they need to take a break. I would also suggest a way to allow people to opt-out of ads by paying a fee; however, at its very core the service should be free.

As for the argument that a no fee service would place this medium under heightened FCC scrutiny is premature. Exactly where do we get this concrete notion that payment is the only way to circumvent FCC oversight? The satellite signals are presumably proprietary, and cannot simply be played with any satellite device; it takes far more initiative to hear a satellite radio broadcast than it does to hear a terrestrial radio broadcast. But beyond that -- after taking contract law, all sorts of warranties can be disclaimed and people can be made to realize exactly what they are purchasing just by virtue of an objective formal contract.

"By executing this document, you agree that you aware of the diverse content available on our network, and diversity can also include potentially objectionable material that is not favored by all. You agree NOT to hold XM/Sirius responsible for any information disseminated in any shape, form or method associated with our broadcasts except to actions available by applicable defamation and criminal law. All warranties are disclaimed..."

[kloraferm]

Too bad SIRI-XM has left the programming to a bunch of half witted retards (no offense to retards).
:) Nice

[Pearce]

Really bad idea.

[NoSurviivors]

Dumbest thing I've read all day, and I'm at work.

[DonTheTrucker]

Couldn't be any worse than the present business model. People aren't going to pay for radio, period.

[MayrMeninoCrash]

I suggested something similar in one of the "bash Mel" threads. Basically you have millions of vehicles being sold already set with access to S/XM service. Why not set aside 40 channels worth of bandwidth that would be programmed with Sirius music but have regular commercial breaks, and broadcast this service free to anyone with a S/XM radio. I can't believe the additional bandwidth (freed up from combining channels between the services) and the programming (you could run the channels already programmed, but commercials would cover up some songs), so the cost to the company should not be high. Yet the possibility of selling advertising and and gaining a new revenue source should be exciting to Mel and the Jews running S/XM. At this point what do they have to lose? Everyone who pays for service would not see anything changed, the uncensored channels would remain pay-for and uncensored, and people who own radios or buy cars and aren't interested in subscribing could still enjoy the service.

[sportsboytony]

The accessibility of a free service has nothing to do with bringing on FCC oversight. So enough with the talking out of your collective asses.

Podcasts are free with no advertising, should they be worried about the FCC?

And.. I still think it's funny that many thought people would flock to satellite radio for "uncensored" radio. That's just really not the case.. I could care less if there are curse words or more in-depth descriptions of sexual activity.. if the discussion isn't creative or comical, then who cares. I think the censored WNEW shows are way better than the shows now. But hey, that's just me.

[patbattlefield]

Couldn't be any worse than the present business model. People aren't going to pay for radio, period.

I highly disagree with that. I travel a lot for work and I gladly pay. I could never go back to terrestrial.

[oandapartycock]

The accessibility of a free service has nothing to do with bringing on FCC oversight. So enough with the talking out of your collective asses.

Podcasts are free with no advertising, should they be worried about the FCC?

And.. I still think it's funny that many thought people would flock to satellite radio for "uncensored" radio.

That's a good point. Nobody is protecting the children from the internet when it comes to podcasting.

And everyone that was going to subscribe to Stern and O&A or other uncensored channels has already subscribed. New growth is going to have to come from younger demos.

I highly disagree with that. I travel a lot for work and I gladly pay. I could never go back to terrestrial.

Same thing with me. The original draw for me was being able to drive hour long commutes or trips back and forth to Vegas & California without having to change channels. I gladly pay for that privilege and would pay extra to keep commercial free music available to me.

But lets face it. Like someone said, the marketing in sat rad is atrocious. XM had a good idea when it started the partnership with Napster when the Inno came out. But it's now easier to listen to music on your cell phone or computer and click a few buttons to download an MP3 of whatever's playing.

Until sat rad gets fully interactive with two way communication it's doomed to be able to find ways to earn extra profits outside of the monthly subscriptions it collects. They can't even come up with a $10 app for the iPhone that would make millions for them if they opened their fucking eyes.

[Goblin]

Slacker has the right idea. Their ad supported service is free, then it's $4 a month if you want commercial free radio. It's strictly music though no news, sports, or talk.

http://www.slacker.com/

[TEXAS TRUCKER]

Couldn't be any worse than the present business model. People aren't going to pay for radio, period.I do. :action-sm

[TheSqueakyWheel]

The problem is not the model... The problem is paying in upwards of $500,000,000 for one show, and then doing almost as bad for others as well.

I mean it is simple math... If youa re not going to take in more than you pay out, ta-da, you lose money. Mel is an ass hat

[Goblin]

The problem is not the model... The problem is paying in upwards of $500,000,000 for one show, and then doing almost as bad for others as well.

I mean it is simple math... If youa re not going to take in more than you pay out, ta-da, you lose money. Mel is an ass hat


They need more choices. Why should I pay for sports & fat Oprah? I don't listen to either.

[Goblin]

Slacker has the right idea. Their ad supported service is free, then it's $4 a month if you want commercial free radio. It's strictly music though no news, sports, or talk.

http://www.slacker.com/

Actually their premium service is $7.50. I'm a stupid fuck.

[Hog's Big Ben]

The accessibility of a free service has nothing to do with bringing on FCC oversight. So enough with the talking out of your collective asses.

Podcasts are free with no advertising, should they be worried about the FCC?

The FCC is the reason the merger took so long, and they control the segment of the broadcast spectrum that the satellite signals go out on. So yeah, they have a say-so in free content.

They don't have anything to do with the internet, ya retard. :action-sm

[OFFmason]

it is not just the stern payout that's absurd, the whole profit creation scheme is broken. Is uncensored radio without advertisements enough to bring in sufficient revenue? No. Just cause some folks are willing to shell out the doe is not enough to keep this company afloat.

I believe the fcc only has jurisdiction when the content is free and easily accessible on public channels of communication. FCC oversaw the merger probably for the purposes of reviewing market share issues (monopolization).

[Ziti Lo Mein]

I think if they expanded beyond strictly satellite radio receivers they'd have a bigger market. Mel doesn't like to share, but if he can get his entire platform on something more than just specific satellite radios he might get more subscribers. I don't know if they do the iPod thing. Do they? I know my Dell laptop came with XM in it. The car market is in such poor shape now, though. If they rely too much on their car/satellite radio dealies they're going to enjoy a big scoop of fail.

<obvious statement>The problem is the economy. People don't want to pay for things they *want* when it pushes away that which they *need*. People probably figure "hay. I can get radio for free with just more ads until I get more money. Its a necessary sacrifice." It'd be nice if they did satellite for free but that would never happen.</obvious statement>

[Hog's Big Ben]

I believe the fcc only has jurisdiction when the content is free and easily accessible on public channels of communication. FCC oversaw the merger probably for the purposes of reviewing market share issues (monopolization).

Part 1 - yes
Part 2 - partly, no

I said it in the post before yours. They license the frequencies that satellite broadcasts on. Any unlocked free satellite channels would be subject to the exact same rules that are in place for broadcast radio and TV.

[Zuke]

I highly disagree with that. I travel a lot for work and I gladly pay. I could never go back to terrestrial.

+1. I haven't listened to a local station in about 6 years or so.

[R.BuddDwyer]

Completely free satellite is a stupid notion; you may as well just try to build an independent FM company; why would you pay for a radio to listen (See the utter failure of HD radio). More ads though is a move that honestly would only move satellite radio closer to the cable TV model. Not a sit-down in front of the TV goes by where I'm not watching a block of inane horrendous ads, just as long and frequent as on network TV, and I say to myself; "I'm paying for this, right?" Yet I continue to because they have programming that I want to see more than what I can get free with ol' bunny ears. Those behind satellite haven't seemed to realize that and as such the only thing I find worth listening to since Sirius' ruthless ra_pe of pleasurable music programming is O+A.

I've noticed an increase in commercial ads as opposed to those for programming since Sirius took over anyway so it seems they're heading that way somewhat.

[NorfCal]

Worst thread of 2008 nominee.

Seriously.

Hey guys, let's make everything free!!! Wouldn't that be totally worth it?

[R.BuddDwyer]

Pretty much.

[OFFmason]

Worst thread ever? Good argument you got there. The difference between this and hd radio is the distribution of hardware. sat receivers should come standard on all new cars. Ad free service should come with a price but at the core it should be free.

As I said, the FCC oversaw the merger for purposes of preventing monopolization.

You think that just because a few douches here pay for ad free radio and stand by the notion that they will not return to terrestrial is enough to keep sirius/xm from the grim reaper you are sorely mistaken. It is radio. Go put on some tv, and watch porn on the net like a normal person.

[DenverPest1]

FM Radio is done period. CBS just sold 3 stations here that were worth $80 million a few years ago for $19.5 million. Satellite radio will be over soon enough. Every car will be equipped with a computer where you can listen to anything you want at anytime for free. Pandora, Itunes, etc. right in your car. I LOVE satellite and would pay just for O&A, R&F, and what was the Boneyard but I (and we) are in the massive minority. Terrestrial Radio has become for the 40+ crowd and they will die. Few people under 40 care about radio- sat or terr. It is what they call a dying medium and Mel is an accessory to radio muder. He & the Hogans (Clear Channel) have destroyed it. AM will move to FM and it will repleaced by the internet. TV is next.

[goat999]

Commercial free my ass. Get the stinky dog away from me. I wanna punch that bitch soooo bad.

[VilleDick]

I know my Dell laptop came with XM in it.

:icon_eek:

How'd you pull that one off?

Seriously, every computer that can connect to the internet comes with XM. I have no idea what you're trying to say

I also say I'd vote for this for dumbest thread of 2008

[Goblin]

:icon_eek:

How'd you pull that one off?

Seriously, every computer that can connect to the internet comes with XM. I have no idea what you're trying to say

I also say I'd vote for this for dumbest thread of 2008

Dell offered 30 days of free XM Online when you bought a laptop from them.

[MayrMeninoCrash]

Worst thread ever? Good argument you got there. The difference between this and hd radio is the distribution of hardware. sat receivers should come standard on all new cars. Ad free service should come with a price but at the core it should be free.

As I said, the FCC oversaw the merger for purposes of preventing monopolization.

You think that just because a few douches here pay for ad free radio and stand by the notion that they will not return to terrestrial is enough to keep sirius/xm from the grim reaper you are sorely mistaken. It is radio. Go put on some tv, and watch porn on the net like a normal person.

100% agree. Everyone here bitching about "free satellite" clearly doesn't see the big picture. Sirius has tapped out all current revenue sources. They can't raise the rates on sat radio, they've reached market saturation as far as folks interested specifically in what the current sat radio model offers. An ad-supported set of free channels would have the benefit of reaching those that possess the equipment (i.e. >50% of car buyers in the last 3 years or so), it would provide an extra and needed revenue stream, and could easily be a springboard to attract people back to the "pay" service again. In addition, a lot of folks are probably cancelling for economic reasons, and if the service was still there, albeit ad-supported, it would be easier to get these folks to re-subscribe when their financial conditions improve.

While I can't say how far Sirius would go with this, hopefully the channels could be set aside, so the pay channels we all "enjoy" right now would not be affected. That would have to be a large part of their marketing effort. Make sure both sides are satisfied.

[jimmyjimjimz]

wait

I got a better idea but I don't know if it would work or not.

you got satellite radio, which you gotta pay for 100% of right now. Just make SOME of the stations free, like 1 rock station, 1 black music station, 1 redneck music station, 1 classical music station, 1 grandma music station and some political talk stations free, maybe some regular talk stations, like Mad Dog's station (sports talk), or another type of talk radio station (I can't really think of any other types of talk radio besides sports talk and political talk)

it would get people interested in the company, and they'd be able to run ads for O&A or Ron & Fez or Howard or any other big talent they got on XMSirius. They could say if you pay for a subscription, this is what you'll get.....then play a clip from one of the shows.

anyone think that would work?

[Rev]

Who gives 2 fucking shits anyway. What are we, tycoons of industry? We're a bunch of trolls and goons. We're here for 2 shows pretty much. My interest in this medium runs as long as their contract lengths.

[OFFmason]

Who gives 2 fucking shits anyway. What are we, tycoons of industry? We're a bunch of trolls and goons. We're here for 2 shows pretty much. My interest in this medium runs as long as their contract lengths.

Exactly why XM/Sirius is bound to fail. There are too few loyal fans of XM/Sirius shows to carry the burden of this failed venture.

There is a lot of potential in satellite radio, but the system in place is counter-intuitive and lacks innovation. XM/Sirius charges for that which has ordinarily been free, bringing only advertisement free music channels and universal accessibility. I do not believe these 'innovations' are enough to quench the thirst of investors and future consumers.

I personally believe that it has a lot more to do with product utility than economic instability.

We do not act like tycoons of industry, because we all are tycoons of industry. The CEOs can only guess what we as consumers want and need, but we assuredly know for certain what is required to get into our wallets.

[noregrets418]

Sirius XM's problems range from, debt due to stupid deals, iPods, and as many have said the internet, and poor marketing. They really should make an iphone app. This would combine two mediums and would raise interest in their product some. It doesn't matter if we are tycoons and C.E.O.'s, the consumer drives the market and they give us what we want and they go by revenue.

[Beeman99]

I highly disagree with that. I travel a lot for work and I gladly pay. I could never go back to terrestrial.

x2, to me it's no different then Sat TV. I pay for both my tv and radio, and quite happily, and there are some that refuse to pay for either. Doesn't mean either was is right or wrong, just personal preference.

[AngryDragon]

Hey good idea... Maybe HBO can start running commercials during their movies and then my cable bill wont be so high.

[R.BuddDwyer]

They're certainly hastening their demise though. I used to tune into XM music stations during best-ofs I've heard but since the Mel ass-fucking of the channels, I go straight to Pandora.

[charlie dick]

:icon_eek: Seriously, every computer that can connect to the internet comes with XM. I have no idea what you're trying to say
I've had at least one desktop that had XM Online integrated into Windows Media Player.

[virus33]

So your plan is to copy the structure terrestrial radio has set up that is currently failing. I vote no.

[OFFmason]

Regular radio is not under threat of a total collapse; nor will it ever, at least not in our life time. Too big to fail. Sat radio is a totally different ball game.

[seller326]

Look folks, they took a massive gamble with Stern's payout and that had absolutely no positive result. ..."

I am quite sure that Howard Stern attracted many subs to Sirius, as Opie and Anthony did to XM. You can't say there was "absolutely no positive result" That positive result, of course, was not in proportion to the amount paid to Howard. Proportionately speaking, XM got bigger bang for their buck with O and A.

[seller326]

Regular radio is not under threat of a total collapse; nor will it ever, at least not in our life time. Too big to fail. Sat radio is a totally different ball game.

I can see Sirius XM going out of business, and being bought by some other media company, which Mel Karmazin can become CEO of.

[OFFmason]

I am quite sure that Howard Stern attracted many subs to Sirius, as Opie and Anthony did to XM. You can't say there was "absolutely no positive result" That positive result, of course, was not in proportion to the amount paid to Howard. Proportionately speaking, XM got bigger bang for their buck with O and A.

Did Howard Stern's signing with Sirius prompt 500 million dollars worth of subscriptions? I doubt it, hence no positive result.