Roland Hulme

Thought this might be the right audience to ask...

Satellite Radio like XM and SIRIUS is great in America because you have 300 million potential customers in your transmission area who all speak the same language.

In Europe, Sat Radio would cover the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Austria...

Like, 10 different languages.

So if you got offered 100% commercial free music (like, 70 channels of it) and five channels in your own language (uncensored stuff with big name celebs, like Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Chris Tarrant - blimey, lot of Chris' in radio - Johnny Vaughn and Richard Bacon) would you pay, say £6 a month for it in your car?

Just curious.

I don't think it would take off in Europe. I think the language problems would be a big issue, plus I don't think Europeans adopt new technology quite like the Americans.

But I'm very interested in your opinions.

lapin_windstar

Europe has Digital Audio Broadcasting which (as far as the user is concerned) offers much the same thing, doesn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Broadcasting

Seems like there was an idea to launch satellite radio in the EU: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/eu...led-today.html

I wouldn't pay for it - but then I don't here either, so I guess I am just not the target audience either way.

You're making a joke, ain't ya? The US is far behind Europe in broadband rollout, 3G phone technology, payment cards, banking...most people in Europe don't even know what a check is and people use them on a daily basis here.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Satellite has not exactly been successful in the US, so the problem isn't limited to Europe.

It's a tough concept, no matter how you look at it. There are a lot of competing products in the consumer entertainment space, and satellite has proven to be a low-priority purchase for the vast majority of the public. Those few who like it do tend to like it a lot, but that base of consumers is small and won't pay enough to make it profitable.

If it were to have a chance of success in Europe, it would need to be incorporated into mobile phones and/or MP3 players. Getting people to carry another device would be a challenge.

Satellite doesn't work in certain environments, such as in underground systems. For commuters in cities such as London, Paris and Berlin, who rely heavily on subterranean public transport, it would largely be useless.

It also runs counter to the dominant trend that is now underway toward on-demand content. People are increasingly less interested in random content doled out on the broadcaster's schedule -- consumers increasingly want content that they want, when they want it, on their terms. This trend does not bode well for radio of any sort, whether satellite or terrestrial, as listeners are more interested in fulfilling predetermined wants and less interested in allowing radio to introduce new things or broaden their horizons.

The increasing presence of video doesn't help, either. Today's youth are becoming less interested in audio-only content, and their shortened attention spans make it increasingly important for content providers to provide visuals that can capture their attention.

MP3 players, YouTube and the rest all offer formidable competition. Kids are accustomed to getting their music for free or near free; getting them to pay a monthly fee for music that is not provided on-demand would be difficult.

The future in Europe is for phones to serve as entertainment content-delivery devices. That means MP3's, short videos, ringtone samples, podcasts, etc. sent to the user's phone. I don't see satellite competing with any of that.

special ed

Which is true to a point but satellite radio is really aimed at drivers I think. I spend two hours or more each day commuting in heavy traffic so satellite radio keeps me from getting too bored.

ugacrew

I would agree with that assessment. I think people are trying to make one business model fit another. I still think satellite radio is a viable product as it provides relief from the constant jibber jabber found on commercial land based radio stations. I know most pay for it just to have back to back music and not the constant commercial interruptions.

I think that what you've described RoadWarrior is something that should be offered in addition to as opposed as a replacement. There is still a market out there for people that want a no-fuss entertainment solution that people young and old can use without consulting a geek.

Bill_S

The US must be way behind in "big name celebrities", too. Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Chris Tarrant, Johnny Vaughn, Richard Bacon?? Never heard of a single one...

RoadWarriorFromLP

That's true, and in Europe, there are fewer commuters who fall into this category. Hence, the need to integrate it into phones or portable MP3 players, rather than focusing on reaching drivers, as has been the case here. (And let's remember -- it is not succeeding in the US, either.)

The average American commutes about 30 minutes each way. Of course, that means that many of them commute for less than an hour per day. Getting them to pay for radio is difficult, particularly when they already have phones, terrestrial radios, CD players and iPods to amuse them.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's a small market, not lucrative enough to be served profitably. Sirius lost more than half a billion dollars during 2007. Their balance sheet is not pretty. If they can't raise more cash or increase subscriber rates, their days are numbered.

I think that they blew it with the rollout. Instead of trying to sell subscriptions to listeners with costly mandatory equipment, they should have given away the radios, and offered most of the channels for free supported by advertising, supplemented by a few specialty premium channels that consumers would pay for, such as sports programming and Howard Stern.

ugacrew

I can see how you can come to that conclusion about their execution. However they should have kept the subscription in place though. Most pay for it because they want to do without commercials. That's why XM is really suffering more than Sirius. I think what would really save them is if they got together with Microsoft or Apple and worked together with integrating the technology into the Zune or iPod. I think you would have a great marriage between satellite radio's business model and the model that you spoke of. I can imagine it working very well on the Zune since there is wifi on that device. I can see a satellite station playing a song. The info would be displayed on the screen if wifi connection was concurrent. From the screen one could purchase that track playing and download it on the spot. I can see that happening and would really make the Zune more attractive to me. Of course that's if you are in a wifi spot long enough to accomplish the download. Or you can mark a song for download later making it sort of like a Netflix queue. Then when you hook up to a wifi spot then you'd be able to download then. That would be a really cool idea I think.

RoadWarriorFromLP

But this is a very tiny niche, a group that is not nearly large enough to generate profits. I personally HATE commercials (I listen almost exclusively NPR myself), but I am in a minority. Most Americans listen to commercial radio quite happily, they are quite accustomed to it.

Sirius was lagging XM in subscriber rates until they hired Howard Stern. And again, neither company has been successful, they cannot go the distance with these low subscriber rates.

The cost of, and need to purchase a unique technology in order to use satellite radio, are substantial barriers to adoption. There hasn't been much reason for consumers to take the plunge in the first place, and it takes too much money and effort to bother with it.

Roland Hulme

SIRIUS and XM have a business model based around making a loss for the first 20 years. They've already have profitable quarters years before they were expected to.

They're consistently getting more subscribers.

The whole reason they GET subscribers is because they don't have milliosn of advertsl That's why DAB failed in Europe - they expected punters to buy digital radios to listen to the same commercial-filled crap they got on regular FM radio for free.

There's also the rather complicated issue of bandwidth/transmission etc. which makes satellite radio much more sustainable than DAB or cellphone/wireless audio entertainment.

Paul S

probaby the biggest issue (IMHO) is finding free space on the radio spectrum across all of Europe (and I guess that means the new countries that join up too) and ensuring that the satellite footprint doesn't impede on non-licensed areas causing unwanted interference.

ugacrew

We barely tolerate it. There's a reason why radio stations here boast that they play more music than the other station. It's because they know we complain about the massive amount of commercials. If you don't have satellite radio in the car, it's most likely an iPod or CD that's keeping one entertained and not the morning zoo.

Paul S

I did for a while, I don't now though


agreed. That or NPR

ugacrew

I'm definitely an NPR nut. That's all I play when I'm at work. Who really wants to deal with simplistic humor that early in the morning mixed with obnoxious sound effects. Besides, NPR keeps me less stupid than the rest of them.