Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (6269)	2/8/2007 6:47:47 PM
From: Sirius_Rich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

>>>a totally idiotic expenditure It would be idiotic if SIRIUS intended to NOT kill XM. Over 6 out of 10 Americans, over 7 out 10 Canadians and 9 out of 10 Mexicans CHOSE to buy SIRIUS over XM last year. And there is no indication that SIRIUS' lead will not continue to grow even larger.

To: i-node who wrote (6269)	2/8/2007 8:39:32 PM
From: pcstel	Respond to of 8420

A much more logical explanation is that, at retail, people know the name of Sirius because they spent a billion dollars on Howard Stern -- a totally idiotic expenditure, but one that obviously raised the brand recognition of Sirius. You see.. The more you talk about it.. The more you are starting to see the benefit of the Stern Deal. Let's look at it this way.. How much has SIRI actually paid Stern so far.. In cash and option expenses? Somewhere around 420 million is my guesstimate. So Stern has cost SIRI 300 million more than XM to date versus MLB. Yet as Mr. Ray admits.. The value of the Stern deal transcends past the actual Stern devotees. It has elevated "the brand recognition of Sirius". Which has led to dramatic gains in the retail sector. If we assume some data points and say that Stern's association has resulted in, 500,000 net retail adds that are associated with "brand recognition". 500,000 "real subscribers".. not those OEM type which Mr. Ray has catagorized as "people who never asked for the service, never wanted the service, and never paid for the service", but 500,000 net retail credit card down on the table subscribers. Those 500,000 "brand recognition" retail subscribers would net 78 million dollars in annualized revenue. Which is almost what the "base annual breakdown of the cost of the Stern contract. (Minus incentives). Of course, this does not include the well over 1 million subscribers that was accredited to Stern's move almost 1 year ago. And so far XM has paid 120 million (minus revenue share) for the MLB deal over two years. A payment that has had almost ZERO effect on the "brand recognition" of XM, and surely is no where close to recapturing their costs by subscriber gains. Almost anyone with a calculator can sit down and figure out which on of these deals was the more lucrative. Consumers who haven't tried the product, frankly, are in no position to make an INFORMED choice Exactly.. which only goes to highlight the value of the Stern Deal.. If you have retail subs walking in to buy a product.. And they are in no position to make an INFORMED choice, and simply buy SIRI because of the "Brand Recognition" brought to SIRI through the Stern propaganda.. Then you would have to accredit those retial adds in a large part to Stern. tent continues to degrade (which is happening quickly because they spent all their money on Stern), ROTFLMAO!! Yeap!! It's degrading so fast.. That they keep picking up content that XM no longer will pay to host. See NASCAR, Sinatra, etc. I find it interesting that even as SIRI keeps picking up content abandoned by XM, you claim that it is SIRI's content offerings that are degrading. Let me guess, When SIRI launches those video offerings.. "if the FCC lets them do it", it will only be more degraded content offerings. This boy talks in circles. PCSTEL