XM gets "sirius"

[SteveOrdinetz]

  rogerkirk wrote:
>An interesting article in the NY times today:
>says that XM has 1 million subscribers and needs 3 million to break 
>even.  Sirius has 200K and needs 2 million to break even.  Are there 
>realistically 4 million+ more potential listeners waiting in the 
>wings?  The article noted that Sirius has changed management and their Pop 
>Music is already taking a more conservative approach.  Shades of 
>terrestrial radio management.


This article sounded waaay too much like a composite of XM & Sirius press 
releases.  Could the author have been a little more blatant in his 
gushing?  While I think the concept of satellite-delivered pay radio is 
here to stay, I also think that the music channels need to be more 
mainstream and accessible.  Too many of them seemed like they were 
influenced by postings on internet message boards.  My brother in law had 
XM in his truck for a while and to me the music seemed to be a bit obscure 
for the non-music geek (at least on the channels I listened to).  The 60s 
channel had stuff I'd never even heard of.  I don't think that would 
translate well to the listener who still cranks it up when "Pretty Woman" 
comes on and thinks "Hot Fun In The Summertime" is an 'oh wow' song.  Most 
people don't intently LISTEN to the radio, y'know, and indeed often tune 
out when something unfamilar comes on.  I'd personally prefer it to be 
jockless...I didn't see the the voicetracked airstaff added much.  I also 
found the relatively un-processed audio to be a bit annoying to listen to 
in a vehicle.

That having been said, while I don't see satellite radio displacing 
terrestrial radio anytime soon, there is an audience for it out 
there.  Whether this audience can support 2 competing providers, only time 
will tell.