XM Satellite Radio loses $666.7M in 2005

Washington Business Journal ^ | 2/16/06

[xzins]

All music all the time is a red flag for drivers.

Puts you to sleep. So you gotta have those commercials.

Better yet, find a good talk radio program and let it get your blood boiling. That's far better than coffee for keeping you wide awake!

[LegendHasIt]

I occasionally listen to music, comedy and the 'old-tyme-radio' channels, but primarily I got XM for News...

I spend a lot of time in remote areas, and on the rare occasion I can get ANY AM or FM reception at all during the day, it is music that I can't stand and if there is any news at all, it is super left wing nonsense like NPR.....

Either that or one of the Mexican stations blasting out a half million watts of 'La Cucaracha'.

So, I'd be 'lost' without XM. And though FOX news has gone leftwards, It is still the only news station that doesn't constantly make my blood boil, so I hope that XM will survive and that they will continue to carry FOX.

[reefdiver]

1000 shares of sirius @ 5.30 Yessss I'm going on a nice ride-You can't gt on there - but close by-see you all @ 25.00

[KurtZ]

I work at the US-Canadian border where North Dakota meets Minnesota, and since we can't seem to get even 1 radio station in, i would go crazy if it weren't for my xm radio. IMO, the music on Sirius is much better, but since xm is the only one that carries MLB games, i'm stuck with it. I did read an article a couple weeks ago about how xm is trying to make a deal with apple to integrate the ipod with xm radio, but it said the deal was most likely a couple years off.

I really can't understand what these people are losing money on. As far as i can tell, their operation hasn't changed very much in the last year, but they keep gaining subscribers. With roughly the same business model, how do you go from turning a profit one year and losing massive amounts the next?

[Miss Marple]

Well, in my city the music selection is very limited, and except for Rush the talk shows are bad ...no Tony Snow, no Laura Ingraham unless you want to listen after 9PM, etc.

I subscribe to XM for classical music and the Tony Snow show. This is why I chose XM over Sirius.

If you live in a city with choices on radio, you can't understand what a treat satellite radio is.

[outofhere2]

The talent and future is with AM radio not satellite where you pay to listen to filth from Stern or the politically, inept Oprah holding court over clueless women. The goods are with AM.

[xzins]

I think you can get a lot of it for free on internet broadcasts.

[RS]

"Stern was given $500M....a typical sat subscriber is thought to be worth about $500 total to the company....if Stern brings in 1M new subs, then his contract is paid for."

"All in all, not that bad of a deal for SIRI (if, that is, they can keep from going BK)."

?? they do all of this to break even ?

Their stock almost hit 8 in Dec before he started broadcasting with them, now it's under 6 .

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bought this baby at like $3.00 or something and sold two a three weeks ago...did ok.

My father bought XMSR when it was announced as an IPO. Sold it two months ago and made out quite well.

[BigSkyFreeper]

DirectTV went over to XMRadio a little while ago. Lots of repeats. I mean, how many times can you listen to "Johnny got a Zero" on the 40s channel? The "old" music channels that DirectTV carried was much better than XMRadio - no talking period.

DISH Network offers Sirius Satellite's free music channels. Much better variety and selection than the Muzak channels they've had for years.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Consumers have a lot more choices now than they did with Cable TV. Podcasts, Audible.com (audio books), digital radio (when it comes), WiFi radio (only a matter of time).

WHO-AM in Des Moines, Iowa (one of those blowtorches you can hear practically anywhere in the US at night) is broadcasting in both analog and digital AM. Digital AM receivers will set you back a few thousand dollars though.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Well, in my city the music selection is very limited, and except for Rush the talk shows are bad ...no Tony Snow, no Laura Ingraham unless you want to listen after 9PM, etc.

The selection here is pretty bad too near the US/Canada border in Montana. No good talk radio (unless you're a left-winged moron and can stand CBC or one of the Canadian talk radio stations), one FM station (hay-bailin' country, local-yokel rotgut), and the rest of the stations are on AM (again hay-bailin' country, local-yokel rotgut).

So, between my MP3 collection, online radio, and Sirius Satellite Radio on DISH Network, I seem to be fairing quite well.

[sully777]

Why pay for something that is free? If I want to listen to commercial-free music, I play a CD, CDrw, MP3, i-Pod, or tape.

[redgolum]

Loss of the Beast?

Now that is funny.

[JoeGar]

At least they aren't wasting a half billion dollars on that juvenile jerk Howard Stern.

IMHO, they are wasting $55,000,000 on Oprah. We have enough whiny, maudlin, Tragedy TV -- now we have Tragedy Radio. Isn't crying while driving risky?

[JoeGar]

The company projects subscription revenue of more than $860 million in 2006, or an almost 55 percent increase.

That's because XM raised its rates in 2005. If they raise them again to pay for Oprah, I'm bailing out.

[Always Right]

If the contract that Stern inked with Sirius is even close to being accurate, can someone explain to me how they can possibly turn a profit even in the long run?

Siris was way behind XM and losing ground before they hired Stern. Stern helped turned Sirius around and now is surpassing XM in subscriber growth. Sirius was headed towards penny stockland without Stern. It takes about an extra 650K subs pay for Howard's contract. Has Howard alone counted towards 650K extra subs? Probably not quite, but he has made Sirius a serious competitor.

[Always Right]

IMHO, they are wasting $55,000,000 on Oprah.

I agree. Housewives can get their fill of Oprah on TV and in her magazine. Oprah is not a proven draw on the radio, and her TV popularity may not cross over on the radio. Just look at O'Reilly, who is king on TV but struggles on the radio. Having Stern exclusively is why he is kind of worth it and Oprah is not. Where XM is smart is inking the deal with Fox News. Sirius needs to do the same.

[LegendHasIt]

Yeah, I agree. I hadn't heard of that Opra deal until earlier in this thread. But at least they aren't wasting quite as much money on her as Sirius is on Stern.

Couldn't force me to listen to either one of them. As far as I'm concerned, they both pander to, glorify and attempt to make acceptable the very dregs of society. Oprah isn't as juvenile, but she makes up for that by being totally PC.

[LegendHasIt]

Well, looks like Sirius has just reported a loss of a little less than half of what XM did ($311 Million 4Q05) About 50 million more than the year before.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580422

Loss of 23 cents per share.