Why is satellite radio struggling so much?

Question

And before anyone says "who is going to pay to listen to radio when you can listen to radio for free", by that logic shouldn't cable and satellite tv have failed also? Thanks.

Answer 1

I believe the reason they are struggling is because of a basic flaw in their marketing strategy.  They have not created a need for their services.

While there are some programs on satellite radio that you cannot get on regular radio, such as Howard Stern and I am sure there are others, they have not created a need in most consumers as to why they need satellite radio.

With cable the need for cable was created by the cable companies.  You need to have cable so that you could get weather when you want it, news when you wanted and you can see movies that you cannot see on regular TV.

I orginally got cable because of reception problems with my local stations.  So I needed cable to just watch regular TV and the extra stations were a side benefit.  Now I need cable to watch many of the shows that I have become used to.

Answer 2

I think both sides (XM , sirius)have been taking losses , and spending money trying to beat the other side.

With the impending merger this should end.

Subscriptions are high (XM superior in this aspect) and most are satisfied with the service.

Cable , in its introduction , had no competition from satellite and Internet , they only had broadcast stations to contend with.With the merger this will be sat. radios situation.

The thing I fear is radical changes in the programming I receive.If this doesn't happen then I will be happy.

Answer 3

Because of all the storms we've been having  you could write to your local council about it.

Answer 4

It is not struggling as you say. Satellite radio opened up with more choices then cable did in its first years. I have had satellite for  over 2 years now and would never  tune in to crappy FM again

Answer 5

Because they are just starting out and their prices are relatively low per month compared to how much they shell out to celebrities (Howard stern).  They also spend a lot on advertising, and I assume the satellites in orbit around the earth aren't cheap for them to rent.  XM and Sirius just merged so we'll see how it goes.  I looooove my satellite radio.  Makes my commute to work everyday enjoyable and I only pay $12 a month for it.  Most new cars already have the built in recievers too so you don't have to go out and buy them.

Answer 6

It seemed like a great idea when the concept was conceived about a decade ago.  However, no one could have foreseen the onslaught of competition.

mp3 players, especially the all-you-can-eat services, can give musical variety just like satellite radio can.  Also look at what's available now with cell phone streaming, wifi/internet radio.

The start-up costs were extremely great.  Satellites and repeaters ain't cheap.  Also the war for content between XM and Sirius has been costing them - NFL, MLB, Howard Stern, etc.

About the best thing that satellite radio has to say for itself now that you can't find anywhere else is the national news and sports content.

Answer 7

Your an Idiot, Satellite radio is far from struggling.  Your talking about a relatively new technology that has over 12 million subscribers, And rising every day.  Your question should have been, Why is free terrestrial radio struggling to keep people interested.

Answer 8

ipods

Answer 9

9000 Satellite TV Channels on PC or Laptop - TV for PC

You can try it.

https://paydotcom.com/r/9911/jivy/351110...

Answer 10

Because cable and satellite TV has loss for years also before it turned a profit.

Actually cable was introduced when a guy with a tv antenna on a tower could catch more over the air tv stations than his neighbors and hooked them into his tv antenna if they were willing to pay to share it.. but most systems loss money or were profitable only as they only had regular tv to compete against and most people wanted more to watch than OTA

Satellite TV lost for years but has made it up on people who get tired of the cable tv company or live where cable is unavailable...

However more people are willing to pay for tv than they are radio as radio is used as entertainment more often only in cars or people who are more likely to listen while doing something else, whereas most americans vegetate in front of a tv when they get home from work and want more choices

People who buy the sat radio services are most likely people who travel alot, listen to a lot of music/talk, or more likely tired of what's on current commercial radio. Most subscriptions that are new are due to sales of vehicles with the services in them already however I've found it depends upon the owner if they get hooked or not on satellite radio if they pay after the free trial period is up.. usually people who travel are willing to pay.

But it comes to economics and most people spend more time in front of the internet and tv than a radio and the cost of sat radio at this time is too high for the average consumer in their mind currently.

however to offset some losses, look to what satellite tv and cable did and sell ads to offset the cost (like internet sites like this one do) and become profitable aand it's slowly being done on xm and sirius right now to make users more accepting of them in a few years like was done on cable and satellite tv