Thoughts on XM
I got carried away with the Dylan article, and wrote too much about XM, so I decided to make it a seperate entry.
XM, and satellite radio as a whole, still seems like the kind of thing that has not caught on yet, but it is indisputable that it is better than any radio you could possibly receive through your FM dial. It's like the difference between comparing a diamond engagement ring to one of those candy ring pops that you get out of a grocery store vending machine. Even with a large library of music at my disposal, sometimes it's nice to put on the radio and let yourself get truly surprised. If you spend a long time every day in your car, or have stretches where you have the chance to listen to music uninterrupted, XM (or Sirius, I on't really have a huge preference about either one, I just happen to have XM,) is absolutely the way to go.
When arguing against satellite radio, FM pretty much falls back on a few basic arguments:
1, That you don't get local DJ tastemaker personalities or concert information.
That's fine. The internet delivers specific, on demand access to information about local concerts. Getting concert updates three times daily at 12:40, 2:40 and 6:40 is probably the equivilent of checking your stock quotes in the morning paper. If you actually cared about either one, you'd probably go online for more updated info. And if you're emphasizing the on air blather over the music, that indicates something horrific about your priorities. However, if you're interested in which Tower Records parking lot "Bernie and The Badger" from the Morning Zoo are giving away t shirts in, perhaps you ought to tune in.
2, They play the "FM is free" card.
Some desperate stations have gone as far as to change their names to "FreeFM." The monthly fee for XM is undoubtedly the one thing that prevents people from signing up, but it seems like its value should be apparent to any music fan. For the cost of less than a CD a month, you get inventive programming, no commercials, dozens of listenable stations and cool stuff like the Dylan radio show. You could even look it as supporting XM as the way you'd buy a cd from an unknown band, or buy organic produce, or opt for the local mom and pop store instead of a chain. It may cost a bit extra, but if you consider your purchase as casting a vote for the way you think the world should be, or at least supporting things you like, it helps justify it a bit.
3, "XM is partially owned by Clear Channel."
The only person who was willing to reach this low was Halloran, the DJ at 94.9. He whipped out this doozy for me a year or two ago when we were debating the merits of his radio station. My response to this bold statement, which he didn't back up with numbers or specifics, is that people hate Clear Channel because they deliver an inferior product, recognized and loathed across the board for ruining a once proud format. It's not because of their size, or their profitability. It's because it blows. If Clear Channel was churning out XM stations, with no commercials and highly varied playlists, people would be naming their kids after them. If they happen to be part of a group of investors supporting a great product, is that enough to make you lower your standards to the point where you think "I can tolerate 94.9's lack of playlist diversity, commercials and obnoxious dudes on air, but at least Clear Channel tried to move in a good direction by giving them money."
Just some things to consider. I'd be curious to see if there are any other people out there who have one of the brands of satellite radio and how they finally pulled the trigger and made the switch.
Comments
Well I don't "own" XM radio, but I listened to it for about a week while driving someone else's car around (because he was out of town and it was a lot faster and nicer than mine)
Basically, for him it came down to time. He spends a lot of time in the car and travelling long distances, and it is a lot easier to have your choice of stations than stuck with whatever station you happen to pick up in Hickory or Roanoke Rapids, NC.
I suppose if I wasn't on the metro 4 days a week, I'd think about getting it too.
Posted by: Grey | April 28, 2006 10:26 AM
I have xm portable. Got it for the baseball, but I tend to listen to it much more than the regular radio.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 12:00 PM
I crossed over to Sirius last December for two reasons. 1) I bought a new car with satellite radio and 2) Howard Stern.
Between the loss of Stern on terrestrial radio and the FCC's increasing control over it's content, (not to mention the increasing length of commercial breaks), crossing over to satellite radio was the obvious solution for me.
Satellite radio still needs to catch on with the mass public but Stern's move to Sirius has put the spotlight on sat radio, and he alone has managed to bring the number of Sirius subscribers from 700 thousand to over 4 million within a matter of months. Over time, as technology improves, I believe satellite radio will become as common as cable tv.
The battle between XM and Sirius as brands is a whole other story that I won't get into, but as of now, I love having Sirius radio. And since December, I've listened to terrestrial radio once in a friend's car and I DO NOT miss one bit of it, not even the 15-20 minute commercial breaks. Who'd a thought?.
Posted by: vincem | April 28, 2006 01:52 PM
no commercials.
no dj's.
WAY too many songs to choose from.
i'd pay anything for that!
and i'm sorry to hear that someone bought a sirius because of howard stern. actually, the saddest part of it was when you publicly admitted you're a howard stern fan.
u poor phucker.
Posted by: jack lord | May 11, 2006 11:34 AM