http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-stern13-2008oct13,0,7934606.story


Interesting article. I haven't listened to Stern in many years. My guess he returns to radio when his contract expires...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-stern13-2008oct13,0,7934606.story


Interesting article. I haven't listened to Stern in many years. My guess he returns to radio when his contract expires...

I think it's now safe to say Stern's experiment with Satellite radio hasn't worked for either side.

Don't get me wrong I don't blame Stern for jumping at the chance. FM and the FCC rules sucked, and the money was better then good.

But after the initial hubbub his influence has waned, And his signing got XM and Sirius into a signing war that eventually killed them both, and may have killed satellite radio altogether.

the only one who made money off that deal was stern himself...

i think your analysis is dead on barbie... it was too good an opportunity for him to pass up, but unfortunately, the golden goose killed itself by making that deal...

I think it's now safe to say Stern's experiment with Satellite radio hasn't worked for either side.


Most ridiculous Bullsh!t i've ever read. Sirius had just over 600,000 subscribers when he announced he was coming to Sirius. Now they have over 9 million subscribers. If you add XM that's almost 20 million subscribers. The money that they paid him was already made up in subscribers that he has brought in within his first year on Sirius.

And Howard signed a 500 million dollar deal plus an additional 250 million dollars in bonuses because he beat the numbers even Sirius hoped he would bring. So financially he made out, and obviously artistically he made out as well with the freedom he now has to broadcast virtually anything in any way he wants.

Therefore, it is safe to say that the deal HAS worked out for both Howard and Sirius. And that article is almost as bullsh!t as your statement. The problems that Satellite radio is having is not because of Howard. In fact, he is one of the few bright spots. Sirius would not have even survived as a company if they didn't sign Howard. That's pretty much a given. How about you do some research before posting your crap? :rolleyes:

Most ridiculous Bullsh!t i've ever read. Sirius had just over 600,000 subscribers when he announced he was coming to Sirius. Now they have over 9 million subscribers. If you add XM that's almost 20 million subscribers. The money that they paid him was already made up in subscribers that he has brought in within his first year on Sirius.

And Howard signed a 500 million dollar deal plus an additional 250 million dollars in bonuses because he beat the numbers even Sirius hoped he would bring. So financially he made out, and obviously artistically he made out as well with the freedom he now has to broadcast virtually anything in any way he wants.

Therefore, it is safe to say that the deal HAS worked out for both Howard and Sirius. And that article is almost as bullsh!t as your statement. The problems that Satellite radio is having is not because of Howard. In fact, he is one of the few bright spots. Sirius would not have even survived as a company if they didn't sign Howard. That's pretty much a given. How about you do some research before posting your crap? :rolleyes:

I am gonna agree with Barbie for one reason...the Stern fans who were gonna go to Sirius, well, they went from the start. You imply that without Stern, Sirius wouldn't have 9 million folks. I'd agree there, but I don't think the numbers are inflated to Howard's credit like he wants you to believe. Also, I've read a couple of items doubting the 250 million bonus (not doubting you read it, just saying the story is not proven to be true).
Also, one thing that's never been revealed, as far as I can research, what are Howard's daily numbers on sat vs terrestrial?

Boy, we have been over this 1000 times, but here we go again.

barbie845, I promise not to yell at you, and call what you write as BullSh*t either. I think we both realize that does not do anyone anygood here.

But I beg to differ with the articles premise that he has lost influence:

1. I need help here from L.A. people, but did this article appear on the front page of the L.A. Times when it was released. First of all, how the hell is this news? Someone explain that too me. Second, this is something that should be shoved either in the editorial section or the radio and TV section, and not on the front page of either. If it was on the front page, then the guy has influence. If he did not, no one would give damn. Not posters/bloggers/newsmen/writers/etc... No one. but the fact that this may have been on the front page, shows he is still influential, like it or not.

2. I don;t have the numbers to back this up, so this is just a guess on my part. Leno routinely defeats Letterman(and I think Nightline may beat them both) in the ratings. Would everyone agree with that? But if you look at the ratings when Howard Stern is a guest, i would not be surprised if Letterman won all those nights. There are not a helluva alot of them, so they should be easy to find. You can even just look since the end of 2005 in December until the present. He has been on satellite since that time, maybe like 3-4 times, and it would not surprise me if Letterman won those nights. And then look at the previous night he was not on, and the night after. Guaranteed the ratings were lower and Leno won. The guy still has alot more influence than the article implies.

3. Why the hell are we even talking about this if the guy had no influence/popularity? Well?!

4. At the end of the article, it implies that if Howard wanted to return to terrestrial radio, he would be greeted with open arms. WHAT?! The guy has lost his MOJO! Why in the hell would anyone, in radio, want to sign a guy who has clearly lost, or is losing, his "influence", and "popularity"? He is a sinking ship, right?! That last paragraph pretty much sums up's the point of the article as totally unfounded, and completely nuliffies the very point it is trying to make.

An article which would not have been written if he had lost his influence/mojo since there be no reason to write it.

Very dumb article, and I like to see who the guy is who wrote it. Is he is bed with terrestrial radio?

You must take these things for what they are worth, and where they come from/who wrote them/their agenda, and investigate them and their dealings/partners.

Probably would be shocked by what you found.

The Los Angeles Times finally responds to calls from Howard 100 News to explain its fact-free front page fairy tale about the Stern Show. The LA Times e-mailing and calling Howard 100 News reporter Steve Langford last night, perhaps as a result of a phone call Howard 100 News made to Sam Zell, Chairman, President and CEO of the Tribune Company. Mounting questions emerge concerning the LA Times wishful thinking about the alleged irrelevance of the Stern Show. Highly regarded news media critic Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post telling Howard 100 News the LA Times is off the mark about the evolving cultural relevance of this show. Kurtz suggests the guys at the LA Times buy a satellite radio in order to catch up with what’s going on in America today. All this amid a growing sense that the Tribune Company didn’t hire a boatload of top radio executives just to run a bunch of newspapers.

Sam Zell owns the Tribune group that owns WGN. How many radio stations around the country does Sirius/XM affect?

Of course they have to be negative about the competition.

Howards show runs all day, the estimates are between 4 to 6 million per day.
Letterman has 4 million.

Are you people retarded and believe everything you read?Howard moved to Sirius and they had about 600,000 subscribers.Since he has been there,the subscriptions have grown to about 9 million.Let's do some quick math:8.4 million x $12.95 per month.That's about 109 million A MONTH-THESE ARE HARD FACTS!I guess it's a coincidence that since he's been there the numbers have grown?Wake up and get your heads out of the sand.When Sirius and XM tried to merge,terrestrial radio did everything they could to keep the merger from going through.It took about a year for the FCC to give their approval.It took about 3 months for the government to approve a merger between oil companies.If that's not a monopoly I don't know what is.If satellite radio wasn't a huge threat then why were they so against it?Have any of you done any research to see the ratings of the stations that Howard left?I'm also pretty sure that the owners of the LA Times are owners of terrestrial radio stations too.Here is an update to that piece of crap article:

"The Los Angeles Times finally responds to calls from Howard 100 News to explain its fact-free front page fairy tale about the Stern Show. The LA Times e-mailing and calling Howard 100 News reporter Steve Langford last night, perhaps as a result of a phone call Howard 100 News made to Sam Zell, Chairman, President and CEO of the Tribune Company. Mounting questions emerge concerning the LA Times wishful thinking about the alleged irrelevance of the Stern Show. Highly regarded news media critic Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post telling Howard 100 News the LA Times is off the mark about the evolving cultural relevance of this show. Kurtz suggests the guys at the LA Times buy a satellite radio in order to catch up with what’s going on in America today. All this amid a growing sense that the Tribune Company didn’t hire a boatload of top radio executives just to run a bunch of newspapers."

I'm with Steelersrule..can't we discuss this without the name-calling or implication someone is retarded because they don't agree?

I'm with Steelersrule..can't we discuss this without the name-calling or implication someone is retarded because they don't agree?

I would be nice if some users read the article and commented a little more dispassionately. The article quotes Tom Leykis (a popular talk radio personality) as defending the move to satellite radio.

What is the take on the claim that Stern no longer gets A-list guests on the show among those of you that listen?

3. Why the hell are we even talking about this if the guy had no influence/popularity? Well?!



Schadenfreude over someone who used to be a major media player? Just guessing...

Boy, we have been over this 1000 times, but here we go again.

barbie845, I promise not to yell at you, and call what you write as BullSh*t either. I think we both realize that does not do anyone anygood here.

But I beg to differ with the articles premise that he has lost influence:

1. I need help here from L.A. people, but did this article appear on the front page of the L.A. Times when it was released. First of all, how the hell is this news? Someone explain that too me. Second, this is something that should be shoved either in the editorial section or the radio and TV section, and not on the front page of either. If it was on the front page, then the guy has influence. If he did not, no one would give damn. Not posters/bloggers/newsmen/writers/etc... No one. but the fact that this may have been on the front page, shows he is still influential, like it or not.

2. I don;t have the numbers to back this up, so this is just a guess on my part. Leno routinely defeats Letterman(and I think Nightline may beat them both) in the ratings. Would everyone agree with that? But if you look at the ratings when Howard Stern is a guest, i would not be surprised if Letterman won all those nights. There are not a helluva alot of them, so they should be easy to find. You can even just look since the end of 2005 in December until the present. He has been on satellite since that time, maybe like 3-4 times, and it would not surprise me if Letterman won those nights. And then look at the previous night he was not on, and the night after. Guaranteed the ratings were lower and Leno won. The guy still has alot more influence than the article implies.

3. Why the hell are we even talking about this if the guy had no influence/popularity? Well?!

4. At the end of the article, it implies that if Howard wanted to return to terrestrial radio, he would be greeted with open arms. WHAT?! The guy has lost his MOJO! Why in the hell would anyone, in radio, want to sign a guy who has clearly lost, or is losing, his "influence", and "popularity"? He is a sinking ship, right?! That last paragraph pretty much sums up's the point of the article as totally unfounded, and completely nuliffies the very point it is trying to make.

An article which would not have been written if he had lost his influence/mojo since there be no reason to write it.

Very dumb article, and I like to see who the guy is who wrote it. Is he is bed with terrestrial radio?

You must take these things for what they are worth, and where they come from/who wrote them/their agenda, and investigate them and their dealings/partners.

Probably would be shocked by what you found.

Hey Steel.. How you been BTW. Steelers look pretty good this year.

You and I have been down his road before so you know where I'm coming from. I don't give a rats a$$ about Stern, or O&A or any of them. I've said here a million times I don't blame Stern for taking the deal, he's be nuts not to. I'm just looking at this from a satellite radio point of view. The bidding war killed them. Maybe they would have eventually died anyway, we have no way of knowing. But I do know the bidding war did neither company any good.


Howard moved to Sirius and they had about 600,000 subscribers.Since he has been there,the subscriptions have grown to about 9 million.Let's do some quick math:8.4 million x $12.95 per month.That's about 109 million A MONTH-THESE ARE HARD FACTS

Not only is this NOT a fact, even die hard Stern fans will admit that not at all true. 1st you're assuming all 8.4 moved to Sirius because of Stern, which isn't true and 2nd if you believe Sirius really has anywhere near 9 million subs you're looking at this with blinders on. 3rd many subs have the family plan so they don't pay $12.95 a month. You're 109 million a month is miles from being reality. Actually the real number is a fraction of 109 million.

SiriusXM is on the verge of bankruptcy. To say the Stern signing, or any of the other big money signings Sirius and XM did has worked and benefited SiriusXM isn't being honest. If these signings worked SiriusXM wouldn't right now be scrabbling to get more loans and their stock price wouldn't be 40 cents a share.

Hey Steel.. How you been BTW. Steelers look pretty good this year.

You and I have been down his road before so you know where I'm coming from. I don't give a rats a$$ about Stern, or O&A or any of them. I've said here a million times I don't blame Stern for taking the deal, he's be nuts not to. I'm just looking at this from a satellite radio point of view. The bidding war killed them. Maybe they would have eventually died anyway, we have no way of knowing. But I do know the bidding war did neither company any good.




Not only is this NOT a fact, even die hard Stern fans will admit that not at all true. 1st you're assuming all 8.4 moved to Sirius because of Stern, which isn't true and 2nd if you believe Sirius really has anywhere near 9 million subs you're looking at this with blinders on. 3rd many subs have the family plan so they don't pay $12.95 a month. You're 109 million a month is miles from being reality. Actually the real number is a fraction of 109 million.

SiriusXM is on the verge of bankruptcy. To say the Stern signing, or any of the other big money signings Sirius and XM did has worked and benefited SiriusXM isn't being honest. If these signings worked SiriusXM wouldn't right now be scrabbling to get more loans and their stock price wouldn't be 40 cents a share.


Actually,I never said that 8.4 million are ALL Stern fans.I stated that since he's been there,they have gained another 8.4 million.A majority of that number are probably Stern fans though.Do you think it's a coincidence that the numbers grew when he joined?Even if we use the $6.99 subscription price,that's still 58.7 million a month.

Actually,I never said that 8.4 million are ALL Stern fans.I stated that since he's been there,they have gained another 8.4 million.A majority of that number are probably Stern fans though.Do you think it's a coincidence that the numbers grew when he joined?Even if we use the $6.99 subscription price,that's still 58.7 million a month.


On one hand you're saying all 8.4 million aren't Stern fans but then on the other you attribute all the money to him. But anyway even $6.99 is way too high. Sirius counts unsold cars, they take up to 17 months to stop counting canceled subs, the freebies. Sirius subs count is nowhere near 9 mil, and XM's isn't either.

BTW a few months ago Satellite radio released their very first ratings book. Some Stern fan can correct me if I'm wrong but Stern's ratings were around the 1.2 mil. on any given day. Very good number for sat radio. But not the 10-15 mil he had on FM. And not the 8 mil, or whatever number of Sirius's 9 mil subs.

Again I am NOT blaming Stern for taking this contract and going to sat radio. He's a business man, for him it was a good move. But for sat radio, signing him, the NFL, MLB, Oprah, etc. before they made a dime in profit IMO wasn't a good move.

On one hand you're saying all 8.4 million aren't Stern fans but then on the other you attribute all the money to him. But anyway even $6.99 is way too high. Sirius counts unsold cars, they take up to 17 months to stop counting canceled subs, the freebies. Sirius subs count is nowhere near 9 mil, and XM's isn't either.

BTW a few months ago Satellite radio released their very first ratings book. Some Stern fan can correct me if I'm wrong but Stern's ratings were around the 1.2 mil. on any given day. Very good number for sat radio. But not the 10-15 mil he had on FM. And not the 8 mil, or whatever number of Sirius's 9 mil subs.

Again I am NOT blaming Stern for taking this contract and going to sat radio. He's a business man, for him it was a good move. But for sat radio, signing him, the NFL, MLB, Oprah, etc. before they made a dime in profit IMO wasn't a good move.


I think they took the attitude of "you have to spend money to make money".They probably were thinking that the more we offer,the better chance of getting subscribers.If you put things in perspective,on any given night,I think Leno and Letterman average about 2 million viewers.Stern grabbing 1.2 as you claim,is not too shabby.You can't compare the amount of listeners that he had on "free" radio because this is a subscription service.When people hear Stern's voice when I am listening to him,they say "I really miss him".I say "why don't you get Sirius then"?The standard answer is: "isn't it a pain in the ass to set it up"?I honestly think there are many people out there that are "afraid" of this technology and think it's difficult to install.You can have Sirius in your car in about 1/2 hour with a simple unit.

What is the take on the claim that Stern no longer gets A-list guests on the show among those of you that listen?

I will take this up Robert.

First, of the three names mentioned in the article that are A-list celebrities(Julia Roberts I am 100% certain on, the other 2 are guess, but they were on at least twice):

1. Johnny Depp. Was on he show twice over Stern's 25 year career on Terrestrial Radio, and one of those times he was on the phone. Never in studio I don't think. Will be on again onm satellite.

2. George Clooney. Has been on at least twice, and was in studio. Excellent guest. Very forthcoming, and will be on again on satellite, trust me.

3. Julia Roberts. Was on ONCE. And this after bailing on Howard for the first interview. Then he berated her over a period of a week or two, and then she relented and came in. Was in studio. Very boring, and she was a DEER in the HEADLIGHTS during the interview. She was totally intimidated by him. Will never be on again. Totally feared she was out of her element.

The last one, Roberts, is the reason why most A-list celebs won't do his show. Not because he has no influence, but because of the opposite. He has TOTAL INFLUENCE over the interview, and celebrities, ranging from movie/tv stars to superstar athletes, are SCARED TO DEATH OF HIM. They are out of their comfort zone(being handheld and lobbed softball questions by the likes of Barbara Walters, etc...) and they are frightened to death by it.

They know he can get them to say something that will make news, whether it is front page of the gossip column, or on Access Hollywood/ET/The Insider/etc... and they dread that.

They don't know how to do that type of interview. They are frightened by him.

Tom Cruise? Forget it. That guy has got so much baggage he would bever even walk by the studio for fear of saying/doing something. He would be torn to pieces by Howard, and people like him at that level, know it. They have to keep the FAKE MASK on 24hrs day/7 days week/all year for fear of actually finding "something out" about them.

He has gotten A-list celebrities in the past, and will get them now and in the future.

But they are few and far between, that is for sure.

But it is because of the reasons above. I guarantee it.

Actually according to those books:

Stern averages what you said barbie845. About 1.2 million listeners a day. It might be a little more now, but probably near 1.5 million at the most.

Leno and Letterman AVERAGE 4-6 million viewers a night, with the higher number going to Leno on more than a regular basis.

Actually according to those books:

Stern averages what you said barbie845. About 1.2 million listeners a day. It might be a little more now, but probably near 1.5 million at the most.

Leno and Letterman AVERAGE 4-6 million viewers a night, with the higher number going to Leno on more than a regular basis.


Leno and Letterman combined pull in those numbers,right?That sounds high to be individual numbers.

One other note on this as well. Back in April, Artie Lange got into a fight with his personal assistant and walked off the show saying he quit. This made the headlines in major newspapers and also shows like 'E.T.' and 'Extra'. If Howard was losing his influence, then why would this be big news?

Also, he may not have brought in 9 million people, but I'd bet it's at least 4 million.

From the L.A. Times article:
In leaving terrestrial radio, Stern also left behind an invaluable and reliable tool for self-promotion: the FCC. Over the years, the government agency hit Stern with millions of dollars in fines, generating loads of free publicity.

Without the bureaucratic foil, few of Stern's escapades generate much heat outside his specific universe.

What they have conveniently forgotten (and hope their readers have forgotten as well) is that former Bush administration member Colin Powell's SON, appointed by Bush to head the FCC, had successfully pushed Stern's radio venues to SHUT DOWN his show as the election neared and after Stern had switched from a famous Bush supporter to a famous Bush critic and Kerry supporter.

Stern could see the writing on the wall. He could no longer criticize the then and still current White House and expect his radio signal to remain open or his venues and sponsors to make money.

It was no longer an amusing "Margaret Dumont-Groucho Marx" relationship. The Bush White House/FCC was closing him down on bogus charges and doing serious harm to his business relationships whenever it was politically advantageous for them to do so.

I'm just looking at this from a satellite radio point of view. The bidding war killed them. Maybe they would have eventually died anyway, we have no way of knowing. But I do know the bidding war did neither company any good.

Obviously this guy doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about since there was never a bidding war at all. Howard signed with Sirius because XM never came to the table with an offer at all. Howard was the greatest thing to ever happen to Sirius and all the execs there will tell you the same there would be no Sirius if not for Howard. XM was destroying them in subs and would have absolutely dominated the industry if Howard didn't sign with them.

On one hand you're saying all 8.4 million aren't Stern fans but then on the other you attribute all the money to him. But anyway even $6.99 is way too high. Sirius counts unsold cars, they take up to 17 months to stop counting canceled subs, the freebies. Sirius subs count is nowhere near 9 mil, and XM's isn't either.

BTW a few months ago Satellite radio released their very first ratings book. Some Stern fan can correct me if I'm wrong but Stern's ratings were around the 1.2 mil. on any given day. Very good number for sat radio. But not the 10-15 mil he had on FM. And not the 8 mil, or whatever number of Sirius's 9 mil subs.

Again I am NOT blaming Stern for taking this contract and going to sat radio. He's a business man, for him it was a good move. But for sat radio, signing him, the NFL, MLB, Oprah, etc. before they made a dime in profit IMO wasn't a good move.

:rolleyes: Unbelievable. So how are they supposed to market themselves and get people to PAY for radio when they can get it for free unless they have exclusive content like this? Do you honestly think they would go from 600,000 to 9 million without exclusive content like Howard? Think. The company would have gone bankrupt years ago had they not signed Howard. And do you think that they would gain on XM as much as they did without him? Think.

:rolleyes: Unbelievable. So how are they supposed to market themselves and get people to PAY for radio when they can get it for free unless they have exclusive content like this? Do you honestly think they would go from 600,000 to 9 million without exclusive content like Howard? Think. The company would have gone bankrupt years ago had they not signed Howard. And do you think that they would gain on XM as much as they did without him? Think.

It's obvious barbie is a hater.He's probably a part of the Opie and Anthony Army :D

Obviously this guy doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about since there was never a bidding war at all. Howard signed with Sirius because XM never came to the table with an offer at all. Howard was the greatest thing to ever happen to Sirius and all the execs there will tell you the same there would be no Sirius if not for Howard. XM was destroying them in subs and would have absolutely dominated the industry if Howard didn't sign with them.

Actually XM did make an offer. 30 mil a year, which was much lower then Sirius's offer and though it's never been proven IMO Stern also knew ahead of time Mel was going to Sirius. Stern and Mel have a history togehter so I think Mel going to Sirius was the a big factor too.

Unbelievable. So how are they supposed to market themselves and get people to PAY for radio when they can get it for free unless they have exclusive content like this? Do you honestly think they would go from 600,000 to 9 million without exclusive content like Howard? Think. The company would have gone bankrupt years ago had they not signed Howard. And do you think that they would gain on XM as much as they did without him? Think.

I'm sure I never said or implied Sirius would have 9 mil subs without these big contract signings. Obviously they wouldn't, anyone who argues otherwise is nuts.

2 scenarios:

1) 4 mil subs but with NO 100's of millions of $'s every year in expenses because of these signings. OR

2) 9 mil subs( which is a joke BTW, but lets assume they really have this number) and 100's of mil of $ in big money contract expenses every year. And every year since they don't have the money they get further and further in the hole.

We know scenario #2 hasn't worked. It's brought them to the brink of bankruptcy.

It's obvious barbie is a hater.He's probably a part of the Opie and Anthony Army

Is this another one of your cold hard facts that are completely wrong? You're new here so I can forgive such an uninformed statement.

Actually XM did make an offer. 30 mil a year, which was much lower then Sirius's offer and though it's never been proven IMO Stern also knew ahead of time Mel was going to Sirius. Stern and Mel have a history togehter so I think Mel going to Sirius was the a big factor too.



I'm sure I never said or implied Sirius would have 9 mil subs without these big contract signings. Obviously they wouldn't, anyone who argues otherwise is nuts.

2 scenarios:

1) 4 mil subs but with NO 100's of millions of $'s every year in expenses because of these signings. OR

2) 9 mil subs( which is a joke BTW, but lets assume they really have this number) and 100's of mil of $ in big money contract expenses every year. And every year since they don't have the money they get further and further in the hole.

We know scenario #2 hasn't worked. It's brought them to the brink of bankruptcy.



Is this another one of your cold hard facts that are completely wrong? You're new here so I can forgive such an uninformed statement.


I'd love to know why YOU think you are such an expert on this story.Lighten up Barbie Doll,i'm just messing with you.

I'd love to know why YOU think you are such an expert on this story.Lighten up Barbie Doll,i'm just messing with you.

You really have to stop making things up here. I never said I was an expert.

Actually XM did make an offer. 30 mil a year, which was much lower then Sirius's offer and though it's never been proven IMO Stern also knew ahead of time Mel was going to Sirius. Stern and Mel have a history togehter so I think Mel going to Sirius was the a big factor too.



I'm sure I never said or implied Sirius would have 9 mil subs without these big contract signings. Obviously they wouldn't, anyone who argues otherwise is nuts.

2 scenarios:

1) 4 mil subs but with NO 100's of millions of $'s every year in expenses because of these signings. OR

2) 9 mil subs( which is a joke BTW, but lets assume they really have this number) and 100's of mil of $ in big money contract expenses every year. And every year since they don't have the money they get further and further in the hole.

We know scenario #2 hasn't worked. It's brought them to the brink of bankruptcy.



Is this another one of your cold hard facts that are completely wrong? You're new here so I can forgive such an uninformed statement.

You really have to stop making things up here. I never said I was an expert.


Sounds like answers from someone who is an expert on the subject.Bankruptcy?I don't know about that.

Since Stern's been on satellite for 3 years, an obvious question would be, why the hell would anyone pick now to do this article? It's not a new or changed situation to warrant a story, right? Speculation is that the availability of the "best of Sirius" packages spurred this, as there is a new opportunity for people to tune in to Stern.

It's comical that anyone would think that this was a fair article. It's obviously tied into the terrestrial radio market, and who in their right mind would do an article like this without having actually listened to the damned show? It's full of "reportedly" and heresay. It reminds me of when Andy Rooney got irate because so many people were saddened by the death of Curt Cobain. In other words, the guy writing the article knows absolutely nothing about the show; therefore, he's the last person who should be commenting.

If a few million have been listening to Stern for the last 3 years, why can't the jerk who wrote the piece be a listener? Also, I can think of tons of A-list stars he's had on in the past year: Jamie Foxx, Jim Carrey, Hillary Clinton, Paul McCartney, Toby Maguire, just to name a few.

Another tip that the article is completely contrived, is that he has stated repeatedly that he will never, ever do terrestrial radio again. Any implication to the contrary is complete made-up bull.

The bottom line is that Stern is a genius and he will NEVER get the respect that he deserves.People have had a hard on for him ever since the early 80's.There is not one person,I repeat,not one person in radio that could have gone to Sirius and had that much of an impact on new subscriptions.Barbie,you keep saying that all the new subscriptions can't be credited to Stern.I agree,but please give me a reasonable answer as to why there was such a huge spike in new subscriptions right after he joined?

The bottom line is that Stern is a genius and he will NEVER get the respect that he deserves.People have had a hard on for him ever since the early 80's.There is not one person,I repeat,not one person in radio that could have gone to Sirius and had that much of an impact on new subscriptions.Barbie,you keep saying that all the new subscriptions can't be credited to Stern.I agree,but please give me a reasonable answer as to why there was such a huge spike in new subscriptions right after he joined?

Actually I'm done with this thread. I've been on this board long enough to know that when a poster calls an entertainer, whether is Stern, O&A, or Madonna :), a genius it's time to move on. The only way for this thread to go now is down. It's too bad though. It was an interesting topic.

You have a nice day.

Actually I'm done with this thread. I've been on this board long enough to know that when a poster calls an entertainer, whether is Stern, O&A, or Madonna :), a genius it's time to move on.
I'm sure we'll struggle to get by without you.:)
IMO, Stern's genius is his ability to orchestrate a 5-hr show everyday which sounds off-the-cuff, but is actually carefully planned, while still requiring the main players to think on their feet. In addition, his ability to corral truly on-the-edge characters (including his own staff) is unique. And his support talent of Fred, Gary, Robin, Artie, and even Richard Cristie are savants in their fields of expertise, creating the impetus for ongoing entertainment.

While many find O&A entertaining, much of their show is spent literally watching the news and commenting.

Actually I'm done with this thread. I've been on this board long enough to know that when a poster calls an entertainer, whether is Stern, O&A, or Madonna :), a genius it's time to move on. The only way for this thread to go now is down. It's too bad though. It was an interesting topic.

You have a nice day.


That has to be the dumbest thing to ever come out of someone's mouth.To say an entertainer can't be a genius is just ignorant.I am now fully convinced that somehow you are related to the jackass that wrote that article.

That has to be the dumbest thing to ever come out of someone's mouth.To say an entertainer can't be a genius is just ignorant.I am now fully convinced that somehow you are related to the jackass that wrote that article.

Now you know why I'm bowing out of this topic.

Anytime a thread about Stern or Q&A breaks out here I usually avoid them for this very reason. People like you resort to name calling and BS 'cold hard facts' that are in no way true.

You've been proven wrong on every point you've made in this thread. So all that's left for you is name calling and insults.

Lol ;)

That has to be the dumbest thing to ever come out of someone's mouth.To say an entertainer can't be a genius is just ignorant.I am now fully convinced that somehow you are related to the jackass that wrote that article.Sounds like a typical Stern listener. :rolleyes:

You do know that kind of talk isn't allowed here, don't you? Keep it up and you will be reported (that is, if the mods don't see it first).

Sounds like a typical Stern listener. :rolleyes:

You do know that kind of talk isn't allowed here, don't you? Keep it up and you will be reported (that is, if the mods don't see it first).


Please describe a "typical Stern" listener?Is it someone like myself that HAS a sense of humor,or someone like you who goes through life letting every little thing bother them and is completly miserable?You are a "typical" person who probably never gave him a chance and listened once or twice.There is nobody in the entertainment business that can get more info out of a celebrity than Howard.Do I need to make a list of intelligent people who are famous that listen on a regular basis?Donald Trump is a regular listener,is he a "typical" listener in your eyes?I know one thing,I would love to be as "typical" as Donald.And by the way,if people don't care about Stern anymore,then how is Artie Lang's book in it's SECOND printing already and the book doesn't come out for 3 weeks?

I have listened to him on the radio and watched him on TV before he was on Sirius, and I didn't care for his schtick or his ego then.

And no, I'm not a "hater", nor am I an O&A fan.

Boy, you sure do assume a lot, don't you? Just because I don't get into Stern doesn't mean I don't have any sense of humor or ever laugh.

I'm through, too - I've said all I needed to say.

Ok guys,I think we've argued enough.I apologize if I offended anyone but I just hate when people take shots at Howard and I tend to get very defensive.I've been an avid listener since '82 and he is a huge part of my day.

I MUST backup Barbie845, and Ramminitinski on this subject.

Not looking for a fight, but I will say what I have to say:

First off,

I GOT Sirius FOR Stern. I had XM before, but switched when Stern was a lock. So let's end this right here.

Second,

Howard WAS in negotioations with XM before he signed his deal with SIRIUS. He has even mentioned it on the air. Whether or not what he says is true, it must be taken.

He specifically stated that he did not sign with XM because he would have to deal with a committee. A Board of Directors, if you will, and he did not want to deal with that.

He had a past releationship with Mel, and he decided to go with Sirius. I am SURE the money played a BIG part, but so did this. He had a past relationship with Mel, and knew he could count on him to back him up and promote him.

Put yourself in his situation. You get a boatload of money, plus you get a guy in charge, who believes in you, and who has your back. Where would you go?

Plus those numbers I posted earlier are correct. Howard averages about 1.2-1.5 million listeners at a time on his channels.

He is CLEARLY #1 on satellite radio, BY FAR. But not at the level(4-5 million) that he claims.

You must always be careful with what Howard says. He always felt that the rules of the world applied to everyone else, except him. So take it with a grain of salt.

He is THE BEST at his job. No Doubt. I will not listen to anyone else in the morning.

But he always felt that evrything that applies to everyone else, should not apply to him.

Now, this is JUST CONJECTURE/HEARSAY. But I "think", his oldest(or second) daughter had a bit of a drug problem, which was never approached. Why?

Even if it is wrong, he is first, and foremost, to point out everyone else's problems, but not his own.

Again, that is HEARSAY/CONJECTURE. Take it for what it is worth.

I MUST backup Barbie845

Thank You Sir.

Ill back up barbie845 also. and if you check my past posts you will find im a huge Stern fan.

barb is NO stern fan or fan of O&A. also if you check my past posts you'll see iv also stayed away from most of the stern vs o&a crap. they now work for the same company. lets hope they both win otherwise satradio took a gamble and lost.

While many find O&A entertaining, much of their show is spent literally watching the news and commenting.

Here we go again, a thread that has nothing to do with O&A but for some reason the Stern Zombies feel the need to drag them in. I thought they were insignificant compared to the "genius". :rolleyes:

I MUST backup Barbie845, and Ramminitinski on this subject.

He had a past releationship with Mel, and he decided to go with Sirius. I am SURE the money played a BIG part, but so did this. He had a past relationship with Mel, and knew he could count on him to back him up and promote him.

Put yourself in his situation. You get a boatload of money, plus you get a guy in charge, who believes in you, and who has your back. Where would you go?

Plus those numbers I posted earlier are correct. Howard averages about 1.2-1.5 million listeners at a time on his channels.

He is CLEARLY #1 on satellite radio, BY FAR. But not at the level(4-5 million) that he claims.

You must always be careful with what Howard says. He always felt that the rules of the world applied to everyone else, except him. So take it with a grain of salt.


Wasn't Mel hired after Stern was already on Sirius?

You are correct about the subscriber numbers, but it's usually closer to 1.2 mil most days. If you go on the Stern Fan Network, that number may soon be less. There is almost an open revolt going on, *many* people feel Howard has lost his edge and the show is lousy these days.

Making $2400 a minute and marrying a "model" has taken Howard's anger away. In the past, Howard was always at his best when he was angry about something.

Yes, Howard was always the first, the best, etc. He pretty much invented everything-- according to him. A grain of salt, indeed.


Bottom line, the article was correct about one thing. Stern lost alot of listeners when he went to Sirius.

Are the 9 million subscribers including the pre-installed, pre-activated units in new vehicles? If so, then it's hard to say that anyone saved anything as the number is somewhat artificially inflated (for both XM and Sirius.)

I will say this, I went with Sirius initially because of RawDog and Howard Stern. I've never been in a market to hear him over the air, had enjoyed Private Parts and wanted to see what it was all about. Fast forward 6 months and I was tired of hearing the daily gossip and personal business of everybody involved with the show. Some guests were high caliber, but I quickly lost interest in the has-been stars of canceled shows who were there to hock some made-for-infomercial products. Howard's fans are rabid and will defend him to the death. He is rarely wrong in their eyes and that's fine. The rest of us just have to deal with their animosity anytime the subject comes up.

Maybe I don't "get" his humor. I enjoy pranks, I enjoy surreal and in-your-face raunchiness. Yet something about his show just lost its appeal for me. Now, when I can, I listen to Bubba in the afternoon. Although I only get to hear about 20 minutes before a commercial kicks in and my commute is over. They are a more self depreciating bunch. A little more down to earth. Or, in spite of my aspirations, maybe I am just another dumb redneck.

Wasn't Mel hired after Stern was already on Sirius?


I think you are right. Mel was hired after after Howard had "signed" with Sirius, and made a public announcement of his going to satellite radio about it in October, 2004.

He did not actually go on the air at Sirius officially until January 2006 because he was still under contract with Infinity until the end of 2005.

But I would have to guess that Howard must have known that Sirius is where Mel was leaning, or when Howard signed on with Sirius, that helped make Mel's final decision to go with Sirius, instead of XM, at the time.

I think you are right. Mel was hired after after Howard had "signed" with Sirius, and made a public announcement of his going to satellite radio about it in October, 2004.

He did not actually go on the air at Sirius officially until January 2006 because he was still under contract with Infinity until the end of 2005.

But I would have to guess that Howard must have known that Sirius is where Mel was leaning, or when Howard signed on with Sirius, that helped make Mel's final decision to go with Sirius, instead of XM, at the time.

Mel came on board about 2-3 weeks after Stern signed. So we can be sure Stern knew Mel was getting hired.

Are the 9 million subscribers including the pre-installed, pre-activated units in new vehicles?

Oh yeah. There's all sorts of games both companies played to inflate their sub numbers. I think most of these games worked years ago, but now they're not fooling anyone anymore.

I think you are right. Mel was hired after after Howard had "signed" with Sirius, and made a public announcement of his going to satellite radio about it in October, 2004.

He did not actually go on the air at Sirius officially until January 2006 because he was still under contract with Infinity until the end of 2005.

But I would have to guess that Howard must have known that Sirius is where Mel was leaning, or when Howard signed on with Sirius, that helped make Mel's final decision to go with Sirius, instead of XM, at the time.



Word is XM was offering $30 million a year while Sirius basically bid against themselves at $100 million + the subscriber bonus. He also got a large chunk of Sirius stock that he unloaded as soon as he could- and not at 40 cents a share.

I think Mel had very little to do with his decision.

Howard gets married and it's topic number one on both Regis and the View the next Monday. Turns out Kelly Ripa's husband performed the ceremony, and Barbara Walters went to the wedding. That's pretty A-list to me.

Artie's quitting was also discussed on the View, and Robin appeared on the View very shortly after.

If Howard gets less listeners a day, it is because there are over 100 channels, and sometimes you just have to listen to CNN or ESPN, or even the Playboy Morning Show during the morning commute. But Howard 100 and 101 are the number one and two preset buttons on my radios.

this barbie character has to be the dumbest guy I've ever seen on the Internet. And considering the Internet is full of nothing but dumb guys, that's saying a lot...
Yes, anyone who dares to not think that Howie is the be all end all must be dumb. Come on already that article has to be BS, Howie had Joan Rivers and that midget guy on, those are definitely A listers.:D

Yes, anyone who dares to not think that Howie is the be all end all must be dumb. Come on already that article has to be BS, Howie had Joan Rivers and that midget guy on, those are definitely A listers.:D

And the really funny thing about his opinion of me is that a couple of die hard Stern fans in this thread agreed with me.

And the really funny thing about his opinion of me is that a couple of die hard Stern fans in this thread agreed with me.

I'm also a long time Stern fan and I agree with you. Anyone who thinks the show hasn't changed since moving to satellite really has the blinders on.

I'm also a long time Stern fan and I agree with you. Anyone who thinks the show hasn't changed since moving to satellite really has the blinders on.


I think it has changed also,but in a good way.There are not commercials every 10 min and Howard can now play bits that he wasn't able to do on terrestrial radio.Think he could have played the Mexican delivery guy game on terrestrial :D ?

Yes, anyone who dares to not think that Howie is the be all end all must be dumb. Come on already that article has to be BS, Howie had Joan Rivers and that midget guy on, those are definitely A listers.:D

cant we all just get along...

i have to be honest... i would rather hear an interview of a b or c lister than an up tight A lister who wont be uncensored

cant we all just get along...

i have to be honest... i would rather hear an interview of a b or c lister than an up tight A lister who wont be uncensoredI agree, some of the best guests I've heard are B list celebs, A listers are over rated. But, I couldn't resist. :)

I agree, some of the best guests I've heard are B list celebs, A listers are over rated. But, I couldn't resist. :)

I agree.Most A listers dodge all the controversial questions.

yep and thats the thing... i would rather hear what David alan Greer has to say about his stay in "in living colour" than Jada Pickett Smith or Brad Pitt.... boring

Well, yeah. Major motion picture *stars* only ever appear on a talk show to overhype their latest movie, and usually just have some over-exaggerated or embellished stories to tell about the danger they were in while making the movie, (and of course, they all do their own stunts), and how their camaraderie with the other actors was so great. And, oh yeah - in the case of anyone working with George Clooney, stories about his fabled pranks.

Or in the case of someone like Alec Baldwin, his politics.

You have to remember, Stern has a legion of fans that will support him until the end. And there will people who will hate Stern for whatever reason and will never get why we Stern lovers listen to him.

With that said, please name another personality that could have done what Stern has done for a new unknown medium. Especially when you consider the investment to listen to him. IE: buying a new radio in the $100+ range and pay $13+ a month for the service? Nobody...

Also, look how bad the radio stations he "was" on are doing now? Their sales are down 30-40%. And the fact if Stern was to say "I want to come back to FM", he'll be welcome back with open arms.

Sure, Stern popularity maybe appear to be down since he isn't in the media as much. But when there is a Stern story out there, it makes people stop and look at the story. A Stern reference or appearance sells papers and gets TV ratings. And isn't that what the influence is all about??

Also, for those who passionately hate Stern and what he saids and does on the radio. You have to listen to Budda the Love Sponge... You'll love him!

And a Ba Ba Booey to you all!

I think it has changed also,but in a good way.There are not commercials every 10 min and Howard can now play bits that he wasn't able to do on terrestrial radio.....

For us in Chicago receiving the syndicated broadcasts, it was just the opposite. I was always amazed that his program would run non-stop for at least a half hour at a time, sometimes much longer, without commercial interruption. Then when the commercials finally came, it was like a 15 minute block of them in a row. radio nirvana. no skipping around from station to station every 5-10 minutes in order to avoid hearing the same commercials and news breaks over and over and over again. Not sure how they managed to pull that off back then, but boy was it a satisfying way to hear the radio show.

While I enjoyed listening to Stern quite a bit back then, listening every day, and considered the satellite radio option when the terrestrial radio show ended, ultimately I sat on my hands about pursuing it. Now, I don't ever think about Stern unless I come across a thread like this or one of his tv appearances or something.

I'm at the point where i have to decide to re-subscribe or not.
I tend to think that article has a lot of validity to it.
It really hit home because Howard hasn't stopped talking about it.
With the below average sound quality, Howard is the real reason I listen.
I flipped it on yesterday and he had Lawrence Taylor on.
Lawrence Taylor!!?!?!?!?

I'm a huge football fan, and love the original L.T., but why am I listening to Howard interview him? I know the guy is hawking video games but that means he should get on the Stern show?

Combine that with the highly annoying "Anything else, Robin" and I'm starting to lean towards getting Stern my old way. A day late and a dollar richer, if you know what I mean.

doug schiller... i on the other hand love his show...

i have to wonder what type of guests everyone is looking for... LT was on to promote his new video game and not to mention tracy morgan from 30 rock was on the other day...

it cant be a listers or even b listers all the time... its up to the person who wants to promote their thing..

To be fair, the Tracy Morgan stuff hit it out of the park.
I loved it and couldn't stop laughing.

I'm picky and a certain type of listener.
I would prefer no guests, just the inner group talking on a subject (which is why a rushed news always irks me).
Nothing sends me to change the channel quicker then a porn star interview.
It really seems like Howard could care less and only interviews them because the show's audience expects it.

Give me more Gilbert anyday :)

doug... you are so right... hell i 'll take your gilbert... add some greg fitzsimmons and i'll top it off with the steve langford prank call and i am set for a long time...

To be fair, the Tracy Morgan stuff hit it out of the park.
I loved it and couldn't stop laughing.

I'm picky and a certain type of listener.
I would prefer no guests, just the inner group talking on a subject (which is why a rushed news always irks me).
Nothing sends me to change the channel quicker then a porn star interview.
It really seems like Howard could care less and only interviews them because the show's audience expects it.

Give me more Gilbert anyday :)


I lost it when Tracy was saying Clit-mydia instead of chlamydia.I agree that the porn star interview's are not very interesting.Every one of them has the exact problems in life.

To be fair, the Tracy Morgan stuff hit it out of the park.
I loved it and couldn't stop laughing.

I'm picky and a certain type of listener.
I would prefer no guests, just the inner group talking on a subject (which is why a rushed news always irks me).
Nothing sends me to change the channel quicker then a porn star interview.
It really seems like Howard could care less and only interviews them because the show's audience expects it.

Give me more Gilbert anyday :)

Doug, I am with you on what my favorite apsects of the show are. But, of course, everyone is different.

And you are by no means "picky" in my book. Those are the best shows, when there are no guests, and they just talk/argue about what is going on in their lives, or the world at large.

Once a Porno/Playboy/Penthouse interview comes on, I usually change channels until it is over. It has been done to death IMHO. Nothing new.

But if I was Howard, I would want a gorgeous girl coming in with nearly nothing on, and the 99% chance of her taking everything off, almost everyday too. Boy, I would NEVER complain about going to work again. :) ;)

While I'm a long time Howard listener.. I agree its been hit and miss lately with guests and bits and its can get a bit tiresome hearing Howard talk about the wedding, Go Beth O and other crap that's interesting the first time and not the 50th time he brings up the same message.

But the Tracy Morgan interview was the first time, in a long while, I can honestly say I was constantly laughing out loud during the interview. He was on fire!! While LT isn't a top A level guest. Howard makes it interesting... and that's why Howard is so successful and probably the most under-rated interviewer ever. As he has the ability to make the most ordinary guest seem interesting and gets to the meaty details that makes the interview always interesting.

And with all the pluses and minuses of the new Howard show on Sirius.. I rather listen to a "part-time" Howard Stern and Budda during my 1 hour commutes then regular "commercial filled" radio anytime of day.


Plus I can't wait until Eric the Midget comes in on Monday... hehehe :)

I'm dying to know who the "special" guest is that Howard is bringing in for ETM.I would have to think it's someone from American Idol-maybe Diana DeGarmo?

Either her or Katherine McFee is my guess.

Either her or Katherine McFee is my guess.


Or maybe they are messing with him and bringing in Hi Pitch Eric as Kelly Clarkson.Who's Hi Pitch?:D

Anyone ever think although the show definitely changes,

that maybe you are changing also....... what was once funny may not be funny anymore.



just some food for thought.

Actually I'm done with this thread. I've been on this board long enough to know that when a poster calls an entertainer, whether is Stern, O&A, or Madonna :), a genius it's time to move on. The only way for this thread to go now is down. It's too bad though. It was an interesting topic.

You have a nice day.

WOW, what a cry baby!!!:eek:

WOW, what a cry baby!!!:eek:

Your 5th post here and this is the best you can do?

Anyway thanks for your input. :D

Anyway thanks for your input. :D

I thought you were done with this thread? looks like you're not a Woman of your word.

Good article about the problems Sat Radio faces.


Sirius XM Radio channeling fears
Satellite service deals with slowing spending, auto sales

By Eric Benderoff | Tribune reporter
November 7, 2008

It's hard to cite Sirius XM Radio Inc.'s most daunting challenge: Is it the $1 billion in debt payments, a bad economy or plummeting new-car sales, the satellite radio company's biggest avenue for new customers? And what about the next big threat, free Internet-enabled audio choices?

On Thursday, Sirius XM Radio noted in a regulatory filing that sluggish auto sales "have negatively impacted subscriber growth" and that it is in discussions with lenders regarding new financing options. It said "such financing may not be achieved or, if achieved, may not be achieved on favorable terms."

Just a few months after its merger was approved, Sirius XM Radio "faces an issue of survival," said James Goss, an analyst with Chicago's Barrington Research. "I'm trying to be realistic, but the question is, 'Do you believe they will survive?' "

He believes Sirius XM Radio will survive, and he has an "outperform" rating on its shares. Other analysts have downgraded the stock.

Sirius stock has lost 91 percent of its value this year, closing Thursday at 26 cents, unchanged from its opening price.

Sirius XM Radio did not make an executive available for this story, citing a quiet period prior to releasing earnings next week. But in an October BusinessWeek story, Chief Financial Officer David Frear said the company is "very confident" it would meet its debt obligations in 2009.

When the merger between Sirius and XM was approved in July by federal regulators, the hope was that a single satellite company could thrive now that consumers don't have to make a choice. But to close the deal, they took on additional debt at a high cost, Goss said.

Also, the merged company agreed to several conditions from federal regulators, including new pricing and radios that could receive both Sirius and XM services.

Those products have started to emerge over the last month, with more to come next year. The company's hope is that a new generation of products, prices and services can boost slowing sales.

Subscribers can add a "best of" package from the channel line-up of Sirius or XM to their existing radios for $4 a month. This will bring Howard Stern's Sirius program, among other content, to XM users. Or Sirius users can add a package that includes Oprah's radio channel.

But in an economy where consumers are closely examining their spending, paying $7 to $17 a month might be a tough sell for Sirius XM Radio.

Plus, the Internet and speedier networks from wireless carriers are providing a rich array of free content.

"If you look at the other types of options, like iPods or CDs, that has been there all along," Goss said. "But the choices have increased over the years and Internet radio, at some point, could pose a competitive threat. But it needs to get on the dash."

Tom Taylor, a radio industry veteran who writes for Chicago trade publication Radio-Info.com, said that car-based Internet connections are the biggest threat to satellite radio. "When that comes along, the value proposition becomes very questionable," he said.

Still, despite declining new-car sales—major automakers this week reported declines ranging from 23 percent to 45 percent—Goss said used cars could become a more viable source for Sirius XM Radio.

"More used cars are on the market these days that have an XM or Sirius radio that's ready to use," he said.

In addition, he noted that new-car buyers are offered incentives to try the Sirius XM Radio service—free trials, for example—to lure new listeners. Also, many car buyers can have the service tacked on to their car payments.

continued...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-sirius-xm-future-nov07,0,1725015.story

Nice.......

thanks;)

Put a fork in it.....

Yeah, it doesn't look good.

IF the economy was strong, and since IMO the car installs are their only hope, if car sales were strong I'd stay they might have a chance.

But in this economy?

I have serious doubts.

edit. Today I read an article that mentioned Circuit City, Tweeters and Linens and Things all filed for bankruptcy recently(CC filed today). It's not a good time to be running a business teetering on the edge. There's very little room for error in this economy.

And the beat goes on..Any more bad news and SIRI per share will truly be a PENNY stock..

Sirius XM takes $4.8 billion charge due to share plunge


By Franklin Paul Franklin Paul – Mon Nov 10, 7:07 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sirius XM Radio Inc posted a $4.8 billion write-down of goodwill related to its acquisition of satellite radio rival XM, and said the auto industry's "dramatic" woes have hurt subscriber growth.

The company blamed the write-down, which added to its operational losses in the third quarter, on the significant decline in its share price from February 2007, when the merger was first announced. At that time, Sirius traded at about $3.79, compared with 27 cents at the close on Monday.

Chief Executive Mel Karmazin defended the company, saying that while it provides a radio service that subscribers enjoy, it is powerless to fix the economic troubles that have beset the auto industry -- its biggest source of new subscribers.

"We think the environment sucks," he said on a conference call with analysts. "It is not like we're doing something wrong. It is that, unfortunately, we do not have a whole lot of control over what cars are getting sold. We do our best."

Sirius, whose stock price has since plunged on concerns about subscriber growth and its ability to repay debt, posted a net loss of $4.88 billion, or $1.93 per share.

It said its pro forma third-quarter loss was $217 million, or 9 cents a share, compared with $265.5 million, or 18 cents per share, a year ago. The pro forma figures assume that Sirius and XM were one company a year ago.

Pro forma revenue rose 16 percent to $613 million. Analysts were looking for revenue of $575 million and a loss per share of 9 cents for the quarter.

Sirius reiterated its outlook, but analysts said that was overshadowed by concerns over its ability to pay its debt, and the moves it is planning to bring its stock back over $1 a share.

"It will be hard to get investors focused on the financial results until Sirius obtains the refinancing for the debt that is due in 2009," said Janco Partners analyst April Horace.

Karmazin said he expects the company to work through the refinancing of more than $1 billion in debt due on 2009. He added that a $300 million portion due in February has been reduced to $210 million, and that the company is talking to its lenders about refinancing.

"We remain optimistic," he said on the call. "The company remains confident that we will in short order get the February '09 refinancing done."

Sirius is also considering a reverse stock split in an effort to lift its depressed share price and avoid the risk of being delisted from the Nasdaq stock market.

It said it added 344,100 net subscribers in the quarter, ending the period with 18.9 million subscribers. That is an increase of 17 percent from one year ago.

The company said churn, the rate at which users quit the service, was about 1.7 percent for the first nine months of the year, about the same as in 2007.

Sirius repeated that it expects to end 2008 with 19.1 million subscribers and end 2009 with 20.6 million subscribers. The company added that it remains confident in its guidance for revenue and adjusted earnings before interest taxes, depreciation and amortization for 2008 and 2009, reiterating figures that it gave last week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081111/media_nm/us_sirius_1

From reading through all of the BS hype from various spokespeople, both Sirius and XM spent wayyyyy too much money on talent to woo the customers.

A full merger needs to happen, staff needs to be cut, salaries need to go way way down.

I like my XM radio, recently signed back up again after dropping them when O&A got suspended back when, never bothered resigning. I went on an 36 hour road trip not long ago and signed back up, and I do really like the programming, but it's not exactly high quality fidelity now, is it?

I can't see many more people subscribing to either format, I think the format has reached saturation, even if prices dropped.

I was a bit ticked to find that XM wasn't too eager to get me back as a customer, no big incentives were offered to get me back, but I did weasel 3 months of 'best of' Sirius when I signed back up. Took 3 customer service reps to get that though.

Once that 90 days is up, I will probably drop it. Howard isn't worth an extra $4.00 a month to me.

Howard's show is great if you listen daily, By being out of the loop with him for 3 years, I had no idea who a bunch of the new 'characters' were. Also, the whiny/bitchy abrasive 'East Coast' attitude is grating after a while, so I switch back and forth between O&A and Howard constantly. I agree, he interviews like no other, but the continuous drivel inbetween guests about stuff I am not familiar with or care about makes me shut it off.

EEPP!!!

Looks like I am DEFINITELY changing my subscription come July 2009(If the company lives that long) to either Month to Month, or canceling(not renewing or whatever they call it) altogether, which would be a shame. It will definitely be one or the other.

But that is the way the world goes. Got too make choices, and satellite radio is a luxury for me, not a need, that is for sure. Put the $147/year someplace else I guess.

I used to watch Stern's E episodes without fail(we didnt get him on radio in Atlanta). Then he got the satellite deal and I lost access to him. Do you think Sirius bid against themselves? Was anyone on regular radio going to offer him anything close to that money? I dont know.

But anyway, what really lost me was the outrageous prices they charged for Stern's On Demand stuff which is not even 100%HD. 14 bucks a month? That's HBO or Showtime pricing. And they didnt even have HD offerings initially. It would be nice if they gave a discount for the TV show to Sirius subscribers making Sirius even more attractive. I like his radio show, but I love his TV show because we get to see all the craziness.

The show did lose something with his engagement to Beth O. She is such a boring hot chick. This second wife provides him with boring stories. She has no personality.

Even the wackpack is no longer that interesting.

Oh it was funny when his daughter was "mainpulated" into posing nude in a play and Howard got all self righteous about it while he has no problem giving implants to young women who dont need them .


As far as Sirius, I took the lifetime offer when I got my car. And yes, Howard was one of the reasons why Sirius became an attractive option to me. But if they had no Howard, I would have no problem subscribing to it if the price was slightly lower. I like listening to sports radio, especially the NFL Talk station.

Oh it was funny when his daughter was "mainpulated" into posing nude in a play and Howard got all self righteous about it while he has no problem giving implants to young women who dont need them Did he ever play the audio of her screeching out her hideous lines from that play? It was really bad/ hilarious. Daddy should have been proud.

Did he ever play the audio of her screeching out her hideous lines from that play? It was really bad/ hilarious. Daddy should have been proud.


Pat really sometimes you try to hard .....

The show did lose something with his engagement to Beth O. She is such a boring hot chick. This second wife provides him with boring stories. She has no personality.



Yes, because a wife should be chosen based upon the entertainment value she can bring to the show.

:p

Just kidding, I see your point. Not sure what can be done to compensate other than simply not putting her on the air.

Pat really sometimes you try to hard .....
You know, I was so close to following that post with another that said "This space reserved for Merc's fanboy rebuttal" but I didn't, oh well. Anyhow, you must not have heard the audio, because regardless of how much of a fan you are, you would still have to find it funny.

You know, I was so close to following that post with another that said "This space reserved for Merc's fanboy rebuttal" but I didn't, oh well. Anyhow, you must not have heard the audio, because regardless of how much of a fan you are, you would still have to find it funny.

Iv heard it although i dont really remember it.... its been a few years, i think.
oh well, whatever keeps you going.....