[SapperPest19]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:27:48 -0500, Tim Donohoe
wrote:

SapperPest19 wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:28:03 -0500, Tim Donohoe
wrote:


Schwoogie Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:40:40 -0600, SapperPest19 wrote:



On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:21:47 -0500, Tim Donohoe
wrote:



SapperPest19 wrote:



On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:11:40 -0500, JMiller
wrote:




If so, why isn't XM's total net sub counts beating Sirius
again? XM packed it in because Sirius had Stern and there was no way
for them to win anymore.

Answer the question. If so, why isn't XM's total net sub counts
beating Sirius again?


Do you understand that XM's not having a higher net sub count has
nothing to do with stern? It has to do with churn. XM has been
outselling sirius. XM has also been losing more subs than sirius. But
one important fact is the, even with the stern effect, more new
satellite radio subscribers chose to go with the company that didn't
have stern.

It also means that people buy cars with XM in them and don't keep the
service. Losing existing customers is worse than adding fewer customers.

There are two issues here. Getting new subs and keeping current subs.
XM has no problems getting new subs. Sirius has stern that should be a
draw for people. But even with stern, sirius is not the company of
choice for most of the new people getting satellite radio.



It's not even the company of choice for most people with Sirius lately. They
check out the radio in their new car and lo and behold, it's Sirius. It wasn't a
choice any more than it was a choice what brand of tires came on the car.


Except those who get Howard seem to keep sirius more often than those
who get XM and the clones.


At least you didn't try for the "people buy particular brands of cars
because of stern" spin.

That too.

That spin is about as bad as the "XM has high churn because they are
all running over to sirius for stern" spin.