On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:54:46 -0500, JMiller wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:44 -0600, 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.
They they realized that Stern was at the other company and churned XM.
The numbers certainly don't bear that out, as I already mentioned in this very
thread.
--
Opie & Anthony #6, Howard Stern #12, Talkers Heavy Hundred 2007
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.ph...19&Itemi d=44