I would rather not write about this, but it appears I am being accused of using Brandon as research and following his articles with my own based on what he writes. He is also accusing me of using analystb reports for my research.
"Look at siriusbuzz for example. I put out an article on sac, he spits one out on the same subject after reading mine. Playground…Demian’s latest is a rip off of Erik Savitz. All of them learned about the Russell from me, and all claimed credit for making their readers aware of it. They write articles that are nothing more than comments on my articles. They are incapable of an original thought and rely on analysts to provide their content. What happens when the analysts turn negative on siri? I do the work. I do the research. Everyone else benefits."
1. I date and time-stamp every article I publish. I wrote about higher line item cost for SAC and that it would impact EBITDA at 3:30 PM on July 7, 2010 (
http://siriusbuzz.com/a-deeper-look-...q2-metrics.php). On July 8th I wrote about SAC costs again (
http://siriusbuzz.com/sirius-xm-and-manipulation.php). Brandon wrote about SAC on July 9th. This begs the question. How did I read his article to do my research before writing my own? The answer is that I do not rely on Brandon for my research. I do my own.
2. The Russell was well known to everyone. We all remember the day they were removed and why. Brandon brought up the Russell when the stock was still well below $1.00. The company needed to get above $1.00 to get back on the Russell. I began writing about it after SIRI regained compliance. Everyone wrote about it. Typically I do not go that far in advance just to take credit for something everyone will know about later on. If someone writes about the NFL contract, or the FCC opening for comments on price increases this fall will you see me saying "I told everyone first"? No. These are news items that will come up soon, but everyone that follows the sector should be aware.
3. Brandon states that I am incapable of an original thought. I beg to differ. When no other site was following the auto channel closely, it was me that did it. I am the one that broke the auto channel down into the categories of the types of subs they deliver. I do not rely on analysts for my research. I do look at their models and report the analysts opinion. I do tell readers where I agree and disagree with the analysts. I read what all of the sites out there have to say, but do not base my articles on what other sites say. Sometimes I write about a subject to offer more clarity in a response to several people asking questions or wanting clarification. My style is to get out the news of something un-jaded, then write a more in depth piece regarding the subject based on my own research.
4. This site is proud to be free for readers, and to not ask for donations for the work we do. Doing a site does take a lot of hours. I am in the middle of a divorce myself that has drained my finances. I was laid off in March and am in school taking classes. Money is tight.... very tight. You do not see me asking for donations for the hours I put into this. The ads on any satellite radio site cover the costs, and allow for a very modest profit. If I did not enjoy doing this, I wouldn't. Each month I look at what comes in the door and compare it to the hours spent researching and writing and scratch my head wondering about how little I actually make from this. If I broke it down, it is probably less than 10 cents an hour.
I respect the work anyone does on any site. I know it takes hours. I know it takes dedication. Everyone of these sites are covering the same thing, and will publish articles about the same thing. I try to do my best to do that in a timely manner and without drama. I have been libeled, slandered, have had people try to extort me, and have for the most part not brought that to this site. I have pulled out of certain services on principle because they have rules and quality standards that are being broken by others. I believe in those rules and believe that I am on a higher road for following them.
The fact of the matter is that a satellite radio site can not provide a full time income even with sponsors. If it did, there would be many more people doing it. Sites like these are not done for profit. If it was all about money I would put up a donation button and bring it up frequently in the forums and articles, or switch to a pure subscription model. The problem I have with donations is that there is no accountability for them. I pay taxes on what I make at SiriusBuzz, and in fact, my donations to charity outpace any income I make from the site by a healthy margin, even with money being as tight as it is. At SiriusBuzz the content is the same price for all....FREE. A donation based site is unfair to readers in several respects. One reader sends $200.00, and another $20, but no one know who gave or how much was given. People donate out of peer pressure and fear for being seen as a non-supporter. The only way to get a certain tag is to donate. It "divides the classes" and creates a micro class warfare on a site. IMO either do this because you like to do it, do it as a fair and equitable subscription site, or don't do it at all. The fact of the matter is that satellite radio sites do not provide a full time income. That is why most with such sites either have work or are active in trying to find work.
I do my own research. I use my own tag lines. I come up with my own material. I do not play on peoples fears. Earlier this month I had a legal issue surrounding this site. I couldn't write for 5 days. Did I tell you the reader about it? No. Was there a danger that the site would have been closed? Yes. I dealt with the issue so that I could write again. The issue is still in negotiations, and there could well be substantial costs involved. I am dealing with it, not asking you the reader to deal with it. Life is tough, but I handle my own stuff. I do not come here asking you readers to deal with my issues or make me a living.
Hopefully I will not have to write about this again.