Is National Sponsorship a Solution for Sirius XM?
Over the years, I have seen many ideas brought to the table regarding satellite radio. Some are business friendly, others are consumer friendly. One idea that has been bandied about a few times over is the idea of having national sponsors for channels.
The concept seems sound, but there are many variables to consider. Would a channel named Pepsi infringe on the consumer perception that satellite radio is commercial free? Technically, station bumpers (the voice-over that tells you that you are listening to Sirius XM) and DJ chatter involving information about the BEST OF service, the family plan, etc. are not considered commercials, but do too much of this, and consumers may feel that the promise of commercial free is not being met.
For many, and in particular the investors, the idea of channel sponsorship is not terribly infringing. Some say that the “ad” can simply be displayed on the screen, rather than spoken. There has to be some value in this concept right?
While I have not seen the music channels employ some of the philosophies, I have seen an entire hour of a Stern replay with an ad on my Stiletto. But there are 69 channels of music that could have a sponsor. Why not do it?
The answer may be as simple as supply and demand. There is an abundant supply of ad space, and demand is on the downside. Advertisers across the media spectrum are cutting back on expenses, and this would also impact satellite radio. Sirius XM still has ad space available on non-music channels. How prudent would it be to implement station sponsorships when there is still advertising real estate elsewhere within the service?
Another issue may be that a channel sponsor would want a certain level of control. Pepsi has had their issues using certain singers in their ads. In fact, they have suffered boycotts. What if Pepsi demanded certain language standards? what if they did not want to allow certain artists or songs to be on a channel they are sponsoring?
Consumer backlash may be another reason the company has not taken this step. With the recent channel shuffle, there were numerous complaints. Even with the existence of a similar channel, people were ired at the loss of their favorite. We already see the four Clear channel stations on the XM dial relegated to second class citizen status because they have commercials. would sponsored channels suffer the same fate? Commercial free music is one of the sole differentiators between terrestrial radio and satellite. if you remove that separation, people may begin to wonder why they need satellite radio.
All of that being said, if the dollars are right, this is an option that the company needs to consider. A lot of careful consideration needs to go into the process though. While every million dollars counts, the benefit vs. the backlash must be weighed.
Should the company explore the idea of sponsored channels? Sure. They already have over the years. XM’s original business model involved commercials. Their initial sales pitch to OEM’s was that they would share a bigger piece of the subscription revenue pie than Sirius because they would make up the difference in ad dollars. The ad dollars never rolled in, and ultimately, XM switched to a commercial free format. It could be argued that there was not the critical mass of subscribers at that point that exists today, and likely that thought needs consideration, but is now the time to make the move?
Some feel that with the current situation, that the company needs to make bold moves. Still others feel that the merger was too bold a move, and there has been enough change. early on Mel Karmazin wanted advertising to make up 10% of revenue. Thus far, the company has never reached that goal. In the current economic conditions, and with ad sales down across the media landscape, perhaps now is not the time to dilute the market further.
The national sponsorship idea has merit, but implementation of it does carry risks. Without having the ability to see the sales stats, it is hard for any investor to grasp the benefit vs. the impact, but rest assured, this concept has been on the radar screen for quite some time. While we may not know the exact reason it has not been done, we can can put forth some educated guesses.
At this point I feel there is plenty of ad space to sell on Sirius XM without impacting the music channels. Only after all of those ad slots are performing as needed should the advertising supply pool be increased. That’s my opinion on the matter. What is yours?
Position: Long Sirius XM
Mel is a RADIO guy, a merger guy, and a cost (i guess) guy. Innovation and creativity are no where to be found in those traits, nor in this company.
Tyler,
Im one of the people that has said put ads or sponsership on channels via the display. The idea does carry merit and i stand behind the idea.
While i couldnt agree more that it ads and national sponsership could have a backlash the real question is do you want consumer backlash or to be out of business? The consumer deserves a good product with good technology and siriusXm supplies both of those things. The thing siriusXm has to do though is watch out for themselves first and then the consumer. Its like the old saying goes, You better watch out for yourself because noone else is going to. The thought of having pepsi sponser a channel doesnt bother me in the least. They dont want an artist on their channel? So what. They are paying for it. SiriusXm can add another channel called the pepsi channel without hurting its bandwidth and if a listener doesnt want to tune in no big deal. They dont have to. It would in no way change the current lineup it would just add another channel for others that might enjoy it. You have stated that demand is low. I agree, If you follow my advice in what the car industy should be doing youll know that Ive stated when demand is low you lower your prices to help offset the issue.
If siriusXm can offer advertising far cheaper than traditional cost why wouldnt companies want to use it? It would be cheaper, 20 million people hear it and the company is gettings its message out.
SiriusXm is between a rock and a hard place as it stands. If i was in their shoes id want every customer I had to be happy but the first thing they have to do is fix the company. Then once its fixed remember who got them to where they are and thats the consumer. Once you get the company on solid footing you can afford to cater to the consumer and do what it takes to keep adding to your sub base. Your article was well done. Keep up the nice work.
I don’t think ad’s on the display would alarm anyone. That doesn’t interfere with the music. But sponsorship may go a bit too far. PBS does it. It is not bad as long as it doesn’t become a commercial. Free listening once a month or holidays I think would generate business. You buy a used car and get a taste of SIRIUS XM, it might intice you to subscribe. I think Mel and Co. could be a lot more creative. Do some brainstorming; listen to some outsiders. Maybe they are doing this. There are so many possibilities; that is why I have stood by the stock. This has to be the bottom with all of their bad luck(an ours as investors). If they can survive. Why don’t you start a contest of the best ideas, voted on by the blog. There is a lot of power in a group vs an individual; Sometimes, for some things. Maybe we could help them survive and prosper.
A rotating list of the 10 best ideas to improve the Co. and it’s product.
Lets look at some numbers:
There are 60 non music channels that have ads. Assume 4 ads per hour is the maximum.
60 x 4 = 240 ads per hour
Assume that they are only selling 60% of what they have for inventory. They fill the time slot with station bumpers, etc.
240 * .6 = 144 ads and 96 open slots
before adding new open slots on music channels, they need to sell the other 96 slots.
lets assume a slot is currently $10. They are collecting $1,440.
If they lower the price to $7.50 and get 200 slots filled, they will now be getting $1,500. A small bump, but there are still 40 slots open.
lower the price to $6 and sell out. They are now back down to $1,440.
They now need to build demand. Until that happens, they can not raise the price.
Thus, adding more advertising realestate without selling what you currently have is a potentially huge issue. You are increasing supply when demand is already scarce.
In theory, the costs of the ad sales team needs to be, at a minimum, offset by the ads sold. If you are not collecting enough to pay the team, then you are moving backwards. That means there is a certain minimum to what you can charge.
IMO there are many steps to take before messing with the commercial channels. adding a station is simple in theory, but every time they add a station, they also have to give up space to minority programming.
I think advertising has always been about hyptnotizing people about brand,So young kids learning to read will absorb the station letters that it advertised.I am always looking at my stiletto how else do i know about ashley maddison?
XM had actually used that concept and did what sounded like hourly sponsorships. “You are listening to the Geico Music Hour, sponsored by Geico where 5 minutes could save you hundreds of dollars off your car insurance. Now, back to the music.”
It was not intrusive at all, I didnt think.
Tyler,
You again make some good points. How do you think SiriusXm can build on demand though? If cheaper prices couldnt help the demand for more companies to advertise Im not sure what would. I understand that adding a station would mean minority programming but with the number they have cut they should be able to afford a few stations to replace those before they have to do that shouldnt they? ( Very unsure on that)
The company has to do something. Im not sure what else they can do at this point. In the long term I feel the companys future is bright and sunny but the short term headwinds are whats concerning me. Thats why i stated I believe they must take care of themselves before they worry with anything else. Its a good topic for discussion thats for sure.
If you are going to start with the Geico music hour, why don’t you just start advertising? then we can all go back to FM.
The only reason I have Sat radio is for commercial free music radio period. I don’t care what the talk stations do, advertise don’t advertise, I don’t listen to them.
The day they start adverstising on the music channels is the day I toss the sat radio out the window. I pay not to have to listen to that crap. That is the whole point of commercial free music channels.
If SiriusXM wants to lose millions of subscribers…go ahead and advertise.
imho
vaporgold
The S@P just lowered its rating. %@$!&#!!!!
1st time blogger on this site.
vaporgold, Understand your concerns of quality programming. Keep in mind FM runs about 20 minutes of commercials per given hour. The sponsorship would not be the “Geico Music Hour”. Instead it would be a simple mention of the hourly sponsor. It would take all of 8 seconds. The DJ or Host would announce it in a fluid like manor and proceed with the programming. This would be repeated during the hour (say evey 10 minutes)=’s under a minute of time. I wish the current model of programming would not have to change at all. But with this fairly new medium facing the perfect storm, their survival might very well depend on this idea. Yes it would be a compromise for everyone but if the company were to go under w/o a shot in the arm from a new & very low profile sponsorship format what are the chioces. What would you do if you were at the helm? I think if I were the captain of the Titanic and still had a choice to add more lifeboats while sinking???
PS: It’s no secret that that bankruptcy is mentioned by some analysts. I feel most loyal Sirius Xm subs. would be understanding that something has to be done to help the company survive. If this new revenue brings in the monies I feel it could, they could actually lower the sub. price once it kicks in.