Sirius Passes 8,000,000 Subscribers?
Sirius, has guided that they will finish the year with over 8,000,000 subscribers, and most analysts expect that they will reach the mark. According to Jay Thomas, they did just that. Again, the words of Jay Thomas are not official, but it would appear that the word around Sirius is that the goal was reached. Official word on subscribers has typically been announced during the CES show in Las Vegas. Charts Through Q3 After The Jump
At the request of a few readers I have added subscriber charts and data through Q3 of 2007
Position – Long Sirius, Long XM
Do you have the subscriber numbers from the last year for both xm and siri? I checked on Wikipedia and the last comparison chart they have is so old it’s useless. It would be great if we could make a new one to show the current state of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....ribers.png
well considering they only needed 300k or so to get there, i would assume during their busy holiday season they got there and then some easily–Look for higher then anticipated new sub additions–maybe 700k?
I have added the charts to the original article. If you would like to use the data to update wikipedia, please feel free to do so.
Gary
Reaching 8,000,000 simply meant that Sirius hit their guidance. I would expect that they went a good clip beyond 8,000,000.
Subs may not reach last years level on a net basis, but the growth will continue.
It was at the Q1 point last year that the fully loaded churn took a step up to above 2%. This happened because the OEM channel growth and subscription terms were getting to the point of renewal or cancellation in bigger numbers. As we know, about 50% keep and 50% do not.
The fact that Sirius maintained a fully loaded churn number below 2.4% through Q3 was bigger than many realize. Q4 will bring the churn rate for the year down to a number better than guidance in my opinion.
Retail was pretty good, so the sub numbers should not disappoint anyone except Howard Stern. It is my opinion that Stern will not get a bonus this year, as it is my opinion that Sirius would have to surpass 8.8 million subs for that to have happened. I do not expect that to be the case.
8M. Gone are the days of massive growth due to overpaid on-air “talent”.
With this anemic performance, I certainly HOPE Stern doesn’t get another bonus.
Unfortunately, I think you will be proven wrong once again — the bonus won’t be as big as last years, but FrontMed thinks he’ll still get one, and if FrontMed thinks it, I’d have to agree.
Anonymous…
You are Frontmed. Why speak in the third person?
Could you define what you characterize as an anemic performance? Is 800,000 anemic in your eyes?
I already know your tact here. If Stern does not get a bonus you will say he is failing. If he does, you will say that the cost is too high. In your eyes there is nothing positive.
Is Stern expensive? YES. Has he brought in a great deal of subscribers? YES Did he change the subscriber landscape in SDARS? YES Simply look at the subscriber breakdowns.
At this point if you consider Sirius’ sub growth anemic, perhaps you should consider getting out of SDARS altogether.
>>>>>> I already know your tact here. If Stern does not get a bonus you will say he is failing. If he does, you will say that the cost is too high. In your eyes there is nothing positive.
The most positive thing that can happen right now is for Stern NOT to get a bonus. His contract has single-handedly destroyed any possibility of Sirius surviving unless they can get the merger done so that XM bails them out financially.
The cost is too high if he doesn’t get another nickel beyond the roughly 3/4 billion he already has in the bag.
We have known, forever, that getting subscribers at outrageous cost isn’t the key to success for satellite radio. And you’re right — Stern is not about content — he is about getting subscribers, and a reasonable accounting case can be made for allocating a substantial portion of his contract to SACs rather than content.
>>>> At this point if you consider Sirius’ sub growth anemic, perhaps you should consider getting out of SDARS altogether.
I am very, very close to being altogether out. My investment at this point is nothing more than a de minimus curiosity. If the merger is denied, as it should be, and XM gets slaughtered by the markets, I may consider getting back in.
The merging of these two companies creates a behemoth that is debt-ridden with an insurmountable fixed-cost burden. It is very difficult to see why any rational person would have an investment in sat radio after a merger.
>>>> Is 800,000 anemic in your eyes?
800,000? Where did THAT come from? They needed just over 300K to hit 8M. Are you claiming they added 800K? But given SIRI’s inflated subscriber adds due to 4th Q rollouts of OEM installs (which are largely vehicles sitting on dealer lots), even if they SAID 800K you would have take it with a pound of salt.
Anonymous…..
>>>>>The most positive thing that can happen right now is for Stern NOT to get a bonus. His contract has single-handedly destroyed any possibility of Sirius surviving unless they can get the merger done so that XM bails them out financially.
You have your opinion. The Stern contract has not destroyed the ability for Sirius to survive. There is nothing that indicates that this is the case at all. Your opinion is backed up by NOTHING. XM bailing out Sirius? Again, an opinion based on NOTHING. Some would argue that it is the other way around. Personally, I think a merger will make SDARS better from many standpoints, but it is not about either one bailing the other out. Statements such as that are hyperbole.
>>>>>>The cost is too high if he doesn’t get another nickel beyond the roughly 3/4 billion he already has in the bag.
He does not have 3/4 of a billion in the bag. At this point it is just over 700 m.
>>>>>>>We have known, forever, that getting subscribers at outrageous cost isn’t the key to success for satellite radio. And you’re right — Stern is not about content — he is about getting subscribers, and a reasonable accounting case can be made for allocating a substantial portion of his contract to SACs rather than content.
Stern is about CONTENT and SUBSCRIBERS. Stern is content that people want and will pay for. This has been demonstrated in the subscriber numbers. An argument for allocating costs to SAC? If you would like to make that assertion you can do so. Should OEM revenue be argued as part of SAC? What about sales reps that are directly employed by a company? A needless debate about SAC and the components gets you nowhere. It boils down to cash flow and making money. The merger will improve both.
>>>>>>>I am very, very close to being altogether out. My investment at this point is nothing more than a de minimus curiosity. If the merger is denied, as it should be, and XM gets slaughtered by the markets, I may consider getting back in.
Your Curiosity keeps you busy.
>>>>>>>The merging of these two companies creates a behemoth that is debt-ridden with an insurmountable fixed-cost burden. It is very difficult to see why any rational person would have an investment in sat radio after a merger.
If you think the merger is the death of SDARS then you are in a minority. You can have that opinion though if that is what suits you.
>>>>>>800,000? Where did THAT come from? They needed just over 300K to hit 8M. Are you claiming they added 800K? But given SIRI’s inflated subscriber adds due to 4th Q rollouts of OEM installs (which are largely vehicles sitting on dealer lots), even if they SAID 800K you would have take it with a pound of salt.
800K was seeking out your definition of anemic subscriber growth. I have not stated where they will come in for subscribers other than they will be less than 8.8 million. You call the sub growth anemic without having seen the numbers. I am simply trying to see your definition of anemic prior to the numbers being released.
OEM subs are what they are. You say they are “largely on dealer lots”. Define largely please. A vehicle takes three months to sell. Inventory of OEMs is lower than last year. A car with a satellite radio will be a subscriber. Would you rather that cars did not have satellite radios? Your argument here is curious. Last I checked, getting satellite radios into cars and getting subscribers was a GOOD thing.
>> If you think the merger is the death of SDARS then you are in a minority.
Sure, there are a million Sirius shareholders who haven’t a clue what the situation is, and who are listening to Mel tell them the merger is good. Nothing new about that. But Mel has no choice (just as he had no choice in proclaiming his glee with Stern, when he knows Stern is the biggest single problem he has, in that Stern is a very expensive, nonperforming asset).
As to cash flow, Sirius is miles from it. With two satellite launches (to recover from bad engineering decisions made years ago) in the next two years, the possibility of FCF for Sirius is nil.
Make no mistake, XM has totally blown it at this point, too, by agreeing to a merger which benefits Sirius while detracting from XM. Sirius is a financial train wreck and XM is quickly approaching the same status.
You have your opinion, as do many others. Try not to let your hatred for Sirius totally jade your views.
Remember, Gary Parsons of XM is fully behind the merger as well, as are XM shareholders.
All of those institutions that invest in Sirius and XM do not have a clue in your eyes.
Okay, we know how you feel, and are glad that you had a chance to vent.
For Readers
I got a couple of e-mails regarding my position in Sirius and XM with people thinking that I no longer hold a position in XM because of my initial disclosure in this article.
I disclose my positions in equities that appear in an article. When the article was initially written, it was about Sirius, and did not mention XM. Thus my disclosure stated “Long Sirius” and made no mention of XM. At the request of a reader I posted subscriber charts that mention XM, and thus changed the disclosure to “Long Sirius, Long XM”.
I have maintained positions in both equities for quite some time (years in fact), and still maintain a position in both companies.
For example, if I were to write an article about CALMAINE FOODS I would disclose that I have a position in the company, but if the article does not mention Sirius or XM, those disclosures would not appear. When I write about the OEM channel, I disclose positions of the companies mentioned. I held Ford for a period of time this year, and disclosed that. However, if I were to write an article that contained Ford now, I would state that I have no position in Ford.
I hope this clarifies how the disclosure works.