He's got BALLS!: Howard Stern Threatens To QUIT Failing Sirius XM Radio
Taylor
DEBORAH YAO | 12/21/09 03:39 PM | AP, KJIH-TV Media
Read More: Howard Stern, Howard Stern Sirius XM, Sirius XM, Media
News
Howard Stern is threatening to leave Sirius XM Radio Inc. now that the
shock jock and the satellite radio provider are getting set to enter
contract talks in 2010.
That threat probably seems less daunting to Sirius than it once would
have. Sirius originally wanted Stern so badly that it gave him the
most lucrative radio contract ever, a five-year deal that started in
2006 and paid him $500 million in cash and stock.
Today, he doesn't have many places left to go – at least if he wants
another huge payday.
Free radio stations are struggling with steep drops in advertising and
high debt loads, and probably can't pay top dollar to get Stern back
to the medium where he began. He also likely would chafe at being
censored again after enjoying the freedom of satellite radio, where
his racy banter hasn't been subject to federal restrictions on
language and content.
He can't switch to another satellite radio provider – Sirius swallowed
the only other one, XM, last year.
So if Stern, 55, does re-sign with Sirius, it's likely to be for less
this time around.
Sirius nearly had to file for bankruptcy protection this year and is
still trying to reduce costs. The company is feeling the brunt of weak
auto sales, which deliver many of its new customers. And it faces new
threats from emerging commercial-free rivals such as Internet radio.
For these reasons – and because Stern has warned other times that he
might quit or retire – his latest threat rings hollow to some
analysts.
---
Story continues below
Advertisement: www.stopthecut.org
---
"It's probably positioning for contract negotiations," said Brett
Harriss, an analyst at Gabelli & Co., whose parent Gamco Investors
Inc. owns 1.1 million shares of Sirius. "I don't think he would give
up his bullhorn."
Sirius' chief executive, Mel Karmazin, told The Associated Press in a
recent interview that he will work hard to retain Stern, but the
company would not offer more detailed comments. Stern's agent, Don
Buchwald, did not respond to requests for comment.
Stern made his name on traditional or "terrestrial" radio. While
Sirius mainly makes its money from selling subscriptions, the money
that flowed to Stern on traditional radio came from syndication
rights. In that setup, radio stations pay companies that distribute
programs such as Stern's.
Many of those radio stations have struggled since Stern left the free
airwaves, and the recession compounded the problems. In the first nine
months of the year, radio advertising revenue fell by 21 percent to
$11.8 billion, according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.
Citadel Broadcasting Corp., the nation's third-largest operator of
radio stations, filed for bankruptcy protection Sunday. Other big
station owners also are wrestling with debts, and the syndication
division of the largest station owner, Clear Channel Communications
Inc., already is believed to be paying Rush Limbaugh $400 million over
an eight-year contract.
"Who else can afford Howard Stern?" Harriss said.
When Stern signed with Sirius, the company trailed XM Satellite Radio
Holdings Inc. in the race for customers. It badly needed a marquee
name to attract subscribers to its service, which delivers 130 radio
channels anywhere in the country for $6.99 a month to $19.99 a month,
depending on the package.
Now after buying XM for $3.3 billion, Sirius has 18.5 million
subscribers, down slightly from a peak of 19 million at the end of
last year. Sirius' radio lineup beyond Stern includes Oprah Winfrey,
Martha Stewart, NFL games and Major League Baseball. Half of its
channels are music and free of commercials, while the rest air sports,
talk shows, news, entertainment, traffic and weather.
The company still has never posted a net profit. Revenue was nearly
flat in the last quarter, and Sirius remains pressured to cut costs.
Sirius narrowly avoided bankruptcy protection 10 months ago by getting
$530 million in financing from Liberty Media Corp. Sirius had to give
a 40 percent ownership stake to Liberty, which is controlled by
satellite mogul John Malone.
As Sirius tries to get its finances in order, it must cope with
threats from emerging technologies, such as Internet radio services
that also deliver radio programming without commercials.
The company has been trying to cut costs. Sirius' programming expenses
in the past four quarters fell 18 percent from the total paid by
Sirius and XM in the previous year, when they were still separate
companies. Sirius has eliminated duplicative radio programs since it
absorbed XM and found ways to reduce "on-air talent costs."
Given the climate, if Stern returns to Sirius, "he's not going to get
$500 million again," said Miller Tabak analyst David Joyce. Robert
Eatman, the agent for Sirius talents Opie & Anthony and rapper Nick
Cannon, agreed that Stern is "probably not worth" $500 million to
Sirius now.
But the question will be just how much less Sirius can pay and still
keep Stern.
Stern accounts for about $80 million of Sirius' annual programming
costs, which have totaled $365 million over the past four quarters.
The $80 million covers Stern's salary, wages for his staff and
production and operating expenses, according to filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The remainder of the contract was
paid in stock.
There are no independent ratings available to track the popularity of
Stern's show, which airs Mondays through Thursdays from 6 a.m. to 9
a.m. But he has been so important to Sirius that he was the sole radio
talent mentioned in SEC filings from 2006 through 2009 as a party
whose failure could hurt Sirius' business. (Automakers were also among
the listed entities.) In his first year at Sirius, Stern received a
stock bonus worth $82.9 million because Sirius' subscriber count
exceeded an agreed-upon target by more than 2 million.
Stern could leave to start a new venture, perhaps a subscription
service that sends his show to PCs and mobile devices. Sirius already
streams Stern's shows online and through the iPhone. Or he could
explore more options in cable TV, where his first pay-per-view
special, "Howard Stern's Negligee and Underpants Party," was offered
in 1988.
Stern also could retire.
"Howard has the creative and business freedom to do what he wants to.
He can just about write his own ticket in a number of areas," said Tom
Taylor, executive news editor of Radio-Info.com, which tracks the
radio industry. "He doesn't need to do anything. He's going to pay
the
===
Wow, he signs an *extraordinarily* high price contract w/ a then-
untested (now proven failure) satellite radio company, it doesn't pan
out, Stern is embarrassed and frustrated, but he KNOWS he *can't* go
back to the censorship of FCC-licensed OTA commercial radio -- which
is failing -- but he wants to prove he's "king of the world" and his
over-inflated ego *won't* take a paycut, so he squeeeezes more money
out of ailing Sirius XM. Nice.
Hey, Howard, don't you know? We're in a recession here!!!
Ray
He retired years ago.
When Sirius took over XM we had a week of free Howard. He was funny
once upon a time, at least once in a while. That no longer seems to be
the case. He has turned into the very thing he used to make fun of:
old, rich, show biz has-been with a trophy wife and nothing left to
say or do that would interest anyone.
Bye bye Howie, your time is done.
Drumrboy
What, you don't like dick and fart jokes?
Obveeus
"Taylor" <terraente...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Stern is threatening to leave Sirius XM Radio Inc. now that the
>shock jock and the satellite radio provider are getting set to enter
>contract talks in 2010.
>
>That threat probably seems less daunting to Sirius than it once would
>have. Sirius originally wanted Stern so badly that it gave him the
>most lucrative radio contract ever, a five-year deal that started in
>2006 and paid him $500 million in cash and stock.
>
>Today, he doesn't have many places left to go � at least if he wants
>another huge payday.
Fox 'Business News' channel may yet find a way to buy itself some ratings.
Anim8rFSK
What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
that's worth money?
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Year"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Kris Baker
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-C690D...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>A "Sirius" question (har!)
>
> What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
> that's worth money?
Radio in the middle of the desert.
Rock and Rock in the heart of country music.
Something besides Rush Limbaugh (who can be on four AM stations
at once, in the red states)
Kris
Ubiquitous
>Howard Stern is threatening to leave Sirius XM Radio Inc. now that the
>shock jock and the satellite radio provider are getting set to enter
>contract talks in 2010.
In other words, Howard Stern is desperately trying to create publicity
(and buzz) for a career whose zenith was reach over a decade and a half
ago.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
abacaxis
If Howard quits Sirius where am I not going to listen to him?
Wayno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get an XM radio and then just don't subscribe to the "Best of Sirius"
package.
poldy
<0f950d3a-6941-47fb...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Taylor <terraente...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, he signs an *extraordinarily* high price contract w/ a then-
> untested (now proven failure) satellite radio company, it doesn't pan
> out, Stern is embarrassed and frustrated, but he KNOWS he *can't* go
> back to the censorship of FCC-licensed OTA commercial radio -- which
> is failing -- but he wants to prove he's "king of the world" and his
> over-inflated ego *won't* take a paycut, so he squeeeezes more money
> out of ailing Sirius XM. Nice.
>
> Hey, Howard, don't you know? We're in a recession here!!!
He doesn't need the money and he claims to be tired of working.
He also said one of the factors for him staying would be so that his
staff aren't left out in the cold.
Also claims he's not extravagant with cars and other luxury items. He's
building expensive homes but otherwise, who knows.
If Sirius offers him half the money, would he stay? Still a lot of
money but it's a big comedown, especially if Limbaugh is making more
money.
Jim
it. With this talk he's driving the stock down at just the time it
needs to go up. He's not making any friends of the stockholders or the
people he made pay up to hear him on Sirius. When people are hurting
financially you don't play these stupid contract games when you
already have more money than any one person needs or deserves. If I
were Sirius I'd announce that he will be dropped when his contact is
up and be done with it.
Jim
Rob Jensen
<terraente...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Free radio stations are struggling with steep drops in advertising and
>high debt loads, and probably can't pay top dollar to get Stern back
>to the medium where he began. He also likely would chafe at being
>censored again after enjoying the freedom of satellite radio, where
>his racy banter hasn't been subject to federal restrictions on
>language and content.
>
>He can't switch to another satellite radio provider � Sirius swallowed
>the only other one, XM, last year.
>
>So if Stern, 55, does re-sign with Sirius, it's likely to be for less
>this time around.
>
>Sirius nearly had to file for bankruptcy protection this year and is
>still trying to reduce costs. The company is feeling the brunt of weak
>auto sales, which deliver many of its new customers. And it faces new
>threats from emerging commercial-free rivals such as Internet radio.
>
>For these reasons � and because Stern has warned other times that he
>might quit or retire � his latest threat rings hollow to some
>analysts.
My prediction: Howard *buys* Sirius XM.
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>A "Sirius" question (har!)
>
>What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
>that's worth money?
Ani, you don't live in a Flyover state. Satellite radio is
*definitely* needed out here. The only decent news outlets are the
two local public radio stations. The local rock/pop station is a
generic one that seems to be simulcast in every market from coast to
coast just .2 or so up or down the dial from each other. What is it
called -- Alice? Jack? Melvin?
I don't like metal all that much, but I tune into the local metal/hard
rock station, 100.1 FM "The Buzzsaw," purely as an act of self-defense
against being infected by that pop station.
And beyond what I describe above, which is only 4 FM stations, are 30
AM stations of a lot of evangelism, extremist right-wing AM radio
(not just Lush Limpdick, loons that make him look sane) and sports
radio. And on FM, some evangelism, a couple of urban stations, and a
LOT of country stations. Not real Country, either. It's what they
call country but is really only the pop styings of 20 years ago with a
steel guitar added in the vain hope that they can justify calling the
stuff Country. (Sorry, Faith Hill, I like your politics, but I mean
you.)
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>> If Howard quits Sirius where am I not going to listen to him?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Get an XM radio and then just don't subscribe to the "Best of Sirius"
>package.
Siriusly?
-- Rob
KK
> Howard Stern is threatening to leave Sirius XM Radio Inc. now that the
> shock jock and the satellite radio provider are getting set to enter
> contract talks in 2010.
Wake the fuck up. Stern has threatened to leave or quit or retire *every
fucking time* as the end of any contract neared. The difference this
time is that SiriusXM has been teetering on the very edge of bankruptcy
for a year and doesn't have the money Stern thinks he deserves.
As important - maybe more so - than the money is Stern's ego, the
appearance of being valuable, and the appearance of being stroked.
I hope he leaves, and would love to watch his predictions of legions of
subscribers cancelling not coming to pass. More likely, though, to
satisfy that ego problem, he will take a major pay cut and work an even
more abbreviated schedule and/or shift.
KK
> My prediction: Howard *buys* Sirius XM.
Stern *never* risks his own money.
abacaxis
>
> - Show quoted text -
An XM radio costs too much for what i'd get from it.
Ray
It's good for road trips into uncivilized areas. Like Phialdelphia. We
have one good station here, one half assed rock station and PBS, the
rest is automated clear channel crap. With XM I have a station preset
for any mood I might be in.
I also like the Bob Dylan and Tom Petty shows and the Little Steven
station rocks pretty well.
Ray
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have managed to not listen to him all over the place. In fact I am
currently not listening to any radio "personalities" thanks to XM and
iPod, no mornign zoos, B101's, Froggy 99's, Bob and Tom, Opie and
Anthony, Barf and Tweedle, Doofus and Dipshit... it's all GONE and
that makes me happy.
But not listening to Howard is my favorite entertainment non-activity
of them all. I'm enjoying not listening to him right now in fact.
Will
"Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:71995e56-d655-4a16...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I don't think that it is in Stern's best interest to play hardball because
Sirius/XM is the only satellite radio outlet and I don't see him going back
to being an FM radio personality. On the other hand they can't afford to
lose him either so some compromise will happen.
KK
> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:71995e56-d655-4a16-
a7dc-03c...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
They can absoutely afford to lose him.
Will
KK
You don't think so? By Stern's own admission, the vast majority of
subscribers are people with satellite units in their cars. Do you think
a significant (double-digit percentage) will cancel or not renew if
Stern's not in the lineup?
Will
Yes, and I think that they need one another. XM didn't have a "whale" in
their lineup and they suffered for it so Sirius would be silly to let Stern
go so they will work something out.
KK
I think you've bought Stern's baloney hook, line, and sinker. Somehow XM
managed to get more subs than Sirius before the merger, all without Stern.
Will
We'll see but the smart business decision is for both sides to work
something out. You can't think straight because you hate Stern but you are
probably an idiot in any situation.
Klaatu
>
> What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
> that's worth money?
>
What do you get? EXACTLY the type of music you want to listen to, complete
with
artist and song title, in high quality sound. Best of all, on the music
channels, its worth money for what you DONT get....fucking commercials!
Havent listened to very much FM radio lately, have you?
KK
I'd agree if I could surmise based on history that Stern would work for
far less than he's been paid these last few years.
> You can't think straight because you hate Stern
I don't "hate" him - I think he's often an ass, he's extraordinarily
narcississtic, and the lengths to which he goes to take credit for things
is hysterical. But, as I just said, you're basing your belief that
millions will cancel if Stern leaves on nothing more than what Stern has
said.
> but you
> are probably an idiot in any situation.
I'm sure you're quite a judge of that. In any event, I've pointed out
the source of most subscribers, and in response to your claim that "they
need each other" I pointed out that XM got more subs without Stern than
Sirius got with him, which you can't pretend isn't a significant fact.
You, on the other hand, have introduced nothing. So, if I'm an idiot in
this conversation, what are you? A slug? Dirt?
Will
Because it makes no difference if XM attracted more subscribers 8 years ago,
it is about maintaining subscribers now and ensuring that they stay to
supply cash flow to the company.
KK
Wow. Please focus: the other guy said that SiriusXM "needs" Stern, and
that he believes that people will cancel their subs if Stern leaves.
The people who would leave the service if Stern left are the same people
who signed up just for Stern. I believe those people are fewer in number
than the other guy believes, and fewer than Stern claims.
If XM got more subs without Stern than Sirius did *with* him, it supports
my assertion that he's not needed.
KK
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:17:37 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you're quite a judge of that. In any event, I've pointed out
>>the source of most subscribers, and in response to your claim that "they
>>need each other" I pointed out that XM got more subs without Stern than
>>Sirius got with him, which you can't pretend isn't a significant fact.
>
> so does that mean that stern didn't get enough subscribers to pay for
> himself and then some? according to the experts, he has, which you also
> can't pretend isn't a significant fact.
His $100M salary represents the subscription fees of about 640,000
listeners. Do I think he got enough for that? Sure. I never said he
didn't. In the context of this thread, the other guy said that Stern's
leaving would result in a "double-digit percentage" decrease in
subscribers, no, 640000 subs is not relevant or significant.
KK
> i don't see how anyone could not call stern a money maker at this point.
If Stern left, would the company lose in subscription fees less than he,
his bonuses, his staff, and his facilities cost?
If the answer is yes, then Stern is not a "money maker".
Nancy2
> is failing -- but he wants to prove he's "king of the world" and his
> over-inflated ego *won't* take a paycut, so he squeeeezes more money
> out of ailing Sirius XM. Nice.
>
> Hey, Howard, don't you know? We're in a recession here!!!
He just needs to disappear, to put it nicely. I cannot believe
Priscilla Presley gave permission for Sirius to use an Elvis song on
behalf of Stern. Outrageous. He's at the bottom of the pile of human
garbage.
N.
KK
Yeah, how dare that scientologist freak allow a music service to besmirch
the memory of a drug-addled fourteen-year-old-girl-porking slob?
Will
No, it doesn't. Like I said it is how many subscribers and how much revenue
SiriusXM stands to lose by dropping Stern and not how many people signed up
for XM eight years ago.
poldy
wrote:
> >> You don't think so? By Stern's own admission, the vast majority of
> >> subscribers are people with satellite units in their cars. Do you
> >> think a significant (double-digit percentage) will cancel or not renew
> >> if Stern's not in the lineup?
> >
> >
> > Yes, and I think that they need one another.
>
>
> I think you've bought Stern's baloney hook, line, and sinker. Somehow XM
> managed to get more subs than Sirius before the merger, all without Stern.
But it was still Sirius which acquired XM, not the other way around?
If they lose say 1 million, that's $156 million a year in revenues.
Fortune 500 companies probably wouldn't be affected so much by that
figure but in Sirius' precarious position, there would be some impact,
no?
poldy
wrote:
> The people who would leave the service if Stern left are the same people
> who signed up just for Stern. I believe those people are fewer in number
> than the other guy believes, and fewer than Stern claims.
Only Sirius really knows.
So if Stern's pull is insignificant, Sirius probably won't even
negotiate. And to placate investors, they will elaborate on the numbers
and show it doesn't make financial sense.
If there's any kind of extended negotiations, that would suggest their
numbers are close enough. You would expect Stern to begin with at least
his current deal, because Limbaugh is getting close to that as well.
He may have been willing to work for less than his current deal but
would he be willing to work for less than another radio personality?
Rev. Dr. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD
Is this guy famous or s-s-something?
KK
>> If XM got more subs without Stern than Sirius did *with* him, it
>> supports my assertion that he's not needed.
>>
>>
>>
> No, it doesn't. Like I said it is how many subscribers and how much
> revenue SiriusXM stands to lose by dropping Stern and not how many
> people signed up for XM eight years ago.
Fuck, you're dumb.
KK
> In article <AB9Ym.29132$_b5....@newsfe22.iad>, KK <_K...@furburger.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The people who would leave the service if Stern left are the same
>> people who signed up just for Stern. I believe those people are fewer
>> in number than the other guy believes, and fewer than Stern claims.
>
> Only Sirius really knows.
Not really. As they're a public company, most of the relevant figures
are available. And the large majority of listeners got the service
because it was offered in their car, not because of Stern.
>
> So if Stern's pull is insignificant,
Nobody said it was "insignificant".
> Sirius probably won't even
> negotiate. And to placate investors, they will elaborate on the numbers
> and show it doesn't make financial sense.
>
> If there's any kind of extended negotiations, that would suggest their
> numbers are close enough. You would expect Stern to begin with at least
> his current deal, because Limbaugh is getting close to that as well.
Not a chance in hell Stern will get his current deal. An interesting
article (based on some of that publicly available data I mentioned) says
Stern costs them $80M/yr (including Stern's salary, staff salary, and
operating costs - so much for that $100M++ that was bandied about) which
is almost a *quarter* of their entire $360M total programming budget.
Now, they're almost bankrupt. They couldn't continue to pay Stern like
that if they wanted to - and they don't.
> He may have been willing to work for less than his current deal but
> would he be willing to work for less than another radio personality?
Only Stern would let an irrelevant fact like that sabotage his own
negotiations.
KK
> In article <9C7Ym.29009$_b5....@newsfe22.iad>, KK <_K...@furburger.net>
> wrote:
>
>> >> You don't think so? By Stern's own admission, the vast majority of
>> >> subscribers are people with satellite units in their cars. Do you
>> >> think a significant (double-digit percentage) will cancel or not
>> >> renew if Stern's not in the lineup?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, and I think that they need one another.
>>
>>
>> I think you've bought Stern's baloney hook, line, and sinker. Somehow
>> XM managed to get more subs than Sirius before the merger, all without
>> Stern.
>
> But it was still Sirius which acquired XM, not the other way around?
So what? The point is that the company *without* Stern still brought in
subscriptions. More, in fact, than the one *with* Stern.
>
> If they lose say 1 million, that's $156 million a year in revenues.
They won't lose 1 million.
KK
> no, actually, whatever happens from here on out, stern was a proven
> moneymaker
Okay, we agree on one thing there - you changed the tense to "Stern *was*
a moneymaker".
, and one of the only high budget moneymakers since most of
> the rest of the satellite ratings apparently go to music stations. but
> they would lose easily that much within a year, moot though your point
> is.
We'll see.
KK
> i agree. it would be way more than that.
I'd say it *might* be a double-digit percentage of people who opened
their Sirius (not XM) accounts with non-car receivers.
Nancy2
Interesting take on Elvis - do you feel the same way about MJ?
N.
Will
I'm just telling you how business decisions are made. If you think that
SiriusXM isn't going to want to keep Stern and his customer base then you
are the one with shit for brains.
KK
No, you're dumb because you can't see the significance, in the context of
predicting how many users would cancel in the absence of Stern, of the
number of people who chose the service that didn't have him.
KK
"Interesting"? Do you dispute any of it?
> - do you feel the same way about MJ?
I assume "MJ" is Michael Jackson. And you need to be more specific - I
don't think he was a scientologist. I do think he was a freak. I do
think he was drug-addled, and while he might have liked fourteen-year-
olds, they weren't girls. And I don't think he was a slob.
I certainly prefer Elvis' music to Jackson's.
The point is that your outrage over Elvis' music being used in a
commercial that is flattering to Elvis but which includes Stern - I
assume because you have some moral issue with Stern - is ridiculous given
Elvis' canyon of moral shortcomings.
Will
Look at the XM Wiki page, there is a chart that shows that in Q3 2005 XM had
3 million more subscribers than XM and by Q4 2006 the difference was about
1.7 million. So, between those dates Sirius gained subscribers at a higher
rate than XM.
What could be at least one the reasons for that?
KK
This is getting ponderous. Nowhere did I claim that *nobody* subscribed
only for Stern. I said that they don't *need* Stern.
Drumrboy
> What do you get? EXACTLY the type of music you want to listen to, complete
> with
> artist and song title, in high quality sound.
You're kidding, right? I've never heard anything that had shittier
sound quality since the 1970's Sparkomatic "power booster" in my car.
The sound sucks (when I can actually hear it).
> Best of all, on the music
> channels, its worth money for what you DONT get....fucking commercials!
Big deal, I have an iPod that does the same thing. Oh, and I can make
a phone call on my ipod, as well as Pandora, surf the web, get driving
directions....
> Havent listened to very much FM radio lately, have you?
Sound quality pisses on my Sears radio. And FM doesn't cut out for
minutes when I ride past a fucking tree.
Drumrboy
> i wonder what he's doing now that he's been shitcanned and sirius' management team is in charge.
Playing bass in doo wop band while wearing a bowling shirt even a homo
would be ashamed to wear?
KK
> ya, that's what the xm head said. i wonder what he's doing now that
> he's been shitcanned and sirius' management team is in charge.
I think he's doing okay.
I've never disputed that without hiring Stern, Sirius wouldn't have made
it to 2007. But when Stern announced his new gig, they had 2 million
listeners. The number of Stern's fans were much more substantial
compared to that subscription base then they are now, compared to
SiriusXM's almost 20 million subscriptions.
And yes, look at that chart the other guy mentioned. You can certainly
see when Stern announced that he was moving to Sirius - it's discernable
but not earth-shattering:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/
XM_and_Sirius_subscribers.png
Stern played an important part in the early growth of Sirius. I've never
said otherwise. His part today is much smaller.
KK
> the green subway shirt that says to the world, "I, Shitfoot, never
> learned how to do anything but make sandwiches," is so much better.
It's always a wonder to me that a loser like you makes fun of an
entrepreneurial business owner who started from scratch.
KK
> i'm a winner, pal. i live the life you wish you could lead.
In your angriest, drunkest moment you wouldn't even believe that.
KK
> ya, that's what joel hollander thought when stern was at infinity. just
> throw a bunch of shit at the wall. something will stick. ok, it's that
> easy.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> you non-stern fans who listen every day keep trying to minimize that
> impact and get proven wrong every single time and you call other people
> dumb? glass houses, kenneth keith.
You *are* fucking dumb, Mr. "80 cent drop in a $6 stock is the same as an
80 cent drop in a $10 stock".
And where was I "proven wrong", and what do you pretend I'm "wrong" about
here?
When Sirius had 2 million subscribers, the number of fans Stern brought
was relatively more significant than his fans are now that SiriusXM has
almost 20 million subscribers. That's what I said.
Do you really dispute that?
KK
> do you get complimentary upgrades to first class when available from
> delta? know what that means, kenneth keith? that means i ride 1st
> class on about 70% of my flights now.
Uh - seriously? That's the best reason you can come up with that I'd
want to trade lives with you?
Drumrboy
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:05:42 GMT, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:04:06 -0500, JimmyM wrote:
>
>
> >>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:34:45 -0500, JimmyM wrote:
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Dec 23, 2:46 pm, JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> i wonder what he's doing now that he's been shitcanned and sirius'
> >>>>>> management team is in charge.
>
> >>>>>Playing bass in doo wop band while wearing a bowling shirt even a homo
> >>>>>would be ashamed to wear?
>
> >>>> the green subway shirt that says to the world, "I, Shitfoot, never
> >>>> learned how to do anything but make sandwiches," is so much better.
>
> >>>It's always a wonder to me that a loser like you makes fun of an
> >>>entrepreneurial business owner who started from scratch.
>
> >> i'm a winner, pal. i live the life you wish you could lead.
>
> >In your angriest, drunkest moment you wouldn't even believe that.
>
> delta? know what that means, kenneth keith? that means i ride 1st
> class on about 70% of my flights now.
That's because your fat ass doesn't fit in coach, Jocko.
x...@xxx.com
Are you under the impression that fat people get upgraded so they fit in
the seats? I can see that you are all miserable and jealous of a guy who
can play bass, jam with Charlie Daniels, drink when he wants, sleep till
whenever he wants and not worry about the economy. This cat has it
figured out, he is set for life. Go scramble and sort out your job and
retirement but don't be mad at a guy who made it by being smarter than
you. He can pay his bills by playing 7 notes on a bass ... tell us how
your business plan is better than that.
oscarmad1049 - IP Address 96.239.94.117
news:hguil9$j0d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Drumrboy wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 4:12 pm, JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:05:42 GMT, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:04:06 -0500, JimmyM wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:00:14 GMT, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:34:45 -0500, JimmyM wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:55:02 -0800 (PST), Drumrboy <drumr...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>On Dec 23, 2:46 pm, JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> i wonder what he's doing now that he's been shitcanned and sirius'
>>>>>>>>> management team is in charge.
>>>
>>>>>>>>Playing bass in doo wop band while wearing a bowling shirt even a
>>>>>>>>homo
>>>>>>>>would be ashamed to wear?
>>>
>>>>>>>the green subway shirt that says to the world, "I, Shitfoot, never
>>>>>>>learned how to do anything but make sandwiches," is so much better.
>>>
>>>>>>It's always a wonder to me that a loser like you makes fun of an
>>>>>>entrepreneurial business owner who started from scratch.
>>>
>>>>>i'm a winner, pal. i live the life you wish you could lead.
>>>
>>>>In your angriest, drunkest moment you wouldn't even believe that.
>>>
>>>do you get complimentary upgrades to first class when available from
>>>delta? know what that means, kenneth keith? that means i ride 1st
>>>class on about 70% of my flights now.
>>
>>
>> That's because your fat ass doesn't fit in coach, Jocko.
>
> kicked off planes? I can see that you are all laughing at a guy who can
> barely play bass, jam with Bowser, drinks all the time, sleeps till
> whenever he wants and not be aware of what day it is. This fat slob has it
> figured out, he is miserable and has no life outside of usenet. Go laugh
> and sort out your job and retirement but don't be mad at a dumpy assclown
> who will never amount to anything by being dumber than you. His wife pays
> his bills by screwing the neighbors for cash... tell us how your business
Do tell.
poldy
wrote:
> > Only Sirius really knows.
>
> Not really. As they're a public company, most of the relevant figures
> are available. And the large majority of listeners got the service
> because it was offered in their car, not because of Stern.
Sirius has never published how many listeners Stern's show draws on a
regular basis, AFAIK.
So those regular listeners would be the potential number of subscribers
who might leave the service.
Sirius may not say what that number is but their actions, such as how
they seriously they negotiate, will suggest whether that number is big
or not.
Drumrboy
LOL!!
Will
"poldy" <po...@kfu.com> wrote in message
news:poldy-AB0F40....@nothing.attdns.com...
As a free service to them KK is trying to save Sirius the trouble by stating
emphatically that they don't need Stern and can get along fine with the
other programming..
oscarmad1049 - IP Address 96.239.94.117
news:nh76j59gsphbeu124...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:20:01 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Stern played an important part in the early growth of Sirius. I've
>>>>never said otherwise. His part today is much smaller.
>>>
>>> ya, that's what joel hollander thought when stern was at infinity. just
>>> throw a bunch of shit at the wall. something will stick. ok, it's that
>>> easy.
>>
>>What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> was much smaller by the time he left and he thought anyone could fill
> in, and thinking david weave roth could do his razzamatazz bit and
> keep the audience. you see what he's doing today...well, actually you
> don't, because he and the entire format that stern invented and
> hollander tried to keep going with lesser "talents" has been
> shitcanned.
>
>>> you non-stern fans who listen every day keep trying to minimize that
>>> impact and get proven wrong every single time and you call other people
>>> dumb? glass houses, kenneth keith.
>>
>>You *are* fucking dumb, Mr. "80 cent drop in a $6 stock is the same as an
>>80 cent drop in a $10 stock".
>>
>>And where was I "proven wrong", and what do you pretend I'm "wrong" about
>>here?
>
> listeners to sirius to make his pay worth it, you were wrong about o&a
> having good ratings, you were wrong about o&a having more listeners
> than stern, basically every stern gloom and doom prediction that you
> and your ilk has made has turned out wrong...and if you don't think
> stern is sirius' most valuable asset by far, then you're wrong again.
>
>>When Sirius had 2 million subscribers, the number of fans Stern brought
>>was relatively more significant than his fans are now that SiriusXM has
>>almost 20 million subscribers. That's what I said.
>>
>>Do you really dispute that?
>
>
> this ng used to be more fun when you losers kept predicting gloom and
> doom for stern. hasn't happened yet...stern only gets stronger and
> his reputation even more solidified. now it's like shooting fish in a
> barrel. makes me a little sad and nostalgic.
You dont even need to go online for that feeling. Just look in the mirror.
x...@xxx.com
> a good christmas!
Lets not be racist about it. Enjoy your christmas keep rocking the early
bird specials and making the nuts crazy.
oscarmad1049 - IP Address 96.239.94.117
> ass. merry christmas.
I bet half the male (and canine) population of Florida say the same thing
about your wife. The only difference is they have to put a bag on his
pumpkin shaped head.
oscarmad1049 - IP Address 96.239.94.117
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:21:52 -0800, "oscarmad1049 - IP Address
The same joke as what? You get this all the time? Sorry I didn't know your
whole neighborhood is already in on the joke.
KK
No, if you'd read the post you'd see that dummy repeated his silly taunt
of a guy for owning his own business, then said that I wish I had his
life.
> who
> can play bass
Wow.
>, jam with Charlie Daniels
Not really.
>, drink when he wants, sleep till
> whenever he wants
I am envious at the opportunity for leisure that his laziness affords him.
> and not worry about the economy. This cat has it
> figured out, he is set for life.
Set for life? If his wife lost her job he'd be homeless in weeks.
> Go scramble and sort out your job and
> retirement but don't be mad at a guy who made it by being smarter than
> you.
Now you're being silly, too. You've seen all the dumb shit Jimmy says.
>He can pay his bills by playing 7 notes on a bass
... and having a wife with a job.
> ... tell us how
> your business plan is better than that.
Uh, I like my job, it's challenging, I have a nice house in a nice area
that's mostly paid off and if something were to happen to my job tomorrow
I've got enough put away that I don't have to worry.
KK
> In article <akqYm.9047$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>, KK <_K...@furburger.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > Only Sirius really knows.
>>
>> Not really. As they're a public company, most of the relevant figures
>> are available. And the large majority of listeners got the service
>> because it was offered in their car, not because of Stern.
>
> Sirius has never published how many listeners Stern's show draws on a
> regular basis, AFAIK.
I didn't say they did. I said that most of their listeners come from new
car purchases. Unless you're completely deluded, people aren't buying
cars to listen to Stern.
>
> So those regular listeners would be the potential number of subscribers
> who might leave the service.
>
> Sirius may not say what that number is but their actions, such as how
> they seriously they negotiate, will suggest whether that number is big
> or not.
Stern won't get nearly what he got. Watch.
KK
Is that what I did?
Someone posted the article about Stern re-signing, and in the ensuing
discussion you said that "they can't afford to lose him" and I said that
they could.
Then, you offered various versions of your opinion, including saying that
"XM suffered for not having a 'whale' in their lineup" though XM had more
subs than Sirius, and calling me an idiot.
KK
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:20:01 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Stern played an important part in the early growth of Sirius. I've
>>>>never said otherwise. His part today is much smaller.
>>>
>>> ya, that's what joel hollander thought when stern was at infinity.
>>> just throw a bunch of shit at the wall. something will stick. ok,
>>> it's that easy.
>>
>>What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> dumbfuck...i'm talking about how joel hollander thought stern's role was
> much smaller by the time he left and he thought anyone could fill in,
> and thinking david weave roth could do his razzamatazz bit and keep the
> audience.
David Lee Roth was a stunt. Whether he was in on the joke, I don't
know. But O&A were already set for the AM slot when Roth started.
> you see what he's doing today...well, actually you don't,
> because he and the entire format that stern invented and hollander tried
> to keep going with lesser "talents" has been shitcanned.
>
>>> you non-stern fans who listen every day keep trying to minimize that
>>> impact and get proven wrong every single time and you call other
>>> people dumb? glass houses, kenneth keith.
>>
>>You *are* fucking dumb, Mr. "80 cent drop in a $6 stock is the same as
>>an 80 cent drop in a $10 stock".
>>
>>And where was I "proven wrong", and what do you pretend I'm "wrong"
>>about here?
>
> let's see...you were wrong about stern not being able to draw enough
> listeners to sirius to make his pay worth it
Quote, please.
>, you were wrong about o&a
> having good ratings
Which ones? They had good ratings in NY. Post them if you claim I was
"proven wrong" about them.
>, you were wrong about o&a having more listeners than
> stern
I never said that. Quote, please.
>, basically every stern gloom and doom prediction that you and your
> ilk has made has turned out wrong...and if you don't think stern is
> sirius' most valuable asset by far, then you're wrong again.
He's not worth $100M per year.
>>When Sirius had 2 million subscribers, the number of fans Stern brought
>>was relatively more significant than his fans are now that SiriusXM has
>>almost 20 million subscribers. That's what I said.
>>
>>Do you really dispute that?
>
> of course i do, idiot. everyone with half a brain does.
Really? Now you should focus, Jimmy, because that statement contains
math - your arch-nemesis.
I'll give you another chance to not be stupid - here it is in even
simpler language:
Relative to the number of Sirius subscribers, Stern's audience represents
a smaller fraction compared to their current 20 million subscribers than
it did compared to the 2 million they had when he announced he was going
to satellite.
To dispute that, you have to believe that Stern's satellite audience has
grown tenfold - 1000% - since he signed up.
You'd have to be a total moron to believe that.
> this ng used to be more fun when you losers kept predicting gloom and
> doom for stern. hasn't happened yet...stern only gets stronger and his
> reputation even more solidified. now it's like shooting fish in a
> barrel. makes me a little sad and nostalgic.
If he stays, it will definitely be at decreased pay. and possibly an even
more reduced schedule.
KK
>>You dont even need to go online for that feeling. Just look in the
>>mirror.
>
> i like to look in the mirror and watch my dick go up your mother's ass.
Why would you need a mirror to see that?
Drumrboy
> If he stays, it will definitely be at decreased pay. and possibly an even
> more reduced schedule.
is that even possible?
Drumrboy
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:53:35 -0800, poldy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> > Only Sirius really knows.
>
> >> Not really. As they're a public company, most of the relevant figures
> >> are available. And the large majority of listeners got the service
> >> because it was offered in their car, not because of Stern.
>
> > Sirius has never published how many listeners Stern's show draws on a
> > regular basis, AFAIK.
>
> I didn't say they did. I said that most of their listeners come from new
> car purchases. Unless you're completely deluded, people aren't buying
> cars to listen to Stern.
>
>
>
> > So those regular listeners would be the potential number of subscribers
> > who might leave the service.
>
> > Sirius may not say what that number is but their actions, such as how
> > they seriously they negotiate, will suggest whether that number is big
> > or not.
>
> Stern won't get nearly what he got. Watch.
Bet you he won't take stock this time.
Will
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:41:49 -0800, Will wrote:
>
>> "poldy" <po...@kfu.com> wrote in message
>> news:poldy-AB0F40....@nothing.attdns.com...
>>> In article <akqYm.9047$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>, KK <_K...@furburger.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Only Sirius really knows.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. As they're a public company, most of the relevant figures
>>>> are available. And the large majority of listeners got the service
>>>> because it was offered in their car, not because of Stern.
>>>
>>> Sirius has never published how many listeners Stern's show draws on a
>>> regular basis, AFAIK.
>>>
>>> So those regular listeners would be the potential number of subscribers
>>> who might leave the service.
>>>
>>> Sirius may not say what that number is but their actions, such as how
>>> they seriously they negotiate, will suggest whether that number is big
>>> or not.
>>
>> As a free service to them KK is trying to save Sirius the trouble by
>> stating emphatically that they don't need Stern and can get along fine
>> with the other programming..
>
> Is that what I did?
>
Yes. See what you wrote below, that they can afford to lose Stern. Is this
your technique for keeping discussions dragging on and on and on and on?
> Someone posted the article about Stern re-signing, and in the ensuing
> discussion you said that "they can't afford to lose him" and I said that
> they could.
>
> Then, you offered various versions of your opinion, including saying that
> "XM suffered for not having a 'whale' in their lineup" though XM had more
> subs than Sirius, and calling me an idiot.
>
XM had the head start and as I pointed out you can go the XM Wiki site and
see a chart that shows that in the recent past and before the merger Sirius
gained subscriptions at a higher rate than XM.
KK
Hey dipshit: you're continuing this as much as I am.
>
>> Someone posted the article about Stern re-signing, and in the ensuing
>> discussion you said that "they can't afford to lose him" and I said
>> that they could.
>>
>> Then, you offered various versions of your opinion, including saying
>> that "XM suffered for not having a 'whale' in their lineup" though XM
>> had more subs than Sirius, and calling me an idiot.
>>
>>
> XM had the head start
... and got more subs without Stern than Sirius did, which belies your
comment that they 'suffered'.
> and as I pointed out you can go the XM Wiki site
> and see a chart that shows that in the recent past and before the merger
> Sirius gained subscriptions at a higher rate than XM.
None of that is in dispute.
What you're a moron for refusing to concede is that most of Sirius'
subscribers subscribed because the unit was in their car, and not because
of Stern.
Will
You dumb tool, it doesn't matter how the subscribers got there it is how
many of them SiriusXM stand to lose if they don't re-up with Stern.
Besides, just because someone doesn't subscribe to satellite radio until
they buy a car with the unit installed doesn't mean that they didn't want to
have that service and instead had it forced on them.
KK
And that step is where your confusion begins. Simply put: with few
exceptions, if a subscriber didn't subscribe primarily for Stern, they're
not going to cancel if he's gone.
> Besides, just because someone doesn't subscribe to satellite radio until
> they buy a car with the unit installed doesn't mean that they didn't
> want to have that service and instead had it forced on them.
Fuck, you're dumb.
Will
I'm referring to your entire body of work on Stern issues. The poster boy
for the people who "hate" Stern but love to talk about him non-stop.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Someone posted the article about Stern re-signing, and in the ensuing
>>>>> discussion you said that "they can't afford to lose him" and I said
>>>>> that they could.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, you offered various versions of your opinion, including saying
>>>>> that "XM suffered for not having a 'whale' in their lineup" though XM
>>>>> had more subs than Sirius, and calling me an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> XM had the head start
>>>
>>>
>>> ... and got more subs without Stern than Sirius did, which belies your
>>> comment that they 'suffered'.
>>>
>>>> and as I pointed out you can go the XM Wiki site and see a chart that
>>>> shows that in the recent past and before the merger Sirius gained
>>>> subscriptions at a higher rate than XM.
>>>
>>> None of that is in dispute.
>>>
>>> What you're a moron for refusing to concede is that most of Sirius'
>>> subscribers subscribed because the unit was in their car, and not
>>> because of Stern.
>>
>> You dumb tool, it doesn't matter how the subscribers got there it is how
>> many of them SiriusXM stand to lose if they don't re-up with Stern.
>
>
> And that step is where your confusion begins. Simply put: with few
> exceptions, if a subscriber didn't subscribe primarily for Stern, they're
> not going to cancel if he's gone.
>
Correct. The number that will is going to be large though because of the
aforementioned chart indicating that the rate of new subscribers for Sirius
increased with Stern's arrival.
KK
1. I never said I "hate" Stern. I said that his show isn't as good as it
used to be, and that he appears to be a narcissistic, self-absorbed ass.
Oh, and cheap.
2. I've been posting here since 1994. If you don't like what I type, or
if you think that a discussion abotu the Howard Stern Show in an
unmoderated howard-stern newsgroup is inappropriate, then fuck off and
killfile me.
Are you looking at the same chart I am? You've already been stump-
fucking-stupid without the introduction here of numbers, so this is
probably futile, but here goes:
That chart shows that between the time when Stern announced he was
moving, and the end of the chart, Sirius grew at roughly 125% the rate XM
grew. Looking at that steeper part of the chart, that translates roughly
to a million additional subs during that time. Which, by the way, is
around what the more sensible among us here said Stern would bring. Not
six million or whatever dopey number Stern makes up from day to day.
Will every one of, or even most of, that million leave if Stern leaves?
I seriously doubt it.
Almach
> On Dec 21, 7:01 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > A "Sirius" question (har!)
>
> > What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
> > that's worth money?
>
> > --
> > Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Year"
> > His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
>
> It's good for road trips into uncivilized areas. Like Phialdelphia. We
> have one good station here, one half assed rock station and PBS, the
> rest is automated clear channel crap. With XM I have a station preset
> for any mood I might be in.
Where is Phialdelphia? Is it in the United States? If so, which
statge?
>
> I also like the Bob Dylan and Tom Petty shows and the Little Steven
> station rocks pretty well.
jewahe
> A "Sirius" question (har!)
>
> What's the point of subscribing to radio? What on Earth do you get
> that's worth money?
>
Many of the reasons I subscribed are still valid:
Limited Choice
I've found that there are five basic channels offered over the air
1. Soft pop/rock.
2. Country.
3. Classic rock.
4. Current hits.
In some markets, there might be a R&B/Soul and Hard Rock station, but
that's pretty much it.
Limited Rotation
Most stations limit their playlists to a few "big names", and often
restrict even those artists to their bigger hits. Celine Dion is
tolerable on a periodic basis, but her nasally voice gets annoying when
you hear it every five songs.
And then there's the Christmas tunes. They start November 1st with
frequent (say 1/5) plays, and then go all-Xmas after Thanksgiving. There
are just so many times I can stand Bruce Springsteen's "Santa Claus
is Coming to Town" or Brenda Lee's "Jingle Bell Rock" before I just
don't care anymore.
And forget trying to find new, interesting, non-commercial artists.
Today's radio is strictly for the established artists.
Commercials
It got to the point that you're lucky if you get more than 12
songs/hour. Just too much begging for my tastes.
My subscription to XM originally solved a lot of these problems, along
with news/talk that simply isn't available elsewhere.
Unfortunately, since the merger between XM and Sirius, the quality has
decreased considerably. Many of the stations are limiting their
playlists or altering their focus and introducing limited commercials.
The DJs have become annoying (If Sirius really wants to trim the fat,
they could dump a lot of the DJs).
The market is desperately in need of competition.
--
JWH
My Squeaky Vagina
> tell ya? ;)
nancy's face contorts when you walk in the door.
Pandemonium
news:hh1mv7$4ca$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You two homos have fun ringing in the new year tea bagging each other.