NAB ripping off MasterCard with anti-Sirius/XM merger ad: priceless.

Not only is the NAB getting its own panties all up in a bunch over the looming threat of a satellite radio "monopoly", it has also managed to wedgie-fy MasterCard's britches, too. A new anti-Sirius / XM merger copycat ad of MC's signature "Priceless" campaign has been making the rounds -- the irony apparently lost on on the NAB that hiring a would-be-lobbyist for the other side and knocking off someone else's ad campaign smells very much of bad business. It's no surprise that MasterCard cried copyright infringement, which prompted the NAB to stop running the ad altogether. Michelle Lehman, the NAB's EVP of Marketing and Communications and Regulatory Affairs, confirms the cessation but also points out that the ad's already gotten a bunch of attention anyway. NAB losing its cool and cred in front of the industry? Now that's priceless.

[Via Orbitcast]

[heheheh @ Mar 19th 2007 7:43PM]

No Space Monopolies! Fight the Power!

[Trent @ Mar 19th 2007 5:19PM]

Hey NAB, you ruined your own product, deal with it.

[dtrapp @ Mar 19th 2007 5:47PM]

http://www.heycool.com/

This is all just a bunch of whining from deep pocket companies...grow up.

[Christopher Price @ Mar 19th 2007 5:57PM]

Not seeing the "loss in cred" here. XM and Sirius are trying to what they promised to the government they would not do. The NAB pointed it out. They did so in a clever manner too I might ad, it makes sense to the typical consumer.

- Christopher Price
http://www.phonenews.com

[PEZ @ Mar 19th 2007 9:50PM]

XM and Sirius NEVER "promised" the "government" anything. Though, I dont see your facts at your stupid blog whoring link, either.

[Christopher Price @ Mar 19th 2007 10:11PM]

Quite simply, you are incorrect.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8NDO8RO0.htm

"When the Federal Communications Commission auctioned off two exclusive licenses to create the satellite radio industry 10 years ago, it did not mince words on whether the competing providers could merge.

The agency said that one licensee will "not be permitted to acquire control" of the other. The clause was inserted to ensure "sufficient continuing competition" in the new business, it said."

That is what the companies agreed to when accepting those licenses from the FCC. It's that simple.

P.S. There are things in the world called signatures. I have no need for your vulgarity.

- Christopher Price
http://www.phonenews.com

[Andrew Jones @ Mar 19th 2007 10:02PM]

y'know, a monopoly on satellite radio is an awful lot like having a monopoly on manufacturing white fuzzy socks with polka dot prints. It's a niche market, making it very difficult to actually monopolize anything.
I say let them merge. The closest to a bad thing that might come of it would be decent pricing that would make them semi-competitive with emerging HD Radio broadcast stations, and even that's questionable.

[Frankenstein Black @ Mar 19th 2007 6:07PM]

Hey NAB, us consumers see you for who you are so stop trying to protect your own monopolistic "Pals", and stop trying to limit our choices. Why do I have to buy 2 separate cars or devices to listen to satellite radio (one for XM, one for Sirius - I like Football and Baseball)? Want to compete? MAKE YOUR PRODUCT NOT SUCK! Now "F" OFF!!!

[jrodliebs @ Mar 19th 2007 6:12PM]

the best part is that the merger may not actually be a monopoly considering satellite radio's competition is all of terrestrial radio as well.

[Eric Pham @ Mar 19th 2007 6:23PM]

I could care less, i still cant justify getting satellite radio seeing as how i spend half an hour in my car everday tops. As long as i get espn radio im fine. Id also like to point out paying half a billion dollars to howard stern is just stupid, stern was amusing like 10 years ago now hes as shocking as my grandpa.

[Nate @ Mar 19th 2007 6:34PM]

If you dont want a Satalite monopoly grow some balls and challenge them, otherwise leave. Now.

[31 @ Mar 20th 2007 11:47AM]

Maybe the NAB should focus their energy on terrestrial radio, and how to make it NOT SUCK! Plus with all the new portable devices on the market, satellite radio has plenty of competition.

[catfish @ Mar 19th 2007 8:12PM]

funny ad. but imho a satalite monopoly is the only practical way to go, keeping it separate is just going to hurt the market. Unless some set of standards is going to be adopted (ha...) the necessitation of separate hardware (both on user and producer end) results in a less desirable product for the consumer and less profit per goods sold for the provider.

and its not like the music/radio business is entirely in the satalite company's hands. Ideally, this would be allowed w/ a provision similar to the one on cell towers, requiring the merged company to lease out its infrastructure to other stations/providers.

[Luke @ Mar 19th 2007 7:16PM]

The New Yorker's James Suroweiki does a great job of dispelling the "monopoly" argument in this week's issue. He argues that, together, XM and Sirius will offer a more competitive product vs. Clear Channel and Co. In other words, you can have more competition even with less competitors. Makes sense to me.

[Jason @ Mar 19th 2007 7:20PM]

Sirius/XM telling Ashcroft to piss off......Priceless.

[LC @ Mar 19th 2007 8:14PM]

Eric,

While you personally may think it is stupid, signing Stern was the smartest business move, whether one likes him or not. Roughly 5 million new subscribers since announcing his move. 5 million paying around $12 per month. They paid for his entire contract in less than 9 months.

[Grant112 @ Mar 22nd 2007 9:45AM]

XM and Sirius have a point, they wouldn't really be a monopoly. They're just a portion of a larger market of digital media (ipod + itunes, internet radio, podcasts, HD Radio). And with these exclusive product contracts (NFL, NHL, NBA, Howard Stern) it really benefits the consumer to have a merge. Also both XM and Sirius have claimed this will more than likely LOWER the subscription price. With them no longer competing with each other the money they'll save on advertising alone would be great.

The NAB really is losing their credibility. They're obviously freaked out on the foothold Satellite radio is getting, and they know it's eating away at the terrestrial radio. They're struggling.

[dave @ Mar 20th 2007 11:45AM]

I hope Sat radio takes off and can grow into its full potential. Stopping the merger would suck and bring everything both companys have established back to stage 1. Music is fucked without it....It is the most convenient way to discover new music.

I would pay the 12 bucks not to listen to that crap on terrestrial radio. Anyone with either xm or sirius knows what im talkin about. Those same shitty songs on loop all fucking day. Then when you try to escape it by changing the channel...there it is again strategically playing only 2 seconds apart....FREEEEEDDDDDDOOOOMMMMMM.

[beanspants @ Mar 19th 2007 8:30PM]

after having to listen to XM's 20on20 station (and a little bit of 21 - 26) for 13 straight hours, i hope XM explodes into hell.

[Mike @ Mar 19th 2007 9:21PM]

If XM and Sirius were in such dire straits, why would the NAB spend money fighting the merger?

Answer: They're scared shitless.

Nobody wants to listen to nutured, commercial filled programming and people are willing to pay money for more choices and almost no commercials. Plus, satellite is uncensored. The NAB and their affiliates sucked off the GOP, the GOP put hardcore "roll back the clock" conservatives at the FCC, and sucked all the fun out of broadcast radio.

Regardless of whether the merger is approved, satellite radio has grown by leaps and bounds while broadcast radio has shrank faster than a prune in the midday sun.

[Matt Hadder @ Mar 19th 2007 9:11PM]

Maybe I'm being too practical here... I still don't see the point in paying for radio , TV or magazines; why pay for info/entertainment that's chalked full of advertising?

Is anyone else surprised that they haven't (yet) started putting coke or ipod audio commercials on the CD's you buy?

[Robb @ Mar 21st 2007 3:45PM]

"Matt Hadder @ Mar 19th 2007 9:11PM

Maybe I'm being too practical here... I still don't see the point in paying for radio , TV or magazines; why pay for info/entertainment that's chalked full of advertising?"

Simple. You don't know what you're talking about. The music channels, as well as most of the others on Sirius and XM are commercial free. You get a little chatter, but you also get 95% music on the music channels. With Stern, you get about 50 minutes an hour vs. when he was on Terrestrial radio and you got about 30 minutes to an hour. You get what you pay for, and you're paying for "free" radio by listening to censored content and tons of commercials. What's your time worth?

[Matt Hadder @ Mar 21st 2007 11:05PM]

Commercial free??
Well it might be worth paying for then. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just bought a PVR, so now I can watch TV again.

[PEZ @ Mar 19th 2007 9:50PM]

What is the difference of the delivery system of audio entertainment. Whether its Terretrial radio frequency, satelite, the internet, or downloaded music - ALL these mediums fight for the top spot for being in your ear. The NAB just sucks at what it does, and thats that - entertainment.

Now, with Slacker, its basically a FREE service if you like Ads.. so, advertise? There are so many challengers on the market trying to get into your Ear, the word monopoly just sounds stupid.

[Huge Johnson @ Mar 22nd 2007 7:46PM]

CRAP, did I miss something again? I thought this was a "merger of equals" not a government bailout. Way to go NAB, more lies.

[Gilbert @ Mar 19th 2007 10:57PM]

The monopoly is what we get from the NAB with their 30 minute blocks of commercials in between maybe 9 minutes of actual broadcast radio. Satellite radio is the way to go and those who oppose just don't know what they're missing out on. Get the three day trial before passing out judgment and then post your comments.

[Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Mar 20th 2007 12:43AM]

Chris Price is a fucking NAB troll.

[John Doe @ Mar 20th 2007 12:44AM]

Give me a fucking break. Everyone and their mother has copycatted the priceless ad. Its universal at this point. Oh boo hoo they used it to make a damn point. OH NOES! People should get their heads out of their asses and realize that they have a valid point, Screw the delivery method. The very concept of a monopoly is what will happen if this merger occurs. I DO NOT want to see a single company own sat radio. That being said I tried XM in 2001. While interesting I'd rather download a shit load of new music and set my iPod on randomize. *shrugs* Meh.

[Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Mar 20th 2007 9:10AM]

John Doe

That's great for you, but I really enjoy what Satellite radio has to offer. My iPod doesn't tell me when and where my favorite band is going to be playing or if they'll have a new album. I use Satellite radio a lot and enjoy the content and variety a lot more. My ipod is great at the gym. But on the road, give me satellite radio.

The delivery method is important, funny how you want to side step that issue. Also a monopoly is based on something that is a commodity, not a luxury. Why don't you get your head out of your ass. We're talking about entertainment here, not gas, water, food or electricity or information.

[Christopher Price @ Mar 20th 2007 1:17AM]

It's unfortunate people can't have a real discussion without personal attacks. I support one thing: competition. I believe in Windows DRM for the sake of competing with Apple FairPlay. I believe in XM for the sake of competing with Sirius. If the NAB makes a good ad about a merger that reduces competition, I'm all for it.

Because I'm all for the consumer, and for them, the more competition the better.

- Christopher Price
http://www.phonenews.com

[Jeff @ Mar 20th 2007 9:38AM]

@Christopher Price: XM and Sirius were issued licenses in 1997. Ten years ago. The world changed an awful lot in 10 years. The Telecommunications act wasn't even a year old. NO ONE dreamed of the changes broadcast media would undergo.

XM didn't even start broadcasting until mid-2001 and Sirius was much later than that. We didn't even have MP3 players until mid-1998, and at that they had 32-64MB capacity. The landscape is unrecognizable from what we knew in 1997. Sirius and XM didn't sign a death-pact. They agreed to regulations as a condition of their license. Gee, so did SBC, Verizon and a whole host of other companies who back when weren't permitted to offer video services. That competitive landscape changed too. If you oppose the XM-Sirius merger, SURELY you oppose AT&T buying up BellSouth, Verizon offering video services, etc. They're all in the same vein.

The NAB is bitching about competition? Funny, as Clear Channel is over twice as large as XM and Sirius combined, and has a MUCH larger reach. They are the Wal-Mart of broadcasting.

[LC @ Mar 20th 2007 11:58AM]

Chris said:

"I believe in XM for the sake of competing with Sirius."

Therein lies the issue. XM and Sirius aren't only competing with each other. They are competing with Terrestrial, mp3, podcasts, etc for the listeners ear. It would not be for the consumers benefit for one or both of these companies to go belly up. Hell, if one of them dies first, then in the NAB's eyes there will be a monopoly by default.

People worry about them raising prices after a merge. I believe the opposite will happen. If they continue to hemorrhage money as is currently happening, then they will be forced to not only increase the monthly cost, but also add more advertising. A merger will only be a positive for the consumer.

[James @ Mar 20th 2007 4:26PM]

Hrm, I went into this agreeing with the ad, but reading the posts made me do a 180. One thing people haven't talked much about is how "format wars" only hurt consumers. Beta vs VHS, CDMA vs GSM, HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray... when the technology is about the same, people don't care which one wins, they just want maximum bang for their buck. Getting "locked in" to one side of the war makes competition less effective at improving the marketplace, since once a consumer has Side A's device, they're reluctant to switch to Side B (and lose their investment), even if companies on Side B improve their product while Side A remains stagnant or gets worse. Picking a standard early on helps competition, and it would have been great if XM/Sirius had done so. Since they didn't, this merger could be the next best thing.


Aside: other media-distribution companies often have a monopoly on their particular type of distribution channel, but not on the medium as a whole: I can only get cable TV from Comcast, and I can only get FiOS TV from Verizion, and only one or two satellite TV providers seem to cover me (though I never really looked into it much). But there's still competition, since I can pick any of those options to get *some type* of TV. Likewise, even if there's only one satellite radio, there will always be commercial broadcast radio, plus NPR, plus MP3 websites, plus podcasts, plus CDs, plus new technologies like streaming audio over cell-phone data networks, plus... well, you get the idea. Competition isn't tied to the medium, it's tied to the content it carries.

[Christopher Price @ Mar 20th 2007 6:30PM]

I have no problem with the debate as to if Satellite radio is a market in and of itself. That's a worthy debate. I tend to believe that satellite should be considered separate just like Satellite Phones shouldn't be compared with Cellular Phones.

I believe that there is a specific market demand for satellite radio, independent of internet and terrestrial radio. That may change once every car in America has an aircard (WiMAX or otherwise) in it, but we are years away, if not a decade away from that.

Until people can tune into a radio station over the web from their car... satellite radio will have an independent market that can (and I believe will) be monopolized.

- Christopher Price
http://www.phonenews.com

[biz @ Mar 20th 2007 7:26PM]

Chris, answer me this. You say over-the-air radio does not compete with satellite... then why does free radio list satellite radio as competition in their own SEC filings??

"The radio industry is also subject to competition from two satellite-delivered audio programming services, Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, each providing over 100 channels of pay digital audio services. Sirius and XM sell advertising time on some of their channels and compete with the radio industry for programming."

http://www.secinfo.com/dVut2.v3fn.htm

Read it for yourself... SEC filings for CBS.

[Christopher Price @ Mar 20th 2007 8:31PM]

I am not saying there is perfect exclusivity. As I said in my last comment, there is a market base of customers where satellite radio is exclusive. The two are not non-rival, but they are not complete rivals either.

This sort of imperfect competition can give rise to a monopoly, which is what the FCC was concerned about when they issued licenses in the first place, which exempted the two from merging.

I have no problem with XM and Sirius merging once there is a proliferation of some other competition. I set the standard for that as the feature-set promoted by the two; crystal clear audio quality of the same channel set coast-to-coast. I see that in WiMAX, but it could be several years before that is deployed.

[LC @ Mar 20th 2007 10:21PM]

Chris said:

"I believe that there is a specific market demand for satellite radio, independent of internet and terrestrial radio."

What specific market would that be? XM and Sirius customers chose to go with them because they believed their content was better than that on terrestrial radio. That is competition for you right there. The competition is over who draws the audience to their product.

That one provider broadcasts commercial radio over the M/FM frequency and the other directly by satellite is irrelevant. It's not the broadcast technology, but the customer base themselves that defines what is being competed for.

[LC @ Mar 21st 2007 1:17AM]

I forgot to add one more thing. If Satellite radio was indeed not in competition with broadcast radio, why would the NAB go to the trouble of spending a whole lot of money on an advertising campaign denouncing the planned merger? Certainly they weren't doing so as a public service. It is more likely they are frightened of the (get ready for it)......competition.

[B. Latham @ Apr 17th 2007 12:09AM]

I don't care what the eventual cost of such an available service. $15, 20, 25 bucks a month means nothing to me as opposed to being a slave of "free" radio. I'm all for paying a premium for what I consider ultimate listening freedom. Let the free market decide what's "value" and let the "free" combatants fight for market share. Any correlation or difference to pay-per-view or cable fighting for their market share? I think not. This merger should be done and no other input or "opposing" positions should be considered. It's a buyers market... hello, capitalism?