June 25, 2009 5:18 PM
- Text
Sirius XM Price Hike Using Royalties As Income Boost Excuse?
(MoneyWatch)
Sirius XM has been notifying subscribers of a price hike that the company ascribes to increased music royalties that the service is incurring. But while the company is getting charged more, the subscription increases far outstrip the higher royalties, seeming to put the company in conflict with a promise it made the FCC at the time of the merger between former competitors Sirius and XM.
Let's look at some of the subscription levels of the company. Subscription rates run from $6.99 to $19.99 a month for a first subscription. An eight percent royalty would run from roughly $0.56 to $1.56 per month. Checking my own XM bill I notice that a second radio runs about 54 percent the cost of the first. Assuming for a moment that the percentage doesn't radically change by plan, that would mean that an additional line would run from about $3.77 to $10.79 a month. The eight percent royalty there would be $0.30 to $0.86 a month. I'm sure the pricing for commercial use is significantly different, but remember that the price increase letter is going to consumers.
In other words, Sirius XM seems to pick up a hefty monthly premium and deposit it right into its seriously hurting financial picture. Maybe management hopes that no one whips out a calculator.
One condition of the merger in 2008 was that subscription rates were not to rise, but that the company could pass along cost increases. But the figures above are based on a comparison with the 2012 royalty, not the lower one today, and even then it's clear that Sirius XM is bringing in more than what it must pay. You don't suppose this was on purpose, do you? Nah, didn't think so.
Sirius XM has been notifying subscribers of a price hike that the company ascribes to increased music royalties that the service is incurring. But while the company is getting charged more, the subscription increases far outstrip the higher royalties, seeming to put the company in conflict with a promise it made the FCC at the time of the merger between former competitors Sirius and XM.
In a letter to subscribers, Sirius CEO Joe Zarella said "Beginning on July 29, 2009, a 'U.S. Music Royalty Fee' of $1.98 per month for primary subscriptions and $.97 per month for multi-receiver subscriptions will be effective" the next time they renew their subscription.The Copyright Royalty Board has indicated that satellite radio will pay higher royalties, which jumped from 6 percent to 6.5 percent last year and will grow over time to 8 percent in 2012. There's just one problem: the so-called "U.S. Music Royalty Fee" of $1.98 per month for primary subscriptions or $0.97 a month for additional subscriptions is higher than even the 8 percent that will eventually be in effect, and far beyond the current 6.5 percent.
Let's look at some of the subscription levels of the company. Subscription rates run from $6.99 to $19.99 a month for a first subscription. An eight percent royalty would run from roughly $0.56 to $1.56 per month. Checking my own XM bill I notice that a second radio runs about 54 percent the cost of the first. Assuming for a moment that the percentage doesn't radically change by plan, that would mean that an additional line would run from about $3.77 to $10.79 a month. The eight percent royalty there would be $0.30 to $0.86 a month. I'm sure the pricing for commercial use is significantly different, but remember that the price increase letter is going to consumers.
In other words, Sirius XM seems to pick up a hefty monthly premium and deposit it right into its seriously hurting financial picture. Maybe management hopes that no one whips out a calculator.
One condition of the merger in 2008 was that subscription rates were not to rise, but that the company could pass along cost increases. But the figures above are based on a comparison with the 2012 royalty, not the lower one today, and even then it's clear that Sirius XM is bringing in more than what it must pay. You don't suppose this was on purpose, do you? Nah, didn't think so.
-
Erik Sherman Erik Sherman is a widely published writer and editor who also does select ghosting and corporate work. Follow him on Twitter at @ErikSherman or on Facebook.
Follow on Twitter »
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
- 6 things you should never share on Facebook
- Make moves now to increase financial aid
- Valentine's Day: 9 places to save
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
- U. Mich.: Child porn case spurs outside review
- U. Mich.: Child porn case spurs outside review
- Q&A: Obama and the birth control controversy
- Q&A: Obama and the birth control controversy
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News






