Voodoo Economics

[yqf@my-deja.com]

XM refused to pay Howard Stern $500 million dollars to secure his
services over the next 5 years because it was "too expensive", but then
spent $487 million dollars on marketing expenses in 2005 alone (and a
whopping $191 million dollars of it in Q4 2005) and still came up short
as they tried to counter the "Stern Effect" on Sirius.

BTW, in the same time period, Sirius only spent $170MM for marketing in
all of 2005 ($63MM of it in Q4 2005).

Yikes!!!!! Is that more of that "flawless execution" by XM management
that frontmed (AKA "NoDownTime", AKA "StackPointer", AKA "PrimaryKey",
AKA whatever his new alias is next week) used wax poetic about????

No wonder XM board members are resigning and warning that XM is headed
for a crisis.

$487 million dollars spent on marketing in one year alone!!!!!!

That $500 million spent for Stern is looking cheaper and cheaper every
day, especially when you consider that Sirius will better its 2005
advertising revenues by more than million dollars in 2006 and more
than double that in 2007.... primarily due to Stern.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

y...@my-deja.com wrote:
> That $500 million spent for Stern is looking cheaper and cheaper every
> day, especially when you consider that Sirius will better its 2005
> advertising revenues by more than million dollars in 2006 and more
> than double that in 2007.... primarily due to Stern.


I left out the number...
Sirius will better its 2005 advertising revenues by more than
***$40*** million dollars in 2006

[LinkedList]

Idiot.

You have to combine SIRI's "Sales and Marketing" ($171M) with "Subscriber
Acquisition Costs" ($350M, Total $520M) to compare with XM's total marketing
of $488M.

So, Sirius spent more than XM, PLUS has committed close to 3/4 billion to
Stern on TOP OF IT.

Nitwit.


<yqf@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1142403282.160819.272120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> XM refused to pay Howard Stern $500 million dollars to secure his
> services over the next 5 years because it was "too expensive", but then
> spent $487 million dollars on marketing expenses in 2005 alone (and a
> whopping $191 million dollars of it in Q4 2005) and still came up short
> as they tried to counter the "Stern Effect" on Sirius.
>
> BTW, in the same time period, Sirius only spent $170MM for marketing in
> all of 2005 ($63MM of it in Q4 2005).
>
> Yikes!!!!! Is that more of that "flawless execution" by XM management
> that frontmed (AKA "NoDownTime", AKA "StackPointer", AKA "PrimaryKey",
> AKA whatever his new alias is next week) used wax poetic about????
>
> No wonder XM board members are resigning and warning that XM is headed
> for a crisis.
>
> $487 million dollars spent on marketing in one year alone!!!!!!
>
> That $500 million spent for Stern is looking cheaper and cheaper every
> day, especially when you consider that Sirius will better its 2005
> advertising revenues by more than million dollars in 2006 and more
> than double that in 2007.... primarily due to Stern.
>

[yqf@my-deja.com]

LinkedList wrote:
> Idiot.
>
> You have to combine SIRI's "Sales and Marketing" ($171M) with "Subscriber
> Acquisition Costs" ($350M, Total $520M) to compare with XM's total marketing
> of $488M.
>
> So, Sirius spent more than XM, PLUS has committed close to 3/4 billion to
> Stern on TOP OF IT.

You can try to spin it any way you want to frontmed, but the fact
remains that XM spent the same amount on marketing expenses IN ONE YEAR
as Sirius will spend on Stern over the next 5 years.

P.S. You're still trying to sell that "3/4 billion" bull----? Everyone
who can read knows that the 34 million shares of stock that Stern
received came out of the original $500MM fixed costs that Sirius
disclosed in their SEC filing. Yet another example of why you have ZERO
credibilty and nobody believes the crap you spout. Change aliases and
try again frontmed.

[LinkedList]

> You can try to spin it any way you want to frontmed, but the fact
> remains that XM spent the same amount on marketing expenses IN ONE YEAR
> as Sirius will spend on Stern over the next 5 years.

The fact remains you can't read a freaking income statement.

> P.S. You're still trying to sell that "3/4 billion" bull----? Everyone
> who can read knows that the 34 million shares of stock that Stern
> received came out of the original $500MM fixed costs that Sirius
> disclosed in their SEC filing.

Wrong again.

> Yet another example of why you have ZERO
> credibilty and nobody believes the crap you spout. Change aliases and
> try again frontmed.

LOL.