• by Tom Hespos , March 29, 2005

A couple of weeks ago, my buddy Dan and I hopped in his Chevy Trailblazer and headed off to the sporting goods store. As we headed out on the 30-minute drive, Dan showed off his satellite radio setup, switching amongst the many channels. As a guy who takes many long-distance trips to go hiking and camping around the country, Dan had a lot of praise for satellite radio. He noted searching for stations in the mountains used to be somewhat of a pain, but now he can listen to radio programs (especially Yankee games) all the way through stretches of mountainous terrain without worrying about losing the signal.

As we drew closer to the sporting goods store, I noted that Dan used the little pushbuttons on his steering wheel to change channels at least a dozen times in less than 20 minutes. A channel that supposedly focused on '90s rock strayed from the format more than a couple times. Another that was supposed to carry alternative rock was awash in what I'd consider to be pop tunes. It occurred to me that maybe the niche appeal of these focused channels wasn't all that it could be. After all, one person's hardcore is another's soft rock, depending on where you're coming from, taste-wise.

Personally, I haven't reached the point where I'm ready to splurge on satellite. I like the idea of finding stations I like and listening to them without interruption. But I wonder if satellite still needs to learn some lessons from online before it really hits the big time.

Granted, satellite radio is a lot more specialized in terms of its content than terrestrial radio. But the music channels still don't hold any special appeal for me. In theory, the "classic alternative" format of XM's "Fred" channel would be right up my alley, but there's a lot of junk mixed in with the gems. Maybe my problem isn't that the formats of the niche channels are somehow off, but that particular sub-genres aren't specific enough to really appeal to my musical tastes.

Then again, perhaps the lack of appeal has more to do with what I've come to expect from media these days. Satellite radio has the potential for more accurate personalization in terms of content, but it's still a broadcast model medium. Other than picking and choosing what one wants to listen to, there's very little audience input into the medium itself.

Why can't I select the type of content I might want and have it pushed to me via satellite bandwidth and have it saved on an internal hard drive? Why can't I program my satellite radio receiver to go out and find podcasts that suit my interests? Where is the collaborative filtering, such that my receiver can go out and find music that I might like once it gets a handle on my particular tastes? In short, where is the user input?

In satellite radio, I think we have something that is an improvement on one medium (terrestrial radio), but not enough of an incremental step up to appeal to media junkies who are used to self-selecting content (the Web, RSS, etc.) and have that expectation of new media.

For me to get really excited about satellite radio, I think it would have to leverage some of the characteristics of interactive media - true self-selection of content, filtering of aggregated content, and even the ability to participate such that people can post their own audio content that can be found and accessed by other satellite radio subscribers.

Maybe I'll add that Sirius or XM unit to my car when it becomes a bit more two-way.