Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
It would seem on the Stern side there were provisions written in for the inclusion of merger based subscriptions to be counted towards yearly subscription targets.
I think it's actually the fact that there was no provision to EXCLUDE these subscriptions, not that there was explicit provision to include them.

However any defense that they couldn't have possibly anticipated a merger is reduced by the fact they seemed to be aware of the merger possibility and did include provision allowing them to use Howard Stern's programming in such an event. So they knew it was possible and did nothing to exclude it. Tough luck I'd say.
 
good old sirius/xm still nickel and diming there talent just like there customers. it is no wonder bubba left when they asked him to take a 90% pay cut (i think it was 90% or close to it).

and if it wasn't for Howard coming to Sirius Sirius would have been out of business by now. i used to work as a call agent for Sirius Canada and 50% of the calls in November and December were for people canceling or suspending there accounts because they didn't know what Howard was going to do. He is the only reason i stay with Sirius too because i got bored of all the music stations long ago. the decade stations sound more like the DJ's just have 1 CD they play on shuffle every day and don't get me started on Hits 1 and the rock stations
As former agent can you explain the annoying tactics of the company? Do they actually coach you to play dumb about sales and promotions? How many customers just happily pay the maximum price and are totally satisfied with nonsense charges like 'activation'?
 
What I meant by morally, was that Howard was definitely responsible for the millions of Sirius subscribers and deserves to be rewarded for that. However, XM already had a substantial subscription base, and did not likely increase their numbers because of Howard. So even though he may be legally entitled to the bonus, I don't feel he is morally entitled to it. Furthermore, I don't know for sure, but I bet only a very small percentage of XM subscribers actually subscribe to the "Best of Sirius" package.

P.S. I am a huge Howard Stern fan and hope he gets what he deserves.
 
I think it's actually the fact that there was no provision to EXCLUDE these subscriptions, not that there was explicit provision to include them.

However any defense that they couldn't have possibly anticipated a merger is reduced by the fact they seemed to be aware of the merger possibility and did include provision allowing them to use Howard Stern's programming in such an event. So they knew it was possible and did nothing to exclude it. Tough luck I'd say.
You are correct.
 
Nobody ever said that the law had anything to do with morals. I was just "putting it out there". Legally speaking, I am sure that Howard is entitled to what he is suing for - I am just saying that "morally speaking" he probably shouldn't be seeking it. He is going by the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit of the law", which he is entitled to do. I just do not think it is very nice or necessary.
 
Listening to Howard for many years, I would have to say that he seems like quite a moral person. I think there is a distinction between that and business, conversely the argument could be made that XM/Sirius are not being moral by paying him what he is entitled to (under law).
 
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top