Listener Supported WOXY
If you are a listener of WOXY like I am, you probably have noticed that they are now advertising themselves as "listener supported." From what the ads say, it is something like $9.95 per month for the vintage channel and the regular channel combined.
I really enjoy WOXY. Unlike XMU on XM radio, WOXY actually has DJ's that tell you a little bit about the new music they are playing without too much talk. XMU plays good music too - new and varied like WOXY does, but they don't interact much with the listener. It is just music. Some would counter with the fact the artist name and song title do display on XM, but so what? - that doesn't tell you anything more about the bands you are hearing. I consider this to be a great value and gives WOXY the edge over XMU. I think WOXY content is also a tad better than XMU.
But, back to the main reason for the post. Charging for WOXY? I don't oppose this, but I think the $9.95 price tag is a little steep. I pay approx 9.95 per month for XM radio and with that I get about 60 music channels as well as many more news, information and sports channels. (I prepaid for five years, so I get a cheaper price than the going rate of $12.95/month.)
So, I agree, WOXY is worth something. A thought I had was for Internet only radio stations to somehow band together to package their services to offer perhaps 100 channels of music for 10 - 15 bucks per month, with the user in control of the channels he wants - perhaps a sliding scale, 10 channels cost $3, 25 for $7, 100 for $14.95/month or something like that. I guess there are services like that, like Musicmatch's On Demand Radio and perhaps others - but they don't bring in WOXY.
If WOXY could somehow be part of a web-radio-ring like I describe. The benefit would be revenue sharing for all these stations and a bigger benefit to the listeners. If we all start subscribing to each station at $9.95/month, then if you pick five or six stations (which is really what I do on XM - I listen chiefly to about six stations on a regular basis), it would end up costing you as much as cable tv with digital service. Not a bargain.
So, what to do? WOXY is great, but is it $9.95/month great?
I really enjoy WOXY. Unlike XMU on XM radio, WOXY actually has DJ's that tell you a little bit about the new music they are playing without too much talk. XMU plays good music too - new and varied like WOXY does, but they don't interact much with the listener. It is just music. Some would counter with the fact the artist name and song title do display on XM, but so what? - that doesn't tell you anything more about the bands you are hearing. I consider this to be a great value and gives WOXY the edge over XMU. I think WOXY content is also a tad better than XMU.
But, back to the main reason for the post. Charging for WOXY? I don't oppose this, but I think the $9.95 price tag is a little steep. I pay approx 9.95 per month for XM radio and with that I get about 60 music channels as well as many more news, information and sports channels. (I prepaid for five years, so I get a cheaper price than the going rate of $12.95/month.)
So, I agree, WOXY is worth something. A thought I had was for Internet only radio stations to somehow band together to package their services to offer perhaps 100 channels of music for 10 - 15 bucks per month, with the user in control of the channels he wants - perhaps a sliding scale, 10 channels cost $3, 25 for $7, 100 for $14.95/month or something like that. I guess there are services like that, like Musicmatch's On Demand Radio and perhaps others - but they don't bring in WOXY.
If WOXY could somehow be part of a web-radio-ring like I describe. The benefit would be revenue sharing for all these stations and a bigger benefit to the listeners. If we all start subscribing to each station at $9.95/month, then if you pick five or six stations (which is really what I do on XM - I listen chiefly to about six stations on a regular basis), it would end up costing you as much as cable tv with digital service. Not a bargain.
So, what to do? WOXY is great, but is it $9.95/month great?
posted by Noman at 19:09
0 comments
.jpg)
