# DISH Misses, Subscriber Loss Soars



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

> *DISH Misses, Subscriber Loss Soars*
> 
> DISH Network Corp. declared mixed financial results for the second quarter of 2011. Though revenue beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate, driven by additional contribution from newly acquired Blockbuster Inc., EPS fell below it.
> 
> However, the alarming sign is that net subscriber loss mounted in the previous quarter to 135,000 compared with a net loss of a mere 19,000 in the prior-year quarter. As on June 30, 2011, DISH Network had approximately 14.056 million subscribers.


http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/08/09/dish-misses-subscriber-loss-soars/


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Interesting is that the ARPU took a $5.01 hop over 2010 to $78.06.

The 10Q is positively clogged with information related to the Blockbuster acquisition.

http://dish.client.shareholder.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1104659-11-45060


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know about Dish... or companies in general... but I don't think the average public and even some investors really look at what is said by the numbers.

For example:

Comparing the June 30th ended quarters in 2011 vs 2010 we see:

2011 gross added: 572,000
2011 net loss: 135,000

2010 gross added: 747,000
2010 net loss: 19,000

So... most people jump to the net loss and say "Dish lost more customers this quarter than they did the same quarter last year"... but they really didn't.

Look closer!

Last year, during the same quarter, Dish added 175,000 more subscribers than they did this quarter... IF Dish had added those same amount of new subscribers this quarter, they would have posted a net gain of 40,000 subscribers compared to last year's 19,000.

So... what the numbers really tell you is NOT that Dish lost more subscribers this quarter compared to last year. In fact, they actually lost less customers... but rather they failed to gain new customers at the same rate.

This really says that Dish improved customer retention... but failed in new customer acquisition. It's important to note the distinction when moving forward with future business plans to realize where they need improvement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*DISH Network Revenues Grow by 13.3 Percent to $3.59 Billion and Net Income Increases 30.3 Percent to $335 Million*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Aug. 9, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) today reported its second quarter 2011 financial results.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100611/LA19624LOGO)
Revenue totaled $3.59 billion for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, a 13.3 percent increase compared with $3.17 billion for the corresponding period in 2010. Net income attributable to common shareholders totaled $335 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, a 30.3 percent increase compared with $257 million during the same period last year. Diluted earnings per share were $0.75 for the second quarter, compared with $0.57 during the same period in 2010. DISH Network's net subscribers decreased by approximately 135,000 during the second quarter, and the company ended June 30, 2011, with approximately 14.056 million subscribers.

"DISH Network delivered another quarter of strong growth in revenue and net income," said Joe Clayton, president and CEO of DISH Network. "The second quarter was also marked by several other achievements including our purchase of most of the Blockbuster assets, settlement of the Tivo litigation, and renewal of a multi-year partnership with Frontier Communications, offering DISH Network's digital TV entertainment to Frontier's nearly 4 million customers in 27 states. Our decrease in net subscribers was primarily due to increased competitive pressures, including higher levels of discounting."

Clayton added, "As we look forward to the second half of the year, we will focus on commercializing our technology, re-energizing our distribution channels and strengthening our brand image. We continue to offer the best value to consumers with the lowest everyday prices, in part by freezing prices through January 2013."

*Year-to-Date Review* 
DISH Network's first half revenues of $6.81 billion increased 9.4 percent over the same period last year primarily due to programming package price increases in early 2011. In the first six months of 2011, net income attributable to DISH Network increased 81.2 percent to $884 million, diluted earnings per share nearly doubled to $1.98 due to the higher net income, and ARPU of $76.72 increased 6.4 percent.
Detailed financial data and other information are available in DISH Network's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011, filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
DISH Network will host its second quarter 2011 financial results conference call today at noon ET. The dial-in number is (800) 616-6729.

*About DISH Network*
DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.056 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2011, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.

SOURCE DISH Network Corporation


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This really says that Dish improved customer retention... but failed in new customer acquisition. It's important to note the distinction when moving forward with future business plans to realize where they need improvement.


So what does Dish need to do to get those new customers? They went with the free HD for life. They have a large range of programming packages to help fit everyones budget. They have more national HD chanels then the other satellite company and many cable companies local systems. They have award winning HD DVR's.

The other company had a gross add of 954,000 US subs vs the 572,000 of Dish and folks here keep harping on the lack of national HD channels that they have, how their prices are much higher and their hardware stinks.

How does Dish turn things around since to me they've tried a number of different plans and they still lose customers?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

It is amazing the spinning going on in this site. Seriously, I have never seen so much bias in my life. It is amazing you guys can even stand after how dizzy you get spinning.

The truth of the matter is Dish keeps losing more subs than they gain quarter after quarter. Out of the last 4 or 5 quarters they have only had one postie net growth in subs. No matter how much you want to spin, no matter how much they profit in the short term, no business can continue to operate in such a manner. It is not a good thing to lose more customers than you gain over and over and over again. They seriously need to address this issue. I do not want to see only one DBS provider. It will make satellite TV become like SiriusXM (and that is not a good thing)


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

RAD said:


> So what does Dish need to do to get those new customers? They went with the free HD for life. They have a large range of programming packages to help fit everyones budget. They have more national HD chanels then the other satellite company and many cable companies local systems. They have award winning HD DVR's.
> 
> The other company had a gross add of 954,000 US subs vs the 572,000 of Dish and folks here keep harping on the lack of national HD channels that they have, how their prices are much higher and their hardware stinks.
> 
> How does Dish turn things around since to me they've tried a number of different plans and they still lose customers?


It is simple. The main reason why people chose satellite over local cable or fiber, IMO, is because of packages not offered with their local service. Local packages often include bundling which people jump all over. The only way Dish can compete with these local providers AND the other satellite service is to offer something attractive that nobody else offers. Direct does this with sports, perhaps Dish can do the same with movies?

To be honest, what I believe is really hurting them is their lack of sports programming, which attracts people to satellite. Even local programming is missing as local RSNs are game only (many good local programming in HD cannot be seen), still many games are JIP'd (even though this was supposed to be taken care of), and virtually nothing is offered in sports in the largest market in the US (NY). Why would sports fans go to Dish when they can get all of their locals in HD through a local provider or through DirecTV?


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

The loss of accounts could be a sign of the bad economy. When times are tough and 'belt-tightening' is needed, something like a satellite subscription would be one of the first luxuries to go.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/08/09/dish-misses-subscriber-loss-soars/


Going forward all carriers will see lower growth due to the economy.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

EdJ said:


> The loss of accounts could be a sign of the bad economy. When times are tough and 'belt-tightening' is needed, something like a satellite subscription would be one of the first luxuries to go.


The economy has been in the dumper for months, yet the other satellite company has had months & months of positive growth.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

EdJ said:


> The loss of accounts could be a sign of the bad economy. When times are tough and 'belt-tightening' is needed, something like a satellite subscription would be one of the first luxuries to go.


Could be.

But, what was the excuse when the economy wasn't bad? Why are other providers like FiOs and DirecTV gaining subs?

I honestly think it has to do with programming. Dish offers nothing different from local providers for what most subs want. Dish also lacks in programming that the local providers and the other satellite company offers, particularly local RSN programming (both Direct and local providers), sports packages (mostly Direct), bundling deals (mostly local providers but DirecTV also has bundling deals with ATT and Verizon locally), and sub channels for locals (local providers)


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> 2011 gross added: 572,000
> 2011 net loss: 135,000
> 
> 2010 gross added: 747,000
> ...


Huh?? Really??

2011 Gross Adds (572K) - 2011 Gross Loss (707K) = 2011 *Net* Loss (135K)

2010 Gross Adds (747K) - 2010 Gross Loss (766K) = 2010 *Net* Loss (19K)

Yes Dish's gross loss of subs was 59K less than last year, while their growth of gross subs was 175K less than last year.

This tells me that Dish lost a net of 135K customers this past quarter, thus reducing their overall customer base, while Directv added net subs for the *66th consectutive quarter*

Spin away.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> It is amazing the spinning going on in this site. Seriously, I have never seen so much bias in my life. It is amazing you guys can even stand after how dizzy you get spinning.
> 
> The truth of the matter is Dish keeps losing more subs than they gain quarter after quarter. Out of the last 4 or 5 quarters they have only had one postie net growth in subs. No matter how much you want to spin, no matter how much they profit in the short term, no business can continue to operate in such a manner. It is not a good thing to lose more customers than you gain over and over and over again. They seriously need to address this issue.


Actually, the piece of information that would make all the discussion about subscribers meaningful is the makeup of the subscriber numbers.

Historically, Dish has focused on offering lower prices. The upside of that is the new customers who in an economic downturn make smart spending choices based on their financial situation. The downside of that is the former new customers who just before the downturn made poor spending choices just because they barely could qualify leaving a battered dish on their vacant foreclosed home.

Dish's ARPU is $78.06 with with 14.056 million subscribers in the quarter ending June 2011. Just before The Great Recession began, in the quarter ending June 2007 it was $66.06 with 13.585 million subscribers.

Based on those numbers, Dish is doing things right. Somehow Dish has been able to make substantial gains (perhaps by not giving away so much money for each and every subscriber to Disney for ESPN or to other sports channel thieves who steal from each and every one of us).

Adding sports channels is not a win-win. It's the old widget thing where the guy says proudly "we doubled the number of widgets we sold." The other guy responds, "but we're losing 2¢ on each widget we sell."

As of this past quarter it has become clear that Dish is focusing on becoming a meaningful participant in the streaming business. While buying Blockbuster was an interesting move, the long term potential can only be seen in the whole "big picture" context. And that big picture includes recent acquisitions of wireless bandwidth and technology, which is also related to the earlier Sling Media acquisition.

Every signal provider should know that a "tipping point" is in the reasonably near future (thing 2025) when large numbers of media consumers will decide to utilize a more affordable combination of delivery options.

It appears Charlie is trying to have his legacy be a company that is successfully (profitably) in the mix. I think he has a good chance based on this latest financial report.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Phrelin and Stewart have a good handle on it. Dodger Kings's view is very simplistic - fewer subs = Bad.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

tampa8 said:


> Phrelin and Stewart have a good handle on it. Dodger Kings's view is very simplistic - fewer subs = Bad.


So losing more subs is ok and Dish shouldn't care? :lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> So losing more subs is ok and Dish shouldn't care? :lol:


If they are high risk subs, likely to move out with the boxes, owing a couple of months of charges, file bankruptcy, etc., yeah losing those subs isn't bad in the long term.

The question is, who are the subs you're adding? Are they folks who looked over their finances, dumped a more expensive cable package, and chose Dish because the pricing fits their situation?

Not all new subscribers are equal.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I get the impression that all the freebie promos tend to backfire after a while. People sign up to get the freebie and once their contract is up, they go somewhere else to get another freebie. How many times do we see posters here doing just that - switching from DirecTV to Dish and back every year or two? We even have people coming here to the boards asking about what they can get to come back to one or the other.

Promos should be once per address/resident - no repeats. A 'new' customer should be just that - never had Dish before. One, maybe two retention promos.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

It costs less for a company to retain a customer than it does to get a new one.

You also want to have customers that give you value, who spend a lot with your company.

So, yes, *Stewart Vernon* and *phrelin* are right. At least as important as any net number of customers is having those from whom you are making money.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> I get the impression that all the freebie promos tend to backfire after a while. People sign up to get the freebie and once their contract is up, they go somewhere else to get another freebie. How many times do we see posters here doing just that - switching from DirecTV to Dish and back every year or two? We even have people coming here to the boards asking about what they can get to come back to one or the other.
> 
> Promos should be once per address/resident - no repeats. A 'new' customer should be just that - never had Dish before. One, maybe two retention promos.


I don't agree, and the TV subscription market doesn't seem to either. Both Sat companies and most cable companies do the same thing. And the number that swap just because of the perceived money savings may not be as big as you think. They may be changing for other reasons and saving money just becomes a part of it because it is there.

I'm in the process of switching myself. And it wasn't brought on by saving money even though that is a benefit, it was brought on by wanting to watch something that Dish doesn't have.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Ok, the spinners win...It's ok Dish, TWC, Comcast, & Charter lost subs. They're all fine with it.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

The thing I wonder about is what % of subs switch away from "E" because of it's lack of sports programming? ESPN News, ESPNU. MLB, FSNHD's 24/7. I see many sports haters on this site but I also feel that sports in general as being the single biggest draw for subs in the country. It used to be that males in the 18-45 demographic drove the industry and that may still be the case. But women are now much stronger in desiring sports programming. Look at women's basketball and softball as an example not to slight the female influence in NASCAR viewing. The desire for local RSN's in 24/7 HD is beyond huge.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Ok, the spinners win...It's ok Dish, TWC, Comcast, & Charter lost subs. They're all fine with it.


 I don't think anybody is saying that, sigma. At least I'm not.

What people are saying is you can make a lot of money by selling to fewer people and getting more dollars from them. Just ask the folks who own the hot boutique restaurant in your town. With a dozen tables and entrees for $30-40, they can make good money, often as much as the "all-you-can-eat" cafeteria-style restaurant down the block.

Of course, the best of all worlds is selling expensive stuff to a lot of people. Ask Apple how that's working for them.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> I don't think anybody is saying that, sigma. At least I'm not.
> 
> What people are saying is you can make a lot of money by selling to fewer people and getting more dollars from them. Just ask the folks who own the hot boutique restaurant in your town. With a dozen tables and entrees for $30-40, they can make good money, often as much as the "all-you-can-eat" cafeteria-style restaurant down the block.
> 
> Of course, the best of all worlds is selling expensive stuff to a lot of people. Ask Apple how that's working for them.


:lol: You're absolutely right, as usual. (Seriously)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inazsully said:


> The thing I wonder about is what % of subs switch away from "E" because of it's lack of sports programming? ESPN News, ESPNU. MLB, FSNHD's 24/7. I see many sports haters on this site but I also feel that sports in general as being the single biggest draw for subs in the country. It used to be that males in the 18-45 demographic drove the industry and that may still be the case. But women are now much stronger in desiring sports programming. Look at women's basketball and softball as an example not to slight the female influence in NASCAR viewing. The desire for local RSN's in 24/7 HD is beyond huge.


I'm not a sports hater. In fact, back when Frankie Albert, Y A Tittle, and John Brodie led the 49er's I was an avid fan. And I was elated when the Giants came to Seals Stadium.

I was, and still am, a "Pac-9" college sports fan (I don't recognize the two Arizona and the one Colorado team as those states don't have any Pacific beaches, harump).

But when good season ticket pro team seats started costing more than I paid for my car, I balked. And when a single sports channel group, ESPN, costs 15% of my monthly package price, I get upset. (I may sneak a peak or two, but it's a matter principle!)

I recognize a lot of the cost is because of overpaid super star players. I also don't like movie stars that get paid hundreds of millions per movie. Nobody is that good an actor. But I don't hate movies.

What I do like are options.

I can get some movies on broadcast and regular cable channels with commercials. I can chose to buy premium movie channel packages if I want.

I can get some sports on on broadcast and regular cable channels with commercials. But I am being forced to pay for premium sports packages at a premium added cost in my basic television package. I don't like this sports tax.

So I'll support Charlie on this one. I don't care if we lose the Disney channels because of ESPN.

And by the way, I don't like the taxpayers subsidizing stadiums and arenas either.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

phrelin said:


> Actually, the piece of information that would make all the discussion about subscribers meaningful is the makeup of the subscriber numbers.
> 
> Historically, Dish has focused on offering lower prices. The upside of that is the new customers who in an economic downturn make smart spending choices based on their financial situation. The downside of that is the former new customers who just before the downturn made poor spending choices just because they barely could qualify leaving a battered dish on their vacant foreclosed home.
> 
> ...


They are losing their low end subs to someone. Why? What are these providers offering that Dish is not? That should be their focus.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> So what does Dish need to do to get those new customers?


Since I don't have DirecTV I can't speak to their quality of product or service... but one thing I can speak to... DirecTV markets the HELL out of their product. DirecTV has some innovative and entertaining commercials, and it's hard not to know they exist.

Dish, on the other hand... I wouldn't even be a Dish customer if I hadn't been referred to Dish by another subscriber who worked where I did at the time. I hadn't heard of Dish Network before that... and honestly, if I weren't a Dish Network customer, I can't say that I would know about them today if not for Web sites like DBSTalk...

Dish really drops the ball on getting the word out that they exist, have a good product, and are a good value. It's far too easy to see the choices as DirecTV vs Cable... and I think that is exactly how most consumers see things.

I bet I could go out to a local mall and survey people on available choices... and I bet I'd get mostly Time Warner (our area is served exclusively by them for cable), then DirecTV... and a handful of OTA people. I bet I wouldn't get very many people who mention Dish unless I put it on a multiple choice list.

What DirecTV consistently kicks Dish's a$$ on quarter after quarter is new customer acquisition. Look at the numbers. DirecTV is bleeding customers every quarter too. In fact, many quarters DirecTV actually loses more gross subscribers than Dish does... BUT DirecTV adds WAY more new ones than Dish does... so they keep growing with net gains.

IF DirecTV ever got a handle on customer retention, they would be unstoppable. Seriously... and I'm a happy Dish customer. I'll say it again... if DirecTV found the magic bullet to keep more customers, they would be unstoppable. No doubt DirecTV wins hands down in new customer gains... which means they can have huge losses and still have net gain!

This is where Dish consistently fails quarter after quarter.



DodgerKing said:


> It is amazing the spinning going on in this site. Seriously, I have never seen so much bias in my life. It is amazing you guys can even stand after how dizzy you get spinning.
> 
> The truth of the matter is Dish keeps losing more subs than they gain quarter after quarter.


Agreed, except for the spinning. I hope you read what I posted in the start of this very message... DirecTV loses more customers each quarter than Dish does in most quarters. Check the numbers.

Where DirecTV excels is in new subscribers... Both Dish and DirecTV have the same problem with retention most of the time... neither has a good handle on that, but also some of that is going to happen no matter what they do... Dish fails to gain new subscribers at a comparable rate, though, and that is why DirecTV keeps posting net gains.

So I see "spin" too... when people refuse to see that the problem isn't customer loss... DirecTV loses more customers than Dish does most of the time... again, check the numbers. The problem isn't in loss... but in the gains... and that is where DirecTV runs circles around Dish quarter after quarter.



sigma1914 said:


> So losing more subs is ok and Dish shouldn't care? :lol:


Nope... not what some of us are saying. We are saying that some loss might be acceptable, though... and IF you can gain customers at a higher rate than you lose, then you mask those losses.

As I've noted earlier in this thread. Check the numbers. DirecTV usually loses more gross customers than Dish does in any given quarter... BUT DirecTV gains more than they lose.

So... you say losing isn't ok, but don't freak out that DirecTV loses more... The truth is simple... both companies lose, and DirecTV loses more... but DirecTV gains more than Dish does.

The problem, therefore, isn't the losses as much as it is the lack of additions.



DodgerKing said:


> They are losing their low end subs to someone. Why? What are these providers offering that Dish is not? That should be their focus.


What we never know, with these numbers, is... where do they go?

We don't know that Dish customers leave for DirecTV or cable... We don't know that DirecTV customers leave for Dish or cable.

Some customers might leave Dish for OTA... I'm not aware of any way to track where the losses go or the additions come from.

So... we don't know that Dish is losing subscribers to someone offering something that Dish is not. We might assume that, but customers could cancel to save money or they move and can't get line of sight or any number of things that Dish can't help.

That's why, to me, Dish needs to focus more on new customer gains... like DirecTV does... and grow the business that way. Dish can be competitive IF they get out there and let people know what they have and who they are. Or they can sit back and let DirecTV keep rolling.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

DodgerKing said:


> They are losing their low end subs to someone.


I wouldn't say that. A lot of people are being forced to make choices between TV and eating. They don't go to another carrier, they just go without and do what they can with OTA and free streaming services.

I see one more year with Dish before I make that choice. In the meantime, I'm recording what I can and buying up cheap "Season" DVDs of various shows at Big Lots or from Amazon.


----------



## EntropyByDesign (Apr 24, 2010)

inazsully said:


> The desire for local RSN's in 24/7 HD is beyond huge.


That's why I switched finally. I was missing out on too many Rockies games in HD. I completed my Dish contract a few months ago and Directv was offering one season of Sunday Ticket for free. Easy decision.

The install went without a hitch and I got the HR24-500 and H25-500 I wanted. We'll try them out for two years and see how it goes.

If it hadn't been for a couple of issues I would have stayed with Dish. I felt like it was a good service overall.


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

inazsully said:


> The thing I wonder about is what % of subs switch away from "E" because of it's lack of sports programming? ESPN News, ESPNU. MLB, FSNHD's 24/7. I see many sports haters on this site but I also feel that sports in general as being the single biggest draw for subs in the country. It used to be that males in the 18-45 demographic drove the industry and that may still be the case. But women are now much stronger in desiring sports programming. Look at women's basketball and softball as an example not to slight the female influence in NASCAR viewing. The desire for local RSN's in 24/7 HD is beyond huge.


Not only the ones that switch away but the ones DISH never has the chance of getting. I wonder how many subs DISH will never have the chance to get in New York because the subs can't get the Yankees?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> They are losing their low end subs to someone. Why? What are these providers offering that Dish is not? That should be their focus.


The answer is easy and even made the press release. 
"*Our decrease in net subscribers was primarily due to increased competitive pressures, including higher levels of discounting.*"​DISH is not offering heavy one and two year discounts to new customers. The new customer discounts are good, but not spectacular. Marketing seems to be the problem. As Stewart pointed out - DISH is not losing customers at an increased rate - they are having problems gaining new customers. That is a marketing problem.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Then there are a lot of people that cannot see 61.5 or 129. The satellites are spread out. I am sure there a lot of people that would like to sign up, but cannot see the satellites needed, especially in the middle of the country.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

paja said:


> Not only the ones that switch away but the ones DISH never has the chance of getting. I wonder how many subs DISH will never have the chance to get in New York because the subs can't get the Yankees?


In our area Dish loses subs to Comcast cable when people want access to On Demand for just about everything.

Dish gains subs from Comcast cable when people discover they need to save $50 a month.

Dish loses those subs who want access to all sports in HD in their subscriptions.

Dish gains those subs who want access to movies HD in their subscriptions but need a cheaper basic package to afford premium movie channels.

Dish (and everyone else) loses subs to OTA and streaming.

Dish (and everyone else) gains subs when streamers discover they can't talk about cable shows (think NJ Housewives) around the water cooler the morning after the show aired or tweet about it while its airing.

Dish offers Sling options not available from others while the others offer whole house TV. For the now very large segment of the American households that are one or two persons, and for folks who are away from home a great deal of time, the Sling option is attractive.

What drives me nuts is that the YES Network is available locally in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania; it is available nationally on DirecTV and in the sports tier of cable systems, and regionally on AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS. So it isn't available on Dish Network and those very few Dish subscribers in all those areas have exercised the option of not paying for the YES Network. They must be very few subscribers according to the posts here. So be it.

As I point out to vegans, no one is required to eat at McDonalds so quit telling us all a Big Mac is unhealthy. I know that, but I like them.

Whenever I encounter someone who is considering switching to satellite, I make it clear that though I am very happy with Dish if they want all sports options go to DirecTV.

On the other hand, when they're considering satellite because they can't afford Comcast because they've been out of work and the only job they could find is at McDonalds, I recommend Dish. (OTA is not an option in our area or I'd recommend that and a Netflix DVD subscription along with dialup because Comcast cable ISP is almost $60 a month and AT&T abandoned all areas which are not superbly profitable.)

For those who want to be able to DVR a modest selection of broadcast and cable channels in HD for their one HD TV and their kitchen SD TV at a very reasonable price, Dish has some really great options.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

phrelin said:


> In our area Dish loses subs to Comcast cable when people want access to On Demand for just about everything.
> 
> Dish gains subs from Comcast cable when people discover they need to save $50 a month.
> 
> ...


Your third sentence is the key and I feel needs to be given the high priority it deserves. Everything you say and have said earlier is true. I can't say what % of subs are lost or not snagged at the onset of service because of the poor sports offerings but I think those numbers far far out weigh any other reasons. I put very little blame on the economy. It has been show through time that when things get financially tuff in this country the people want their sports more than ever. It has always been an escape valve.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inazsully said:


> phrelin said:
> 
> 
> > Dish loses those subs who want access to all sports in HD in their subscriptions.
> ...


DISH's HD problem goes beyond phrelin's comment about subs who want access to "all sports in HD". DISH's problem is that they hardly have any regional sports in HD. If you're a fan of something that is only televised on national channels (ESPN etc) or locals (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) you'll find your sports - likely in HD - on DISH but if you're a fan of an RSN sport there is a terrible lack of HD content. And while cable easily fails the "all sports in HD" by not even offering "all sports in SD" they do carry the sports people care about most - their local teams.

Fortunately I'm a NASCAR fan, so ESPN, SPEED, TNT, ABC and FOX is enough (no RSN required). But there are a lot of RSN sports fans who might as well give up on expecting to see their games in HD. Back when HD began having the occasional game in HD was a bonus ... something extra ... but this is 2011 and "game only" carriage of RSNs needs to end.

That being said, HD is only part of the subscriber picture. There are still a lot of subscribers who only want SD. I believe these are the people who are the backbone of the customer base. They don't ask for much and they end up paying HD prices for SD content. Probably the perfect subscribers.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> That being said, HD is only part of the subscriber picture. There are still a lot of subscribers who only want SD. I believe these are the people who are the backbone of the customer base. They don't ask for much and they end up paying HD prices for SD content. Probably the perfect subscribers.


I guess that would be me. I don't really even know what an RSN is, nor do I care. I don't watch any sports at all, ever. I've had a 5XX box since they first came out and really don't care about HD. I get some HD OTA, but it doesn't impress me enough to change Dish boxes. I just keep plugging along with AT250 because of a certain handful of channels in that package, even though I only have 79 channels in my Favorites menu and only watch about 20-30 of those with any regularity.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Associated Press has a story out about people abandoning both satellite and cable due to economic pressures. Some are probably going to internet TV. A couple people I know have left satellite for cable because they can save money with a bundle that includes TV, internet and phone service. 

I think those who can afford it and have the top tier satellite service will stay with it. But many who want basic TV without the extra bells and whistles like the single provider for everything concept.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> So losing more subs is ok and Dish shouldn't care? :lol:


Based on a previous post here they lost fewer customers than last year they just didn't add as many as last year to offset them. In some respects this is good. Fewer new customers = fewer expendatures on new equipment, etc. This could be why their profits are up.

In the long haul, if the new customers STAY customers then yes... the equipment cost is offset and you wish you had them. If they're people jumping ship all the time, or people that will leave quickly for various reasons it's not a great loss.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

I don't get *any* RSNs anymore, and it's positively irritating. But because i live in the Philly area, my teams wouldn't be on anyway, so it's a net push.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Not all new subscribers are equal.


Excellent point. _If in fact_ DISH is actively shedding high-risk subs, that's a short term hit, but a long-term positive.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Steve said:


> Excellent point. _If in fact_ DISH is actively shedding high-risk subs, that's a short term hit, but a long-term positive.


Then they must be going for the repeated short term hit as they have been doing this for several quarters now.

Wait, doesn't several quarters of net loss equate to long term?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> What DirecTV consistently kicks Dish's a$$ on quarter after quarter is new customer acquisition. Look at the numbers. DirecTV is bleeding customers every quarter too. In fact, many quarters DirecTV actually loses more gross subscribers than Dish does... BUT DirecTV adds WAY more new ones than Dish does... so they keep growing with net gains.
> IF DirecTV ever got a handle on customer retention, they would be unstoppable. Seriously... and I'm a happy Dish customer. I'll say it again... if DirecTV found the magic bullet to keep more customers, they would be unstoppable. No doubt DirecTV wins hands down in new customer gains... which means they can have huge losses and still have net gain!
> Agreed, except for the spinning. I hope you read what I posted in the start of this very message... DirecTV loses more customers each quarter than Dish does in most quarters. Check the numbers.
> Where DirecTV excels is in new subscribers... Both Dish and DirecTV have the same problem with retention most of the time... neither has a good handle on that, but also some of that is going to happen no matter what they do... Dish fails to gain new subscribers at a comparable rate, though, and that is why DirecTV keeps posting net gains.
> ...


You are spinning more this time than you did last time.

You mentioned over and over in this one post that Direct losses more gross subs.

First, what really matters is net, not gross loss. When a company losses more subs each quarter than they gain, there is something wrong, and it isn't just advertising. Dish can keep floating down that deNILE river, but eventually it will lead to an ocean of salty turbulent water where they have no control.

Second, one has to look at percentage of gross loss (churn rate), not total. Of course one may lose more if they have more to lose to begin with. If you lose 1 sub you may think that is good. It is if you have thousands, but it isn't if you have only 10. Instead of looking at total loss of existing subs it is better to look at the percentage of loss. If company A losses 1 sub and company B losses 2 subs, you may think company A did better. Not necessarily. What if company B had 4 times as many subs

Example Company A losses 1 sub out of 100 (1/100 = 1% gross loss)

Example Company B losses 2 subs out of 400 2/400 = 0.5% gross loss)

This means company B actually did twice as good at retaining subs
If you look at the actual churn rate you will see that Dish is higher than Direct, which means they lose a higher percentage of their subs


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Between cable and satellite there were 580,000 subscribers lost the last quarter.
According to Dish Chief Executive Officer Joseph Clayton dish is not to concerned with losing the lower paying customers. Dish is wanting to get the more upscale and higher spending customer. This tells me one thing and one thing only. Dish bills will be taking a large hike in the future. More for equipment rentals, more for package cost and more for the add ons. So if you are wanting that streaming and slingbox features get ready for cost to you the customer to go up. Dish is not to concerned as long as subscriber cost is high enough to show a profit.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Churn is measured in % for a reason. Stating that a company with almost 33% more subscribers loses more customers is going to be obvious.

Even if Dish lost 19k customers every quarter for the next 12 quarters you're only talking about losing 228k customers out of 14 million and change. That's not going to put a dent in $$. However it will hurt their stock price. 

DISH has a brand issue and it needs to fix that before anything can happen. They can still be a profitible company but if it's high dollar stocks they want then they'll have to change their image in the market place first.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

Sports, yep


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

People can't afford and the quality of programming is poo these days.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

DodgerKing said:


> You are spinning more this time than you did last time.
> 
> You mentioned over and over in this one post that Direct losses more gross subs.


Because it is true... and it keeps getting lost in translation.

Dish had a net loss, but that's more because they failed to add new subscribers than it is because they lost too many existing customers.

DirecTV loses more subscribers than Dish by far... but gains way more back.

IF your argument is that Dish is losing too many customers, then you have to agree that DirecTV is losing too many as well... because IF all the Dish customers are leaving because DirecTV is better... then where are the DirecTV customers going?

The truth... is that DirecTV does a better job of adding customers than Dish does... so DirecTV can "afford" to lose more because they are still gaining more...

I guarantee you that neither company wants to lose customers... existing customers are cheaper than new ones... but sometimes retention has costs too... and while DirecTV makes up for their losses, Dish does not.

This is not spin. It's fact. Look at the numbers.

Dish has actually slowed subscriber loss... BUT not grown customer additions. DirecTV hasn't slowed subscriber loss, but continues to grow customer additions.



DodgerKing said:


> First, what really matters is net, not gross loss.


No... what really matters is BOTH taken together.

IF a company gains 1000 customers and loses 999... and another company gains 1 million and loses 999,999... both are a net gain of 1 customer... but the gross numbers tell that the first example needs to work harder at gaining new customers and could easily post a bigger gain, whereas the second example says maybe you need to work on retention more.



DodgerKing said:


> When a company losses more subs each quarter than they gain, there is something wrong


Yes... but as I said, you have to look at the gross numbers to see where the problem might be. It's not rocket science.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

In the no-spin zone, or like I said earlier...................



> *Pay TV industry loses record number of subscribers*
> 
> NEW YORK - The weak economy is hitting Americans where they spend a lot of their free time: at the TV set.
> 
> ...


Continued: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44087017/ns/business-personal_finance/

...people just can't afford it anymore. That's not the fault of the carriers. That's the fault of the programming providers. The same ones who are at fault for many more of the media related problems. (Ashton Kutcher, $700K per episode starting fee for a new role?)


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> That's not the fault of the carriers. That's the fault of the programming providers. The same ones who are at fault for many more of the media related problems. (Ashton Kutcher, $700K per episode starting fee for a new role?)


That says it all. I am old enough to remember when "free" TV in the US was suppose to be a big advantage over the Brits. Oh how I wish the US had adopted the British model.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Wilf said:


> Oh how I wish the US had adopted the British model.


I can't imagine having to pay an annual tax per television to watch lifeline OTA TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> First, what really matters is net, not gross loss.


To the stockholders, the only thing that matters is net profit. In that, DISH Network is quite successful quarter after quarter.

Winning customers who would jump ship based substantially on promotions is a questionable victory.


----------



## Milleruszk (Apr 12, 2005)

I switched from Dish to Direct this past April. I had no issues with Dish other than their lack of carrying any local sports networks. As a hockey fan, once they refused to carry MSN, I knew my days with Dish were numbered. No Rangers, Devils, Islanders, Nets, Knicks, Yankees, Mets, Red Bulls or local horseracing. So far I am very satisfied with Direct. I have had no problems with their equipment. I find the whole house DVR a great feature. I can now see all of these teams in HD every game. 

I would love to see the NY city area numbers for subscribers who quit Dish over this issue. When I cancelled Dish, and explained to the CSR why I was cancelling, they stopped all retention offers.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Milleruszk said:


> I had no issues with Dish other than their lack of carrying any local sports networks.


I never have been (and never will be) able to understand that level of obsession over something so insignificant.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"SayWhat?" said:


> I never have been (and never will be) able to understand that level of obsession over something so insignificant.


There has to be something you enjoy that others find insignificant.


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I never have been (and never will be) able to understand that level of obsession over something so insignificant.


Agreed... I am glad that DISH stood up to the corporate rip-off artists making outrageous demands and dropped the channel. That damned company would not be happy letting those who wanted the sports pay extra for it. They demanded that EVERYBODY pay the increased prices no matter if they wanted it or not.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SayWhat? said:


> I never have been (and never will be) able to understand that level of obsession over something so insignificant.


As the saying goes "one man's candy can be another man's poison".


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> There has to be something you enjoy that others find insignificant.


Enjoy, Yes. Obsess over, No. If a program or channel gets dropped, I find something else to watch or do. I wouldn't drop a service provider over something like that.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

inazsully said:


> The thing I wonder about is what % of subs switch away from "E" because of it's lack of sports programming? ESPN News, ESPNU. MLB, FSNHD's 24/7. I see many sports haters on this site but I also feel that sports in general as being the single biggest draw for subs in the country. It used to be that males in the 18-45 demographic drove the industry and that may still be the case. But women are now much stronger in desiring sports programming. Look at women's basketball and softball as an example not to slight the female influence in NASCAR viewing. The desire for local RSN's in 24/7 HD is beyond huge.


I didn't get Dish for Sports, I got Dish to get away from AT&T Cable in 1998.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> To the stockholders, the only thing that matters is net profit. In that, DISH Network is quite successful quarter after quarter.
> 
> Winning customers who would jump ship based substantially on promotions is a questionable victory.


This is wrong on so many levels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> This is wrong on so many levels.


Why? Is a company to be judged ONLY on the number of customers with no regard for any of the other vital statistics?

DISH remains profitable ... very profitable ... despite spending high hundreds of dollars to acquire each new customer. The ones who come only to leave a couple years later are short term income. The ones who stay are long term income. People looking for the best short term deal are not DISH's best customers.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

harsh said:


> To the stockholders, the only thing that matters is net profit. In that, DISH Network is quite successful quarter after quarter.
> 
> Winning customers who would jump ship based substantially on promotions is a questionable victory.


True. But net profit cannot continue to be made if you keep losing your profit suppliers, the customers


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> I never have been (and never will be) able to understand that level of obsession over something so insignificant.


If you want to see you local team playing in HD for the whole game, like they do on every other provider, then it is a significant (yes, west coast games are still JIP'd quite often).

If you want to watch you local sports programming in HD, like you can on every other provider, then it is a big deal.

Of course, if sports are not that important to you, then of course it will not be significant to said person.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> Enjoy, Yes. Obsess over, No. If a program or channel gets dropped, I find something else to watch or do. I wouldn't drop a service provider over something like that.


Not if that channel is the only source for you to watch your favorite event


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

DodgerKing said:


> True. But net profit cannot continue to be made if you keep losing your profit suppliers, the customers


Depends on the amounts involved. If you have 2 million customers where you're only netting $5 or $10/mo and another million customers where you're netting $20-25/mo, you can easily afford to lose the 2 million less profitable customers since the costs of equipment and delivery will be similar for both groups.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Over the last 3 months, Dish's stock price has decreased 22%, while DTV's down 13%. Nasdaq is down about 1% over the same period.

If you glance at the 2Q11 financial and operational results of PayTv providers, they're all taking a hit. Even DTV's gross ads in the US were significantly below expectations.

That said, I believe that Dish's strategy is the correct one. It's positioning itself as the lower-priced non-sports DTV provider. In a recessionary environment, this may be optimal.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Should read, Nasdaq is down about 13% during same period.


----------



## satjay (Nov 20, 2006)

I think I have read recently though that Dish in the future does not want to position themselves as the low cost alternative


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Dish would never admit as much. Instead, it'd say, "We provide more Value than our Others," or something like that. 

Point is, something gotta give. Over the last decade, median income has been stagnant, while PayTv carriers continue to increase rates at 5%, at least, every year. For awhile, subscribers cut back on other purchases while still paying for PayTv. 

No longer the case.

Moreover, the PayTv industry has got to come to terms with the fact that many recent gainfully-employed college grads no longer see PayTv as necessary. Comedy Central gives you Colbert and Jon Stewart, and you can buy Mad Men from Amazon. 

Of course, if you're a die hard sports fan, you do need to go to DirecTv.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> while PayTv carriers continue to increase rates at 5%, at least, every year.


Once again, it's not the carriers, it's the providers and producers. I'm sure Dish would love to give us 300 commercial-free channels in HD for $30/mo if the providers and producers weren't upping the ante every year. I'll never understand why a local broadcast station should be allowed to demand any money at all from the carriers.


----------



## dare2be (Jul 25, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> I'll never understand why a local broadcast station should be allowed to demand any money at all from the carriers.


Not just broadcast channels, but all cable/subscription channels as well. Remember back in the day, cable channels got the majority of their revenue from subscription fees, and had limited commercials. Now, most of them are just as commercial-ridden as broadcast networks. More of the popular channels should be bidding and PAYING the carriers for the privilege of being on a lower, cheaper tier, which gives them more subscribers which translates to more potential viewership, and thus higher ratings and higher advertising rates = more revenue.

This would in turn lower the carriers' package prices to consumers, drive up carrier subscribers, increasing viewership...etc etc etc.

I just don't understand.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Because it is true... and it keeps getting lost in translation.
> 
> Dish had a net loss, but that's more because they failed to add new subscribers than it is because they lost too many existing customers.
> 
> ...


The real number you want to define is already there. Churn. It takes into account the relative sizes of the companies.

Dish did have a much better quarter in 2011 than 2010. They churned only 1.67% versus 1.78%. That is one of your key points, and is relatively good news.

Unfortunately they are losing net customers. Fortunately they are gaining APRU. Alas, their SAC grew 7%.

Bottom lines: Profit. But long term net losses still hurt. Earnings per share up. (Very good.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Carl Spock said:


> Of course, the best of all worlds is selling expensive stuff to a lot of people. Ask Apple how that's working for them.


It works for Apple because they have quality from the top to bottom... Its will never be perfect, but Apple's gear lasts far longer than any PC I've ever had..


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

I've been with Dish HD for about two years now and for the most part pleased with the service, I do have a few suggestions that I would like to pass on to improve the service.

When channel surfing or typing in the wrong channel number it is easy to get stuck in the information page of a channel, typing in a valid channel number gets you nowhere and the only way out is to channel up or down till you get to an active video/audio feed.

This is just wrong, the unit needs to respond immediately to a valid channel number input/request.

The two interactive channels that never do anything scream "cheap cheap", also the non functioning games and other items on the eastern arc interactive channel page give the same impression of second class.

If Dish wants to up their image above the low cost provider either make the extra stuff work correctly or remove it from view.

Also a 211 unit connected to the internet should do more than just allow pay per views and report viewing habits, it seems to me it would be an easy way to fix the missing games and allow real interactive content.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Why? Is a company to be judged ONLY on the number of customers with no regard for any of the other vital statistics?
> 
> DISH remains profitable ... very profitable ... despite spending high hundreds of dollars to acquire each new customer. The ones who come only to leave a couple years later are short term income. The ones who stay are long term income. People looking for the best short term deal are not DISH's best customers.


Loss of customers is going to result in stagnant profit or reduced profit depending on the time frame. People want to see growth continously for stock to move. People invest to make a profit so they demand that the stock moves upwards. This will not happen with the way DISH posts quarterly results.

As an investor I am concerned with the fact that they are not attempting to fix their major problem which is a large lack of image. If DISH knows what it wants to be then they haven't let anyone else know.

A customer who pays a bill is a customer none the less. If they leave in 2 years you still made a profit on them and they contributed to the bottom line for 2 years. What's more important is that they didn't help your competition as well.

Most people in this thread are looking at it as my provider has a larger e-peen than your provider. I look at it from the investment side and really these results do nothing to make me want to invest or reassure any investment I might have.

So dish can keep their current setup. They will deffinately stay in business and continue to make money. They won't however have an easy time recruiting high end management from the outside or have an easy time making new shareholders happy. The only reason there hasn't been major changes already is because Charlie is the majority share holder who can't be out voted, at least last I saw, so therefor shareholders don't really have much of a voice.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Shades228,

I agree with most of your points. The only one I'm going to slightly quibble with is attracting quality managerial staff. If (always the biggest word in the dictionary) Dish wanted to signal a change in direction, they could find turnaround specialists or attract managerial people who want that kind of challenge. Charlie and the board would have to be convincing in their story, yet it certainly could be done.

Now, if Dish isn't interested in changing the direction and image, then I agree with you on even this point.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

normang said:


> Its will never be perfect, but Apple's gear lasts far longer than any PC I've ever had..


Pee Cee equipment that costs anywhere near what Apple gets for their equipment will likely last as long or longer. Apple builds disposable devices too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> The only reason there hasn't been major changes already is because Charlie is the majority share holder who can't be out voted, at least last I saw, so therefor shareholders don't really have much of a voice.


It seems odd. Mr Ergen started a successful business that turns a fair profit. Investors gave him some money to work with and the current stockholders are along for the ride. IF (that big word) the random stockholders were to take control of the company could they do better? Or would they run it into the ground for their own short term gains, making decisions then getting out before taking the full consequences of their actions?

Mr Ergen and the other founders are there for life. They have a long term if not lifetime commitment to the company. They certainly don't want to see their baby fail any more than a short term investor but they are looking at a much bigger picture.

That being said, this has been a year of change for DISH Network as Mr Ergen is no longer CEO. There is another person at the reigns of the business, one who does not have the same history and outlook. We will likely see changes to operations that may or may not make us, as customers, happy.

I'm hoping for the best ... fill the gaps in HD programming (sports) and try to get away from the "cheap" or "bargain basement" image. Fixing all the other random problems with the service would be a bonus. But #1 (even though I am not a stockholder) is remain profitable. Profitability keeps a company in business. Running the company into the ground to "make customers happy" is a short term proposition.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't understand the concern about Dish losing customers in a bad economy. Once the economy gets better Dish will start making gains. I am not a Dish or DirecTv fan even though I have had both. Now that I have high speed internet at a reasonable cost I am thinking about going back to SkyAngel. They have all the channels I want for $24/month.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Making shareholders happy is often not the best way to run a business.

IF you make your customers happy... and you make a profit... then that is a good business.

But shareholders press for "growth"... and the thing is, not all companies need to grow all the time in order to be a success.

Think of football... In the 4th quarter, when your team is ahead by at least a touchdown... they don't continue to throw down the field for a big gain and risk an interception, fumble, or turnover on downs... instead, they go for short gains to keep moving the chains and run out the clock.

IF a football game were ran by shareholders (fans) instead of coaches... they would push to keep running up the score and posting big gains... which sometimes would result in interceptions ran back the other way and losing the game.

Stocks also are almost never an indication of value of a company... but rather what people think the value ought to be... and stocks end up like comic books and other collectibles... worth whatever someone is willing to pay to own... so stocks can rise on an unprofitable company while falling on a profitable company.

At the end of the day... if you have 14 million customers and are making a profit... it's hard to say too much negative in this economy. I have yet to see a downward trend that spells doom for Dish.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Stocks also are almost never an indication of value of a company... but rather what people think the value ought to be... and stocks end up like comic books and other collectibles... worth whatever someone is willing to pay to own... so stocks can rise on an unprofitable company while falling on a profitable company.


Well said. I would not be shocked if Charlie & Co. take DISH private over the next year. The company is generating enough free cash flow to service debt, and it could innovate so much easier as a private company, relative to quarterly strategy disclosures.

Personally, i do believe that sports programming is so expensive that it's hurting the ability of PayTV carriers to offer reasonably-priced packages.


----------



## jwktiger05 (Aug 1, 2011)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Well said. I would not be shocked if Charlie & Co. take DISH private over the next year. The company is generating enough free cash flow to service debt, and it could innovate so much easier as a private company, relative to quarterly strategy disclosures.
> 
> Personally, i do believe that sports programming is so expensive that it's hurting the ability of PayTV carriers to offer reasonably-priced packages.


- I'd rather keep Dish public as I'd like to buy stock  eventually; that being said if going private helps the business then that's what they should do.


----------



## belunos (Oct 6, 2007)

Dish could have me as a sub if they were to buy out my Tivo sub 

Seriously, I've been looking at their DVR options (a top priority for me). And I hear rumor there a 3 or 4 tuner dvr coming to market. I'm also that rare percentile that could care less about ESPN or Disney (I actually don't know what's happening there.. did they lose ESPN or something?)

Either way, they have the tech and channels I want.

Also, I don't see nearly as much advertising for Dish as I do for D or cable. And in the back of my mind all I can remember is them being the 'cheap' option.. Fair or not, it leaves somewhat of a stigma.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Making shareholders happy is often not the best way to run a business.
> 
> IF you make your customers happy... and you make a profit... then that is a good business.
> 
> ...


The've had enough of them, eventually their profits will have to decrease. You can only move so far to the left side of the normal curve


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> The've had enough of them, eventually their profits will have to decrease. You can only move so far to the left side of the normal curve


I can tell you exactly when DISH's profits will decrease ... when they increase the number of subscribers.

Go ahead and look at the quarterly reports for the past few years ... DISH does a lot better financially in quarters where the net adds are low or negative. They do worse (but still positive) financially when the net adds are higher. Customers are expensive! 

Getting so stuck on the subscriber number count is like getting stuck on the sports channel count, or a particular region's sports channel, or HD channel count, or a particular type of HD channel, or any other single statistic. It is not the whole picture.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Getting so stuck on the subscriber number count is like getting stuck on the sports channel count, or a particular region's sports channel, or HD channel count, or a particular type of HD channel, or any other single statistic. It is not the whole picture.


Yeah... it's like the parable (is it a parable??) about several blind people touching different parts of an elephant and describing the animal in completely different ways as a result of only knowing part of the whole.

Too often people get sucked into one part of a financial report and that doesn't reveal the whole picture.


----------



## Mark Martin (Nov 12, 2009)

DodgerKing said:


> It is simple. The main reason why people chose satellite over local cable or fiber, IMO, is because of packages not offered with their local service. Local packages often include bundling which people jump all over. The only way Dish can compete with these local providers AND the other satellite service is to offer something attractive that nobody else offers. Direct does this with sports, perhaps Dish can do the same with movies?
> 
> To be honest, what I believe is really hurting them is their lack of sports programming, which attracts people to satellite. Even local programming is missing as local RSNs are game only (many good local programming in HD cannot be seen), still many games are JIP'd (even though this was supposed to be taken care of), and virtually nothing is offered in sports in the largest market in the US (NY). Why would sports fans go to Dish when they can get all of their locals in HD through a local provider or through DirecTV?


I agree completely. I moved from DirecTV to Dish because of price but the one thing that almost kept me from doing it is the lack of sports HD and two of my locals are in SD only. DirecTV made a major push to get customers locals in HD and all the national sports channels. I like Dish fine but they need to improve in those two areas in my opinion.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

James Long said:


> I can tell you exactly when DISH's profits will decrease ... when they increase the number of subscribers.
> 
> Go ahead and look at the quarterly reports for the past few years ... DISH does a lot better financially in quarters where the net adds are low or negative. They do worse (but still positive) financially when the net adds are higher. Customers are expensive!
> 
> Getting so stuck on the subscriber number count is like getting stuck on the sports channel count, or a particular region's sports channel, or HD channel count, or a particular type of HD channel, or any other single statistic. It is not the whole picture.


Because they are still to the right of the mean of the normal distribution curve measuring profits. Think about it, once the number of subs goes below a certain value were the money they collect is no longer enough to pay for all of the other costs, then their profits will decrease.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... it's like the parable (is it a parable??) about several blind people touching different parts of an elephant and describing the animal in completely different ways as a result of only knowing part of the whole.
> 
> Too often people get sucked into one part of a financial report and that doesn't reveal the whole picture.


Exactly, such as evaluating profits based solely on one side of a normal distribution where subscribers represents the explanatory variable and profits represents the response variable. Not realizing that once subscriber counts sift too far to the left (decrease), eventually profits will as well.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> Exactly, such as evaluating profits based solely on one side of a normal distribution where subscribers represents the explanatory variable and profits represents the response variable. Not realizing that once subscriber counts sift too far to the left (decrease), eventually profits will as well.


The real variable and context is The Great Recession which, though for many corporations ended months ago, inexorably continues for real people. That is why I said:


phrelin said:


> Dish's ARPU is $78.06 with with 14.056 million subscribers in the quarter ending June 2011. Just before The Great Recession began, in the quarter ending June 2007 it was $66.06 with 13.585 million subscribers.


A poll just released in California noted in the narrative:


> California voters 40 and older are continuing to face tough financial choices in their daily lives. Nearly half (48%) say their household income has declined in the past year, and 50% have had to take money out of their savings to meet daily expenses. Forty‐five percent of respondents say they have cut back on saving for retirement in the past year. One in four (24%) has had to borrow or receive money from a friend or family member just to help them get by.


Notice what the narrative didn't say about entertainment but the chart does:








This is typical and reflects the economic context for companies like Dish. Sure DirecTV has different subscriber numbers than Dish, as do the cable companies, some more favorable, some less favorable. They all are picking at the margins of "cable TV" at this point. But the fact is that Dish's ARPU increased 18% since the second quarter of 2007 and the number of subscribers is still 3.5% higher.

I'm not spinning anything, I have no reason to. It's just that I think those numbers taken together are remarkable considering the context.

I also believe that the focus in home entertainment is shifting from traditional "cable TV" and Dish is making a serious attempt to keep itself relevant. In the second quarter of 2015, we'll see the impact of that and hopefully The Great Recession will have ended for real people allowing them to spend a bit more on home entertainment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

DodgerKing said:


> Exactly, such as evaluating profits based solely on one side of a normal distribution where subscribers represents the explanatory variable and profits represents the response variable. Not realizing that once subscriber counts sift too far to the left (decrease), eventually profits will as well.


Maybe.

You have to consider the cost of new customers too... As James has previously pointed out... in quarters where Dish posts subscriber net gains, their revenue is lower... whereas their profit is up in quarters where they lose customers.

Obviously, if they lose customers every quarter... eventually that would shift to affect profit at some point... BUT it's important to note that there is no such trend in Dish's quarterly reports.

Rather... they post gains, then losses... they go back and forth... and year-to-year they seem to still be increasing overall revenue and number of subscribers.

It's kind of like watching your checking account on a daily basis... On a daily basis your account will be low... and your monthly daily average will be low... but as long as you get a paycheck on schedule twice a month, then those other days where you made no money OR actually lose money are just part of the overall plan.

You know you get paid twice a month... and when you get paid, you have to pay out bills... so it looks like you never have any money... but you get all your bills paid and have lots of stuff, so the grand plan is working. It only fails when you lose your job and stop getting paid.

Same for Dish... day by day or quarter by quarter they may post losses or gains... but if the long term plan is a year-to-year gain... and if they continue to accomplish that... then the quarter-to-quarter stuff is just minutia that needs to be taken in stride.

Where Dish will have a problem is if their year-to-year growth starts going negative on a regular basis OR they have a sudden exodus of a large percentage of their subscribers at some point... but unless and until that happens, I see no reason to believe Dish will not continue rolling along for the long term.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Making shareholders happy is often not the best way to run a business.
> 
> IF you make your customers happy... and you make a profit... then that is a good business.
> 
> ...


On the contrary making share holders happy can have a very positive influence on a company even from a customer stand point.

You keep arguing the customer side of this thread so I'll stop with the investor portion of it. It's clear that most people who are participating in this thread are not share holders of the company they do business with.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> On the contrary making share holders happy can have a very positive influence on a company even from a customer stand point.
> 
> You keep arguing the customer side of this thread so I'll stop with the investor portion of it. It's clear that most people who are participating in this thread are not share holders of the company they do business with.


There's nothing wrong with arguing the shareholder's point of view. I was just pointing out, and you seem to semi-agree, that sometimes what shareholders want and what customers want can be at odds with each other.

Stocks can go up on a company that is bleeding customers... Stocks can go down on a company that is gaining customers and posting a profit.

Heck, there are companies out there that have it written into their prospectus that they are currently not profitable and have no plans to be for XX number of years... and yet their stocks have value and trade... but if the company is operating in the red and plans to do so for 5+ years... then their stocks do not accurately reflect the current value of the company.

Shareholders want profit... profit might come from laying off workers... so shareholders are happy... but consumers get shoddy product and poor technical support and are not happy with the company... thus, shareholder goals and customer goals were at odds with each other.


----------

