# The DIRECTV/DISH Difference ...



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*From today's SKYREPORT*

An interesting look at why DIRECTV added 174K subscribers in 3Q10 while DISH lost -29K: It's in the marketing.


> ​http://www.mediabiz.com/news/skyreport/
> 
> Note analysts from cloud researchers at Trefis.com, DIRECTV spent around $420M for marketing last year, $110M above DISH's spend. Data from this year suggest that the DBS leader has little intention of letting up: For the first nine months of 2010, overall subscriber acquisition costs at DIRECTV have grown to $2,193M, up 5.6% from the first nine months of 2009; upgrade and retention costs grew 4.2% to $853M.
> 
> ...


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

But that's one reason I won't use Direct. Too much junk mail in my mailbox from them. I don't reward spammers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> *From today's SKYREPORT*
> 
> An interesting look at why DIRECTV added 174K subscribers in 3Q10 while DISH lost -29K: It's in the marketing.


3Q was the best net add quarter for DirecTV in over a year (2Q 09 was better but the next five have been down) and the best gross add quarter for DirecTV since 1Q 09 (where the net adds were 460K). 1st and 2nd quarter 10 were the worst DirecTV has done in net ads in at least five years. Meanwhile 3Q was the worst net adds quarter for DISH since 1Q 09.

If one looks ONLY at the one quarter I'd agree that DirecTV's marketing won. I don't believe DISH throwing $110 million more into their message would have helped. DISH needed a better message. One that couldn't have been so easily stolen by DirecTV.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> But that's one reason I won't use Direct. Too much junk mail in my mailbox from them. I don't reward spammers.


DirecTV mails out nearly nothing. All of that money is spent on TV ads (with celebs), with the TV ad audio often used for radio also. And some portion is still used for newspaper ads, which are probably responsible for keeping many papers alive around the country. 

Those direct mailings come from DirecTV retailers, and is where they get most of their new customers.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SayWhat? said:


> But that's one reason I won't use Direct. Too much junk mail in my mailbox from them. I don't reward spammers.


Same goes for DISH. Recieved junk mail from them last week addressed as "Our Neighbor At"......


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> Same goes for DISH. Recieved junk mail from them last week addressed as "Our Neighbor At"......


The same answer applies for both companies ... direct mail is usually being done by resellers and agents, not the main company. Check the contact information on the way to the shredder.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> The same answer applies for both companies ... direct mail is usually being done by resellers and agents, not the main company. Check the contact information on the way to the shredder.


My reply post stated that. Offer came from"Atitude Marketing, LLC, an authorized DISH Network Retailer". I read everything Jim.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Nick said:


> *An interesting look at why DIRECTV added 174K subscribers in 3Q10 while DISH lost -29K: It's in the marketing.*


*


James Long said:



I don't believe DISH throwing $110 million more into their message would have helped. DISH needed a better message.

Click to expand...

It also helps that DirecTV has sustained this all for years now by having what appears to be a more widely-accepted and preferred set of services.

Up until the economic downturn, both services were growing, with DirecTV growing at a faster rate. The pattern of preference has remained unchanged for many years now (numbers), with DirecTV widening the gap above its direct sat competitor.

I disagree with Mr. Long - they don't need a better message - they need a better product & services offering from which they can launch a better message. That takes a commitment to be more than a low cost alternative.*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> My reply post stated that. Offer came from"Atitude Marketing, LLC, an authorized DISH Network Retailer". I read everything Jim.


Well, Sue, you didn't mention Altitude in your post - so your reply post didn't state that.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> It also helps that DirecTV has sustained this all for years now by having what appears to be a more widely-accepted and preferred set of services.
> 
> Up until the economic downturn, both services were growing, with DirecTV growing at a faster rate. The pattern of preference has remained unchanged for many years now (numbers), with DirecTV widening the gap above its direct sat competitor.


For the year ending 1Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 174k net adds? For the year ending 2Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 253k net adds? For the year ending 3Q 2010 what was the difference (in K net subscribers added) between the two companies?



> I disagree with Mr. Long - they don't need a better message - they need a better product & services offering from which they can launch a better message. That takes a commitment to be more than a low cost alternative.


The problem with the message is the other guys keep stealing it. Remember "Better TV for All"? It was followed quickly by "Good TV. Better TV. DirecTV." Using DISH's promotion to bolster DirecTV's advertising. This year's "Free HD" push was trumped by DirecTV's Free HD push ...

DISH needs to find a message they can own.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> For the year ending 1Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 174k net adds? For the year ending 2Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 253k net adds? For the year ending 3Q 2010 what was the difference (in K net subscribers added) between the two companies?
> 
> The problem with the message is the other guys keep stealing it.


Sustained results is the only thing that counts...not a quarter here and a quarter there. Look at the past 5 years through 2010....DirecTV has outperformed the growth of Dish big time. Add in the $$$ they invested in forward-thinking technology...and the differences are clear.

But no service is perfect, which is why both have survived to this point.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

James Long said:


> Well, Sue, you didn't mention Altitude in your post - so your reply post didn't state that.
> 
> For the year ending 1Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 174k net adds? For the year ending 2Q 2010 which provider beat the other by 253k net adds? For the year ending 3Q 2010 what was the difference (in K net subscribers added) between the two companies?
> 
> ...


You really think that this slogan has any effect on new subscriber #'s?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> DISH needs to find a message they can own.


How about...

"DISH Network: Getting rich off the back of TIVO."

"DISH Network: You patent it; we copy it!"

"DISH Network: Cheap, cheaper, cheapest--and we ain't talking just the price!"

"DISH Network: Our CEO's meaner than your CEO."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ndole_mbnd said:


> You really think that this slogan has any effect on new subscriber #'s?


Yes. Image marketing is important. We've spent most of our lives seeing "good, better, best" comparisons in marketing. DirecTV's play off of "Better TV for All" puts their service in the position of "best" in the mind of potential subscribers. Having potential subscribers see your company positively is half the battle.

Even DISH's recent "Lets Watch TV" push has been taken by DirecTV ... "Don't just watch TV, DirecTV."

There are only so many ways for DISH to say "we're cheap" without it coming across as "we're chintzy". DISH's "same HD, lower price" push earlier this year was fairly successful - but using AT120's price only goes so far. Getting in to the comparable price packages (AT200 vs Choice, AT250 vs Choice Ultimate, AEP vs Premier) the savings isn't great AND DirecTV has offered first year discounts that make it difficult to compete on price. (DirecTV's current two year discounts are an even better deal. Normally one could calculate the cost over the length of commitment and still win on DISH pricing.)

So what can DISH say about their service that is true and won't be trumped a month later by DirecTV? They need to find that message.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> But that's one reason I won't use Direct. Too much junk mail in my mailbox from them. I don't reward spammers.


Not sure what mailbox you're referring too -- actual US Mailbox or email? I haven't received any junk mail in my mailbox from DirecTV, but I routinely receive mail from Dish and Comcast. Email-wise, I only receive the emails from DirecTV that I signed up for under My Account/My Profile on DirecTV's web site.

If everything else was equal, I might base my TV provider on how much they 'spam' they send to me (or don't send me); but IMHO one company is far ahead of my other two options I currently have so "spam" didn't impact my selection.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> So what can DISH say about their service that is true and won't be trumped a month later by DirecTV?


Dish can say we have higher additional receiver fees, don't have to worry about DirecTV trumping that


----------



## kcaudiofx (Dec 27, 2009)

I could be waaaaay wrong here, but what I believe helped D* a great deal is the Whole Home DVR, I as a retailer have only been averaging 5 activations a month (yea I am a small guy) but since the launch of Whole Home DVR, I am averaging 15 a month in activations, still a small guy, but my work load has tripled.. Thats why I believe the big jump in Q3's subs.. But again, thats just my opinion, obviously not a fact


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

kcaudiofx said:


> I could be waaaaay wrong here, but what I believe helped D* a great deal is the Whole Home DVR, I as a retailer have only been averaging 5 activations a month (yea I am a small guy) but since the launch of Whole Home DVR, I am averaging 15 a month in activations, still a small guy, but my work load has tripled.. Thats why I believe the big jump in Q3's subs.. But again, thats just my opinion, obviously not a fact


DirecTV in their last financal call basically said that, the uptake on WHDVR service was much higher then they expected.


----------



## imatexsun (Dec 4, 2010)

Just wanted to pass this on to everyone in this always heated topic. Was really sick and disgusted with DISH TV with them pulling my Fox Sports Southwest for over a month awhile back and finally tried out Direct TV. Just got finished trying new Service with DirecTV and the newer Hr24 receiver. Still had my DISH TV installed and was able to mount the DirecTV Slimline Dish right next to the DISH Antenna. I was then able to switch back and forth to compare on my new 65" Panasonic . I was horrified at how bad the pic was when the first few channels came up on the DirecTV receiver when first turned on. Especially on Standard Def! Very noticable difference. I thought something was wrong, but the Tech said its just my big screen size. I then switched over to DISH TV on the same channel and he just shrugged his shoulders and said I dunno. For some reason, the video output of the HR24 produced dimmer brightness, duller color and less resolution. Again, especially on Standard Def. High Def channels were excellent in resolution an sharpness, but even they were dimmer in brightness and color vibrance but I would have accepted it if the standard Def wasnt so bad. THe HR24 worked flawless with no stutters or delays on everything and is a nice looking unit, but works no better then the DISH vip 722 I had. That one is fantastic too, with no flaws. Not sure why DISH TV s picture looks better. Wonder if it goes through some type of enhancer that the other ones dont? By the way, the horrible standard def pics with the DirecTV was as bad as the FIOS I tried earlier ion the year. As much as I wanted to get rid of DISH TV I now admit, at least for me, they have the Best Pic for the biggest screens. I canceled DirecTV and was charged no Early termination fee because it was within 24 hours. I will have to send the brand new receiver back though which I had bought mistakenly. Even with loosing $200 for a receiver, I'm having to stick with DISH.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

imatexsun said:


> Just wanted to pass this on to everyone in this always heated topic. Was really sick and disgusted with DISH TV with them pulling my Fox Sports Southwest for over a month awhile back and finally tried out Direct TV. Just got finished trying new Service with DirecTV and the newer Hr24 receiver. Still had my DISH TV installed and was able to mount the DirecTV Slimline Dish right next to the DISH Antenna. I was then able to switch back and forth to compare on my new 65" Panasonic . I was horrified at how bad the pic was when the first few channels came up on the DirecTV receiver when first turned on. Especially on Standard Def! Very noticable difference. I thought something was wrong, but the Tech said its just my big screen size. I then switched over to DISH TV on the same channel and he just shrugged his shoulders and said I dunno. For some reason, the video output of the HR24 produced dimmer brightness, duller color and less resolution. Again, especially on Standard Def. High Def channels were excellent in resolution an sharpness, but even they were dimmer in brightness and color vibrance but I would have accepted it if the standard Def wasnt so bad. THe HR24 worked flawless with no stutters or delays on everything and is a nice looking unit, but works no better then the DISH vip 722 I had. That one is fantastic too, with no flaws. Not sure why DISH TV s picture looks better. Wonder if it goes through some type of enhancer that the other ones dont? By the way, the horrible standard def pics with the DirecTV was as bad as the FIOS I tried earlier ion the year. As much as I wanted to get rid of DISH TV I now admit, at least for me, they have the Best Pic for the biggest screens. I canceled DirecTV and was charged no Early termination fee because it was within 24 hours. I will have to send the brand new receiver back though which I had bought mistakenly. Even with loosing $200 for a receiver, I'm having to stick with DISH.


Did you do any adjusting/tweeking of your TV's video settings when you connected the HR24 or just use the same settings that you had for your Dish 722? If not then you might have jumped the gun a little bit in cancelling DirecTV. Even between different models of the HR2X's you might need to do some adjusting to get a picture that matches your tastes.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

imatexsun said:


> Just wanted to pass this on to everyone in this always heated topic. Was really sick and disgusted with DISH TV with them pulling my Fox Sports Southwest for over a month awhile back and finally tried out Direct TV. Just got finished trying new Service with DirecTV and the newer Hr24 receiver. Still had my DISH TV installed and was able to mount the DirecTV Slimline Dish right next to the DISH Antenna. I was then able to switch back and forth to compare on my new 65" Panasonic . I was horrified at how bad the pic was when the first few channels came up on the DirecTV receiver when first turned on. Especially on Standard Def! Very noticable difference. I thought something was wrong, but the Tech said its just my big screen size. I then switched over to DISH TV on the same channel and he just shrugged his shoulders and said I dunno. For some reason, the video output of the HR24 produced dimmer brightness, duller color and less resolution. Again, especially on Standard Def. High Def channels were excellent in resolution an sharpness, but even they were dimmer in brightness and color vibrance but I would have accepted it if the standard Def wasnt so bad. THe HR24 worked flawless with no stutters or delays on everything and is a nice looking unit, but works no better then the DISH vip 722 I had. That one is fantastic too, with no flaws. Not sure why DISH TV s picture looks better. Wonder if it goes through some type of enhancer that the other ones dont? By the way, the horrible standard def pics with the DirecTV was as bad as the FIOS I tried earlier ion the year. As much as I wanted to get rid of DISH TV I now admit, at least for me, they have the Best Pic for the biggest screens. I canceled DirecTV and was charged no Early termination fee because it was within 24 hours. I will have to send the brand new receiver back though which I had bought mistakenly. Even with loosing $200 for a receiver, I'm having to stick with DISH.


Did you think to adjust picture & calibration settings on the other input? I've never seen a complaint about Fios PQ...ever.


----------



## imatexsun (Dec 4, 2010)

My thread was getting too large and didnt have enough room to say everything. Of course we tried fiddling with every setting I could find. On the receiver and the TV. I shouldnt have to though. The DirecTV tech also tried a HR23 he had on his truck and while it was better on standard TV , it still wasn't as good as DISH standard. I wouldn't have taken that one anyway as it hung up all the time when trying to scroll the menu. Whether it is the Satellite, the antenna , or the receiver, there is no getting around it, the DISH 722 receiver has a higher Video output level then the Hr24. But that could be by design, so I don't think it matters. I do wonder if the Hr24 does indeed have a lower video output level that it shows up more on the very largest screens? Maybe HDMI is not compensating enough for screen size? Don't know how that works exactly. But I did find out that the HR24-500 that I had, has issues on this exact subject somewhat. 


Oooops, wont let me post threads. Silly me. But search for the title "HR24-500 series poor SD picture" in the DBS threads, you'll find this issue. I guess thats what I got ahold of. 


Attempts to increase contrast and brightness to match the DISH TV levels didnt work. If you increased contrast on the Hr24 it produced grainy pics. 
Even comparing HD pics, we did the blindfold test and no one had a problem telling which pic was DirecTV or DISH. No matter how u adjusted the picture, the DISH TV was always slightly better on HD but was still excellent. 
The DTV antenna says for now , even how stupid it looks sitting next to the DISH antenna and can try another receiver. Maybe the hr24-100. 
again, Not trying to bad mouth either one of them, this is just my experience.


----------



## humanjas (Dec 11, 2009)

imatexsun said:


> My thread was getting too large and didnt have enough room to say everything. Of course we tried fiddling with every setting I could find. On the receiver and the TV. I shouldnt have to though. The DirecTV tech also tried a HR23 he had on his truck and while it was better on standard TV , it still wasn't as good as DISH standard. I wouldn't have taken that one anyway as it hung up all the time when trying to scroll the menu. Whether it is the Satellite, the antenna , or the receiver, there is no getting around it, the DISH 722 receiver has a higher Video output level then the Hr24. But that could be by design, so I don't think it matters. I do wonder if the Hr24 does indeed have a lower video output level that it shows up more on the very largest screens? Maybe HDMI is not compensating enough for screen size? Don't know how that works exactly. But I did find out that the HR24-500 that I had, has issues on this exact subject somewhat.
> 
> Oooops, wont let me post threads. Silly me. But search for the title "HR24-500 series poor SD picture" in the DBS threads, you'll find this issue. I guess thats what I got ahold of.
> 
> ...


What's SD?

Signed,
Everyone who has a 65" TV


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

imatexsun said:


> My thread was getting too large and didnt have enough room to say everything. Of course we tried fiddling with every setting I could find. On the receiver and the TV. I shouldnt have to though. The DirecTV tech also tried a HR23 he had on his truck and while it was better on standard TV , it still wasn't as good as DISH standard. I wouldn't have taken that one anyway as it hung up all the time when trying to scroll the menu. Whether it is the Satellite, the antenna , or the receiver, there is no getting around it, the DISH 722 receiver has a higher Video output level then the Hr24. But that could be by design, so I don't think it matters. I do wonder if the Hr24 does indeed have a lower video output level that it shows up more on the very largest screens? Maybe HDMI is not compensating enough for screen size? Don't know how that works exactly. But I did find out that the HR24-500 that I had, has issues on this exact subject somewhat.
> Oooops, wont let me post threads. Silly me. But search for the title "HR24-500 series poor SD picture" in the DBS threads, you'll find this issue. I guess thats what I got ahold of.
> 
> Attempts to increase contrast and brightness to match the DISH TV levels didnt work. If you increased contrast on the Hr24 it produced grainy pics.
> ...


Im honestly just to lazy to leave this thread and venture to the other one, but you would of wanted to make 100% sure that you had 720p/1080i/1080p seleceted in your receiver options. Most come set to accept them, but mine personally did not. I had to manually input those as accepted resolutions. There should be and technically really can't be a difference in HD picture quality from 1 satellite source to another. History tells me that is the problem you ran into.


----------



## imatexsun (Dec 4, 2010)

SD is standard definition


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

"imatexsun" said:


> SD is standard definition


He knows that hahaha It was a joke meaning that SD looks terrible on huge TVs. And I agree. Not trying to be rude...


----------



## tcatdbs (Jul 10, 2008)

Wow, I was "thinking" of leaving Dish for Direct, but my picture (both SD and HD) is great on a 50" TV. My SD stretched to full screen looks almost as good as HD content (and there's plenty of SD content out there!). So if Direct is even 10% worse, there's no way I'll switch (although it would probably save me $30/mo for a year).

Does Direct have a receiver that can hook up 2 TV's, like the 722, or better with HD on TV2? If not the cost difference is less.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tcatdbs said:


> Does Direct have a receiver that can hook up 2 TV's, like the 722, or better with HD on TV2? If not the cost difference is less.


DIRECTV doesn't offer a box that can independently drive two TVs. You can, however, use a standard HD receiver to watch programs recorded a HD DVR with their $3/month Whole Home DVR Service.


----------

