# DirecTV 2010 3rd Quarter Results



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=519875



> EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct 18, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV (NASDAQTV) will host a conference call and Internet webcast to discuss its 2010 third quarter financial results, outlook and other forward looking information on Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. ET / 8:00 a.m. PT.
> 
> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2010
> 
> ...


OK, what's this quarter going to look like? I'm betting a nice uptick in subs due to Whole Home DVR service, the new 24 series of receivers and NFL Sunday Ticket sales. Plus they might have picked up some subs from the Dish because of the some of the Disney HD channels being pulled during that quarter.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

This one is going to be tough to call.

As you already mentioned, on the plus side, we have full rollout of the 24 series, WHDVRs, & NFLST.

On the minus side, the nationwide hardware shortages had to cost some new & existing subs that got tired of being rescheduled.

If I had to take a guess, churn up slightly, SAC up a fair amount, net sub add in the 150-200k range.


----------



## toofastgtp (Nov 24, 2008)

Almost forgot about this. Its coming up this thursday


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

And Dish's call is on Friday, http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=521648

Should be interesting to see how the two companies results compare.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

RAD said:


> And Dish's call is on Friday, http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=521648
> 
> Should be interesting to see how the two companies results compare.


Your CEO doesn't start doing commercials when things are going well.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> Your CEO doesn't start doing commercials when things are going well.


Or he's just too cheap to pay for actors. The only commercials for Dish I've seen lately are either Charlie or a bunch of feet proped up in front of a TV.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

RAD said:


> Or he's just too cheap to pay for actors.


Yup. Not like DirecTV where they get a house made of gold to do their commercials in. :lol:

- Merg


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

RAD said:


> Or he's just too cheap to pay for actors. The only commercials for Dish I've seen lately are either Charlie or a bunch of feet proped up in front of a TV.


Actors aren't a huge expense when it comes to commercials. Busting out the CEO like this is an act of desperation. Look at Sprint.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Actors aren't a huge expense when it comes to commercials. Busting out the CEO like this is an act of desperation. Look at Sprint.


Actors can be expensive if they are in the union. They get a residual every time its shown.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

The Merg said:


> Yup. Not like DirecTV where they get a house made of gold to do their commercials in. :lol:
> 
> - Merg


And breed dwarf giraffes -- that HAD to be expensive.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Would the Tivo problems that Dish is having reflect in their call this quarter? Think not, but wondering.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Your CEO doesn't start doing commercials when things are going well.


Then what was that one-hour commercial I saw with the DirecTV CEO?

Oh, wait, that was "Undercover Boss." Never mind.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Morgan Stanley expects +120,000 subs. 

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expect adjusted earnings of 55 cents per share on revenue of $5.98 billion.

Revenue was $5.47 billion Q3-09.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

dcowboy7 said:


> Morgan Stanley expects +120,000 subs.
> 
> Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expect adjusted earnings of 55 cents per share on revenue of $5.98 billion.
> 
> Revenue was $5.47 billion Q3-09.


That means at least another $3/month increase is coming. They need another half-bill for next quarter. :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Q3-2010 Results posted:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/di...-2010-results-2010-11-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

dcowboy7 said:


> Morgan Stanley expects +120,000 subs.


Guessed a little low! Actual number was +174,000.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Another strong quarter.

Good sub gain

Profits up and revenue up

Most things are up from a year ago as well


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Sorry not doing notes, was busy with other things.

I did happen to catch a comment about MRV take being 290,000 customers in 3rd quarter and they were surprised by the demand that they saw for the service.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Subscriber growth in today's market continues....amazing in many ways.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

RAD said:


> Sorry not doing notes, was busy with other things.
> 
> I did happen to catch a comment about MRV take being 290,000 customers in 3rd quarter and they were surprised by the demand that they saw for the service.


 Ahhh, that explains why they raised it from $149 to $199 beginning 11/3. :lol:


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

NR4P said:


> Actors can be expensive if they are in the union. They get a residual every time its shown.


Not true! Actors do not get residuals each time a commercial is run. An actor signs a contract which allows the ad to be shown for a period of time (typically 13 weeks but can be longer depending on the contract). At the end of that run, the commercial must cease or the two parties must agree on terms for a new run.


----------



## mattgwyther (May 22, 2007)

DirecTV Cinema relaunch is actually in December...


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mattgwyther said:


> DirecTV Cinema relaunch is actually in December...


I was just about to post that as well.


----------



## mattgwyther (May 22, 2007)

I'm feeling like they've got something up their sleeve... One analyst referenced a new interface. They still have SW1 & SW2 up there doing very little.

December might be an interesting month...

New GUI? 
VOD via Satellite?
Directv Nomad?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Glad to see it looks well, wonder how the other providers 3rd and 4th will look. Also glad to see MRV taking off, it's one of my most fav things added in recent history.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mattgwyther said:


> I'm feeling like they've got something up their sleeve... One analyst referenced a new interface. They still have SW1 & SW2 up there doing very little.
> 
> December might be an interesting month...
> 
> ...


They mentioned that they were working on a new GUI back in...August I believe. We should see it sometime next year.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

elwaylite said:


> Glad to see it looks well, wonder how the other providers 3rd and 4th will look. Also glad to see MRV taking off, it's one of my most fav things added in recent history.


I would be willing to bet that many will lose subs, including Dish. This will lead to the general headline that states, Cable and Satellite Companies Continue to Loss Subscribers.

They like to lump everything together. So even if one cable company and one satellite company does well, they will still mention them with the others as losing subs


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I like how providers keep blaming the economy.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> I like how providers keep blaming the economy.


Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

To not assume we are idiots.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> I like how providers keep blaming the economy.


Everyone does...It's almost comical.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> Why wouldn't they?


In doing so they are not looking at other causes, many of which may be their own doing.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> In doing so they are not looking at other causes, many of which may be their own doing.


It's a copout.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Too busy today to listen effectively, but I had one ear on the call earlier. I may listen later if I get more time or check out the transcript in a few days .. 

Still, a couple of things caught my ear:

First thing .. An analyst used the term MRV .. What?! I thought it was Whole home DVR Service 

Actually, I thought that was pretty cool and IIRC, it was mentioned around who should get MRV and how should it be packaged, etc. in terms of installation. Seemed to harp on what some folks have discussed here and some indication that the pricing model for MRV (er, WHDS) may be changing.

Secondly, consumers (read: us) need to be prepared for increased costs for services. It sounded like the same story we continue to hear here. DIRECTV is negotiating (perhaps fighting) even to keep prices down, but as contracts get renewed, there simply isn't much choice in some situations. Providers will charge more and DIRECTV will have to pass the costs along. So we need to expect the recent trend to continue (somewhat unabated it seems). There seemed to be some sort of push for a "lesser" type package that may be beneficial to some subscribers, but I think in general it's looking like costs will continue to rise.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

fluffybear said:


> Not true! Actors do not get residuals each time a commercial is run. An actor signs a contract which allows the ad to be shown for a period of time (typically 13 weeks but can be longer depending on the contract). At the end of that run, the commercial must cease or the two parties must agree on terms for a new run.


Key word = Union

An actor isn't going to sign a 13 week contract without knowing exactly how many times the ad will be run, or a max limit. With Directv's channel capacity, its thousands of runs. Directv uses their ads as fillers too when they don't sell the time.

Non union or non-US actors have different contracts.

My source are the actors, have some in the family that do commercials.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Secondly, consumers (read: us) need to be prepared for increased costs for services. It sounded like the same story we continue to hear here. DIRECTV is negotiating (perhaps fighting) even to keep prices down, but as contracts get renewed, there simply isn't much choice in some situations. Providers will charge more and DIRECTV will have to pass the costs along. So we need to expect the recent trend to continue (somewhat unabated it seems). There seemed to be some sort of push for a "lesser" type package that may be beneficial to some subscribers, but I think in general it's looking like costs will continue to rise.


Doug, you nailed it. Alot of folks here are pleased at the Directv increased revenue and profits. But its coming from our pockets. Not denying the right of Directv to make money, but as providers increase costs on Directv, if they were merely passing them along, the profit margin as a percent would decline year to year. But as profit margin as a percent grows each year, that means for every incremental dollar of cost, they are charging us more than a dollar.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Well, short of dropping to select I am at the cheapest I can get (Choice) with no premiums. I wont be able to afford MLBEI next year, and am about to have to turn in a DVR and a receiver to lower the bill another $10. Its nice they can keep raising their prices and making a profit, without adding any basic channels in HD, but Im at the limit, and my boss just doesnt understand when our business is down 50%, why she should give me a 10% pay raise to cover all these price increases from corporate america.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RAD said:


> I did happen to catch a comment about MRV take being 290,000 customers in 3rd quarter and they were surprised by the demand that they saw for the service.


Really? Somebody in management should get a big Duh!

They should ask us about these things.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

RAD said:


> Sorry not doing notes, was busy with other things.
> 
> I did happen to catch a comment about MRV take being 290,000 customers in 3rd quarter and they were surprised by the demand that they saw for the service.





Herdfan said:


> Really? Somebody in management should get a big Duh!
> 
> They should ask us about these things.


Got that right. When the HD DVR wish list first started up that was my #1 request to get added.


----------



## sorrycharlie (Jul 17, 2010)

That's because management is clueless. Look of the lack of HD adds and that tells you the whole story! If prices are going up then I better see a festevous of over 100 brand new non ppv, or sports HD channels to justify the increased programming costs.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Everything seems to be looking up for DirecTV. They are firing on all cylinders. More HD will come soon enough. 197 and counting...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

sorrycharlie said:


> That's because management is clueless. Look of the lack of HD adds and that tells you the whole story! If prices are going up then I better see a festevous of over 100 brand new non ppv, or sports HD channels to justify the increased programming costs.


I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sorrycharlie said:


> That's because management is clueless.


Incredibly. The company is performing so well, when will these idiots realize they don't know what they're doing? They keep adding more and more subs and making more and more money. It's pretty disgusting to see what a great job they're doing.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Incredibly. The company is performing so well, when will these idiots realize they don't know what they're doing? They keep adding more and more subs and making more and more money. It's pretty disgusting to see what a great job they're doing.


:lol: +1

I also noticed that they are now just shy of 19 million subs. I'm sure they will pass that mark by the end of Q4.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> :lol: +1
> 
> I also noticed that they are now just shy of 19 million subs. I'm sure they will pass that mark by the end of Q4.


People's minds are made up, don't you go around confusing them with the facts.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Really? Somebody in management should get a big Duh!
> 
> They should ask us about these things.


Wasn't the general consensus here that we wouldn't pay anything for MRV?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Hey...at least we don't have to worry about this:

From Dish Network's Q3 report:


> If we are unsuccessful in overturning the District Court's ruling on Tivo's motion for contempt, we are not successful in developing and deploying potential new alternative technology and we are unable to reach a license agreement with Tivo on reasonable terms, we would be subject to substantial liability and would be prohibited from offering DVR functionality that would result in a significant loss of subscribers and place us at a significant disadvantage to our competitors.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hasan said:


> People's minds are made up, don't you go around confusing them with the facts.


mostly there is a lot of angst and anger over pricing. Trust me, I get that. In the call, DIRECTV seemed sensitive to that fact, but it was also a wake up call in saying that it's not likely DIRECTV can hold the net cost increase @ zero.

Part of the strategy by DIRECTV is to provide some value-added services. We might pay more but we've gotten extra services (WHDS).

One other thing that DIRECTV was worried about was the whole "Free HD" thing. A bit of good news is that it sounded to me that since they offered Free HD DIRECTV is getting more of the customer that they are seeking (the high-end customer). So DIRECTV actually considered that program to be a positive for the company even though they were giving things away.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Wasn't the general consensus here that we wouldn't pay anything for MRV?


Ya had to bring that up, huh? !rolling


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Congrats DIRECTV on $trong growth. Way to crush the competition.

Regarding HD channels:
(Tiny Tim voice) Excuse me Sir, may I have another? Throw us mere poor peasants an HD channel.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Ya had to bring that up, huh? !rolling


hey, I didn't agree with it at the time .. I knew it would be a huge positive because everyone can relate to that functionality. Fortunately from a consumer perspective, it's only a $36 add each year. In my case, I was able to cut down by one receiver so I ended up saving $2/month until the next rate increase.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Hey...at least we don't have to worry about this:
> 
> From Dish Network's Q3 report:


Realistically, Dish subs don't have to worry about it either. It's just a worst-case scenario that they have to spell out to cover their asses.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> hey, I didn't agree with it at the time .. I knew it would be a huge positive because everyone can relate to that functionality. Fortunately from a consumer perspective, it's only a $36 add each year. In my case, I was able to cut down by one receiver so I ended up saving $2/month until the next rate increase.


Translation = I Told Ya So. :lol:


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> hey, I didn't agree with it at the time .. I knew it would be a huge positive because everyone can relate to that functionality. Fortunately from a consumer perspective, it's only a $36 add each year. In my case, I was able to cut down by one receiver so I ended up saving $2/month until the next rate increase.


I didn't either (agree), but I paid for it for quite a few years by not renewing NFL-ST. I have much more use for MRV than NFL-ST. Best move I've made in a while. I wasn't sure how much I'd miss it...but the ever escalating prices caused me to try to find out. I did. I don't miss it at all, and still record more football than I have time to watch. It's been a win (MRV) win for me!


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

NR4P said:


> Key word = Union
> 
> An actor isn't going to sign a 13 week contract without knowing exactly how many times the ad will be run, or a max limit. With Directv's channel capacity, its thousands of runs. Directv uses their ads as fillers too when they don't sell the time.
> 
> ...


Your statement was an actor gets residuals every time the commercial is run and and that is not true.

my source comes from the actors as well including myself, A UNION actor.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Wasn't the general consensus here that we wouldn't pay anything for MRV?


Yes, but how many ponied up and did it anyway?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Yes, but how many ponied up and did it anyway?


Not me!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> mostly there is a lot of angst and anger over pricing. Trust me, I get that. In the call, DIRECTV seemed sensitive to that fact, but it was also a wake up call in saying that it's not likely DIRECTV can hold the net cost increase @ zero.


Perhaps DirecTV should go to a pricing model that some utilities have adopted where the costs of the enery is broken out from the cost of providing the service, similar to what XM/Sirius is doing with their music rotalty fee.

So instead of a set price for service, it may be

Satellite Service $20.00
Programming Fees Passthru $45.00

This will let the consumers know how much they are paying for the programmming and when a rate increase happens due to increase programming costs, they know who to blame.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Perhaps DirecTV should go to a pricing model that some utilities have adopted where the costs of the enery is broken out from the cost of providing the service, similar to what XM/Sirius is doing with their music rotalty fee.
> 
> So instead of a set price for service, it may be
> 
> ...


Good idea in theory, but the fact is that price increases are almost never solely due to rising programming costs. DirecTV wouldn't want to make it so obvious by breaking down the pricing that way.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Good idea in theory, but the fact is that price increases are almost never solely due to rising programming costs. *DirecTV wouldn't want to make it so obvious by breaking down the pricing that way*.


I agree.

*Cafeteria pricing* has been replaced in most circles with *bundled pricing*. It presents the provider with less headaches for changes, questions, and the like.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I agree.


You must have quoted the wrong post! :lol:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> Sorry not doing notes, was busy with other things.
> 
> I did happen to catch a comment about MRV take being 290,000 customers in 3rd quarter and they were surprised by the demand that they saw for the service.


I'm surprised their is any demand for it. MRV is something I've never seen a use for. Our household may be atypical of course, however no-one has ever said I wish I could continue watching in the bedroom. To me MRV is just one more thing chewing away at family togetherness. OTOH MRV may be what's driving their subscriber gain vs other providers.



Davenlr said:


> Well, short of dropping to select I am at the cheapest I can get (Choice) with no premiums. I wont be able to afford MLBEI next year, and am about to have to turn in a DVR and a receiver to lower the bill another $10. Its nice they can keep raising their prices and making a profit, without adding any basic channels in HD, but Im at the limit, and my boss just doesnt understand when our business is down 50%, why she should give me a 10% pay raise to cover all these price increases from corporate america.


And the ever increasing costs are why most providers are losing subscribers, IMHO. I was lucky, I didn't even have to ask for a raise, it was just given. I'm throwing it away on Cablevisions Ultimate internet service, They're scheduled to install in a few days. The excitement is building. I can't wait to go to 101Mb internet from the old slow 30Mb internet. Cheaper than the FIOS 50Mb too. I'm lucky to have a choice of Internet providers and 4 TV providers + OTA.

It wasn't cost that made me drop HBO, Cinemax, & Showtime it was the fact that if I recorded & watched more than one thing from any one of them a month it was a lot.



Hutchinshouse said:


> Congrats DIRECTV on $trong growth. Way to crush the competition.
> 
> Regarding HD channels:
> (Tiny Tim voice) Excuse me Sir, may I have another? Throw us mere poor peasants an HD channel.


How many of those subs came from Cablevision during their FOX problems?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> I'm surprised their is any demand for it. MRV is something I've never seen a use for. Our household may be atypical of course, however no-one has ever said I wish I could continue watching in the bedroom. *To me MRV is just one more thing chewing away at family togetherness*.


I think that the family can move just fine as a group from one HDTV in one room to another HDTV in another room to view the same recording, and still be together. 

In the mean time...MRV has exceeded even DirecTV's own estimates for adoption...so it is quite a popular capability.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

That presumes each person isn't going off to watch their own content. One TV in the Living room and two in bedrooms, one of which is on basic cable only and that one has no desire to have satellite, I ask monthly.

To some TV is not a biggie. I Think my brother has had the same 19" since the somewhere during twentieth century. However take away his computer and that is a different story.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> That presumes each person isn't going off to watch their own content. One TV in the Living room and two in bedrooms, one of which is on basic cable only and that one has no desire to have satellite, I ask monthly.
> 
> To some TV is not a biggie. I Think my brother has had the same 19" since the somewhere during twentieth century. However take away his computer and that is a different story.


Interesting...but likely not indicative of the general population, nor how MRV would be used/accepted.

There are plenty of folks at DBSTalk where MRV is a staple of daily viewing abilities and habits, based on the conveniences it brings. So I suppose it comes down to personal preferences, which is certainly not right or wrong.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> To me MRV is just one more thing chewing away at family togetherness.


I see it another way. You don't have Mom's programs only accessible on Mom's DVR. And little Joey's programs only on little Joey's DVR. They can watch their programs anywhere they are sitting with the family.

Plus, since the same stream cannot be watched in more than one place at a time, it means they watch together.

BTW, it is far more than just continuing to watch in another location from where you stopped. It is just being able to watch AT ALL from one location to another. It means you can have 3 DVRs in 3 different rooms servicing local TVs and yet use them as a set of 6 tuners and 3 disk drives for programming to be available anywhere. The least use I make of it is to pick up watching in another room. I use it to have DVRs double up as local machines that can be used anywhere in my house.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> To me MRV is just one more thing chewing away at family togetherness.


Actually for us it is the opposite. Before MRV, once homework was done, our daughter would go down to her playroom to watch Spongebob. Now she just goes to the Living Room which is just off the kitchen because she can watch her recorded shows there.


----------



## itherrkr (Sep 24, 2007)

Or in my case, I am able to record 3 or 4 shows that air at the same time, or watch one while I tape 2 different shows, something that used to frustrate me, but now makes me smile.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

This may have been posted somewhere else, but I didn't have any luck finding it. thewrap.com claims that directv's earnings report yesterday, said their 27% gain was due to their dropping the $10 HD fee. For who??? I'm still having to pay it. I knew about the free HD for 24 months for newbies, but nowhere have I heard about free HD for us longtime subscribers.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Hey...at least we don't have to worry about this:
> 
> From Dish Network's Q3 report:


As DirecTV subscribers, we never had Dish Network's problems to worry about. From a free market perspective, it would be worrisome as DirecTV customers should DirecTV lose serious competition on the national level. Without a strong alternative for customers, they could always go for what was the absolute best choice for their bottom line without taking customers' desires into account.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

jdh8668 said:


> thewrap.com claims that directv's earnings report yesterday, said their 27% gain was due to their dropping the $10 HD fee.
> 
> For who??? I'm still having to pay it. I knew about the free HD for 24 months for newbies, but nowhere have I heard about free HD for us longtime subscribers.


If you elect to have Auto Bill Pay you will get a $10 per month Credit to Offset the HD Fee.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

itherrkr said:


> Or in my case, I am able to record 3 or 4 shows that air at the same time, or watch one while I tape 2 different shows, something that used to frustrate me, but now makes me smile.


ON a Tuesday I might record Two shows and watch WLIW (PBS) live from cable, that's the only time we need more that two shows at once. It can normally be record two and watch a older show to be able to skip through commercials max.

I haven't been able to watch anything live in a long time due to commercials.

Before I bought the Tivo standalone 40 hour model I was wearing out SVHS VCR's for time shifting and being able to FF through commercials.

My problem is get up do the morning rituals, drink a cup of coffee, go to work.
Drive home, have supper, now eight o clock, relax over a book for a little while, watch some TV off of the DVR. Notice that I've recorded more than I have time to watch, delete the older shows if room is getting scarce, Keep what looks OK for when re-runs are on. Look at clock and retire to bed. repeat 6 days a week. Play on computer some on day off if free time. Want fastest internet possible due to lack of time on computer.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

QuickDrop said:


> As DirecTV subscribers, we never had Dish Network's problems to worry about. From a free market perspective, it would be worrisome as DirecTV customers should DirecTV lose serious competition on the national level. Without a strong alternative for customers, they could always go for what was the absolute best choice for their bottom line without taking customers' desires into account.


I first started looking at Satellite TV when the Cablevision started knocking them. At that point D* & E* were both in existence. I'm glad there is competition.

I currently can choose from DirecTV, Dishnetwork, FIOS, and Cablevision + OTA. Every one has pluses and minuses.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jdh8668 said:


> This may have been posted somewhere else, but I didn't have any luck finding it. thewrap.com claims that directv's earnings report yesterday, said their 27% gain was due to their dropping the $10 HD fee. For who??? I'm still having to pay it. I knew about the free HD for 24 months for newbies, but nowhere have I heard about free HD for us longtime subscribers.


I don't know that it was "because of" .. I suspect the net gain was due to multiple factors:

Free HD for Life for new customers (more sign ups than without)
DISH/Fox dispute
DIRECTV is just better  (OK, I just threw this one in .. )

I haven't read the article from thewrap.com, but I'm sure the fact that there is HD for Life encouraged some people to sign up that may not have signed up if it weren't there. This would improve their gain.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't know that it was "because of" .. I suspect the net gain was due to multiple factors:
> 
> DISH/Fox dispute


That didn't hit until the 4th quarter, so it had little to no effect on the 3rd quarter numbers.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't know that it was "because of" .. I suspect the net gain was due to multiple factors:
> 
> Free HD for Life for new customers (more sign ups than without)
> DISH/Fox dispute
> ...


Don't know how much effect the Dish/Fox dispute had on the Q3 numbers. Now Q4, that may be a different story. Off the top of my head, I would say I switched 25-30 houses over who were switching specifically because of the dispute. There was also one commercial account that switched as well.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

The company said that its decision to drop a $10-a-month premium for HD helped it retain a net gain in subscribers.

The *"NFL Sunday Ticket"* accounted for nearly a quarter of DirecTV's new subscribers in the last three months, the company said.

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/directv-decision-drop-10-hd-fee-boosts-earnings-22283

Guess thats 1 reason they will pony up $1,000,000,000 per year for 4 years starting 2011.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> Guess thats 1 reason they will pony up $1,000,000,000 per year for 4 years starting 2011.


One of many, including how much they make off of the bars that have it. Locking up the NFLST exclusive was probably the single best business decisions DirecTV ever made.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> One of many, including how much they make off of the bars that have it. Locking up the NFLST exclusive was probably the single best business decisions DirecTV ever made.


Certainly one of the best.

Then again...if the league is sitting on their hands of a new collective bargaining agreement in 2011...think of all the lost revenue...UGH.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Transcript of the call can be found at http://seekingalpha.com/article/234...lts-earnings-call-transcript?source=thestreet


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

richierich said:


> If you elect to have Auto Bill Pay you will get a $10 per month Credit to Offset the HD Fee.


I have had auto bill pay since 2002. Is there anyone else who has had their HD fee dropped (that had HD service prior to the free hd for life promotion)? And if so, what did you have to say to customer service?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

With the increase in churn and the HUGE increase in SAC year over year, I would hope they will begin to focus a little more on retention of existing subscribers.

At an average SAC of $800, it will take ~3 qtrs before each new sub is contributing positive revenue. I think a good companion stat to monitor along with the net adds would be the net adds as a % of gross adds (basically a reflection of churn but based solely on the actual change and not as a percentage of total subscribers). The lower that percentage, the "less-positive" that net-add result is. 

Using Q3 amounts, that figure is approximately 15%. Every increase of 1% (~70K subs retained instead of added) in that figure would amount to roughly $18M in revenue and a cost reduction of around $37M. To me it would seem very beneficial to focus more strongly on preventing the losses of current subscribers more so than attracting new ones. Granted, gaining is better than losing for sure, but the ~1M profitable subs that were replaced with non-pofitable ones is what I would be focused on as an executive.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

jdh8668 said:


> I have had auto bill pay since 2002. Is there anyone else who has had their HD fee dropped (that had HD service prior to the free hd for life promotion)? And if so, what did you have to say to customer service?


Not sure if they are still giving it out as readily as before, but it was just a simple matter of calling and requesting it. You might have to be a little more "upset" about it these days in order to get them to add it, but maybe not. "CRS roulette" still seems to be the game of choice...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> With the *increase in churn *and the HUGE increase in SAC year over year, I would hope they will begin to focus a little more on retention of existing subscribers.


Hmmm...

Mike White reported exactly the opposite - a *lower* churn rate than before...

"In fact our third quarter was the first time in six quarters where both our gross adds and our churn, were better than prior year's period, resulting in a 28% increase in net additions to 174,000."

That's good news of course.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

I think the churn went UP compared to Q2-10 but DOWN compared to Q3-09.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> With the increase in churn and the HUGE increase in SAC year over year, I would hope they will begin to focus a little more on retention of existing subscribers.


How? What would you do?

SAC going up... 
More advertising is needed to counter the other guys advertising. You have now advertise and market, in many different areas... because there is so much competition.
Advanced equipment is not inexpensive..... with lower costs of TV's now adays... people just don't get 1 box, they get 2,3,4,5,6

Not that long ago... people only had 1 HDTV, now... they have HDTV's in the bathroom.

At least DIRECTV's SAC is not even in the same discussions as FIOS... now that is an expensive SAC

Obviously the goal is to keep SAC in control, as that is just solid business... but in today's market... You can just get rid of SAC, SAC is a major component of the process.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Mike White reported exactly the opposite - a *lower* churn rate than before...
> 
> ...


That fiqure was quarter over quarter, not year over year.

Q3-10 at 1.70% was slightly lower than Q3-09 at 1.72%, however YTD-10 is slightly higher at 1.56% over YTD-09 at 1.53%. All other things being equal that sounds relatively good. BUT, most likely due to the all the new WHDVR equipment offers, the Q3 SAC is up ~15% and the YTD ~12% and that is NOT a good thing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> That fiqure was quarter over quarter, not year over year.
> 
> Q3-10 at 1.70% was slightly lower than Q3-09 at 1.72%, however YTD-10 is slightly higher at 1.56% over YTD-09 at 1.53%. All other things being equal that sounds relatively good. BUT, most likely due to the all the new WHDVR equipment offers, the Q3 SAC is up ~15% and the YTD ~12% and that is NOT a good thing.


They should have a new metric defined:
SRC- Subscriber Retain Cost

Just look at this forum for a small example:
- I want an HR24 for free
- I want to upgrade my 4 older SD boxes, and get 4 HD HDVR's for free or I am going to the other guy.
- I want a SWM-16, because I am planning for the future... even though today I only need a SWM-LNB... 
- They say X equipment config is what I need, but I want Y... I am going to purchase Y, have someone install it... and then demand a credit for it.

Yes, SAC is up... but just look at Q3.. .the HD-Free marketting, having to adjust and compete with that (that is just one of many examples).

The industry is VERY aggressive.
Here in Chicago, I can't pretty much go 15 minutes without seeing some advertising for Comcast, XFinity, AT&T Uverse, and Dish Network.

And Chicago stations, are probably more expensive markets to compete and advertise in. (Once you get into the City, you now have RSN and WOW as well to compete with)...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Just what does SAC stand for?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

richierich said:


> Just what does SAC stand for?


Subscriber-Acquisition-Cost

The cost to aquire a new customer.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Subscriber-Acquisition-Cost
> 
> The cost to aquire a new customer.


Thanks!!!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How?
> What would you do?


I think I would focus strongly on the "valued-customer" program and things along those lines. Additional and perhaps more "personalized" options for the loyalty rewards. Personally, I don't care about showtime, but If that same reward were applicable to "HD-pack" or perhaps NFLST it would be more meaningful and allow me to realize more bang for my continuing buck. Any way they can think of to allow customers to leverage their years of service to make leaving less attractive would be good.

Another idea that I have thought about from time to time is a system where after so many consecutive years of service you become eligable for upgrades new features suach as MRV, etc. free of charge. Yes, I know that in many cases the "determined" individual can negotiate a great deal, but I'm talking about an across the board policy that doesn't require additional effort or haggling on the subscribers part.

Another "CRAZY" thought I had was the possbility of "long-term" customers actually receiving DISCOUNTS on their service, or at least immunity from increases. I know on the surface it sounds crazy, but look carefully at the dollar amounts required to replace an existing sub and that money could go a LONG way in keeping an existing sub.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> They should have a new metric defined:
> SRC- Subscriber Retain Cost
> 
> Just look at this forum for a small example:
> ...


Agreed, and I think that is a big area that could be handled better. I think they could focus more on "keeping" and perhaps a little less on replacing and see better value in it.

They do list some figures for things like hardware costs related to "upgrades and rentention" but nothing very telling other than they are much lower than their "acquisition" counterparts as is to be expected.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

BattleScott said:


> At an average SAC of $800, it will take ~3 qtrs before each new sub is contributing positive revenue.


How do you figure that? If the entire monthly charge was going to DirecTV's pocket then yes but they also have to pay all the program content providers for the channels those subs have. So I'm guessing it's probably closer to that two year mark before DirecTV's making money on those new subs.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

What I am reading from comments here, are a lot of people are offsetting price increases with service decreases. When those people run out of services to decrease, they will either move from or drop DirecTv altogether. I just had to talk my parents (2 HD DVRS, 2 SD recievers, NLFST, MLBEI) out of switching to U-Verse...and the only reason I talked them out of it was it was actually going to cost them more money than separate internet, tv, and phone service after the first three months. Its getting really close tho. My parents will not be subscribing to MLBEI or NFLST next year. 

The problem with these numbers are they do not reflect the trend I am reading about here, and seeing in my own family and friends. That could bite D* in the butt in a year or two.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> What I am reading from comments here, are a lot of people are offsetting price increases with service decreases. When those people run out of services to decrease, they will either move from or drop DirecTv altogether. I just had to talk my parents (2 HD DVRS, 2 SD recievers, NLFST, MLBEI) out of switching to U-Verse...and the only reason I talked them out of it was it was actually going to cost them more money than separate internet, tv, and phone service after the first three months. Its getting really close tho. My parents will not be subscribing to MLBEI or NFLST next year.
> 
> The problem with these numbers are they do not reflect the trend I am reading about here, and seeing in my own family and friends. That could bite D* in the butt in a year or two.


I've done that downgrade, dropping HBO, Cinemax and Sportpack. Partly due to cost, partly due to HBO not worth the premium, Cinemax due to lack of channels and Sportpack just because I wasn't watching anything outside of my RSN.

I have been keeping an eye on TWC's rates for TV, already have them for internet and phone. Looking at just the programming pricing I could save money but the monthly STB charges wipe out those savings very quickly. Between that and lack of a multi room solution guess I'm not going anywhere else, at least for a while.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

RAD said:


> How do you figure that? If the entire monthly charge was going to DirecTV's pocket then yes but they also have to pay all the program content providers for the channels those subs have. So I'm guessing it's probably closer to that two year mark before DirecTV's making money on those new subs.


That's why I stated "contibuting positive revenue" and not profit. Each subscriber accounts for ~$265 on average in revenue each quarter, each new one costs on average $805 per quarter, so it takes approximately 3 quarters for each new sub to pay back their $805 and begin contributing positive revenue.

Obviously "profitability" calculations would be far more complex and with the shared nature of the operating costs would be much harder to determine for an isolated group of subscribers. But in the context of my observations which is "focus on retention", the simple revenue figures work just fine.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dcowboy7 said:


> I think the churn went UP compared to Q2-10 but DOWN compared to Q3-09.


That's not what Mike said...he said *it improved for the first time in 6Quarters*...


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How? What would you do?
> 
> SAC going up...
> More advertising is needed to counter the other guys advertising. You have now advertise and market, in many different areas... because there is so much competition.
> ...


I'm not sure I get you're overall jist, but everything you are stating about SAC seems pretty accurate. It also seems to re-inforce my statement on the benefits of avoiding it whenever possible.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> I think I would focus strongly on the "valued-customer" program and things along those lines. Additional and perhaps more "personalized" options for the loyalty rewards. Personally, I don't care about showtime, but If that same reward were applicable to "HD-pack" or perhaps NFLST it would be more meaningful and allow me to realize more bang for my continuing buck. Any way they can think of to allow customers to leverage their years of service to make leaving less attractive would be good.
> 
> Another idea that I have thought about from time to time is a system where after so many consecutive years of service you become eligable for upgrades new features suach as MRV, etc. free of charge. Yes, I know that in many cases the "determined" individual can negotiate a great deal, but I'm talking about an across the board policy that doesn't require additional effort or haggling on the subscribers part.
> 
> Another "CRAZY" thought I had was the possbility of "long-term" customers actually receiving DISCOUNTS on their service, or at least immunity from increases. I know on the surface it sounds crazy, but look carefully at the dollar amounts required to replace an existing sub and that money could go a LONG way in keeping an existing sub.


So basically credits, lowering the cost of a user to keep the service.
"Immunity" from increases... Increases occur because they have to, for various reasons. Immunity, leads to what I think is one of the biggest problems that make things so complicated: Grandfathering.

But when you are still INCREASING your user base, and those are people that are choosing DIRECTV over the other guy's best deals...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> I'm not sure I get you're overall jist, but everything you are stating about SAC seems pretty accurate. It also seems to re-inforce my statement on the benefits of avoiding it whenever possible.


But avoid it at what cost?

There is a line, where trying to keep a customer... costs you more, then it would be to lose that customer and signup a new one.

But to the point... SAC is always a spot where the company tries to lower it to the most feasable point.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> What I am reading from comments here, are a lot of people are offsetting price increases with service decreases. When those people run out of services to decrease, they will either move from or drop DirecTv altogether. I just had to talk my parents (2 HD DVRS, 2 SD recievers, NLFST, MLBEI) out of switching to U-Verse...and the only reason I talked them out of it was it was actually going to cost them more money than separate internet, tv, and phone service after the first three months. Its getting really close tho. My parents will not be subscribing to MLBEI or NFLST next year.
> 
> The problem with these numbers are they do not reflect the trend I am reading about here, and seeing in my own family and friends. That could bite D* in the butt in a year or two.


While it may have slowed growth... it hasn't hit hard yet, in the last two plus years... since the tripple, and quad plays have come into the picture.

But on the flip... you are starting to see some of those tripple/quad plays, get more expensive now, and the rates are getting set for 1yr, instead of 2.. and so on..


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

At the end of the day...they continue to grow their customer base and make more gross income and net income. I suspect that's both good and a primary goal.

Looking at some of their competitors...life isn't that grand.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's not what Mike said...he said *it improved for the first time in 6Quarters*...


No he said that Q3 was the first time in 6 quarters that BOTH churn AND gross adds were better than the same quarter of the previous year.



|Q3-10|Q3-09|YTD-10|YTD-09
Gross Subscriber Additions|1,137|1,086|3,008|3,309
Average Monthly Subscriber Churn|1.70%|1.72%|1.56%|1.53%
Net Subscriber Additions|174|136|374|820
As you can see, quarter to quarter is a little better, but year over year not so much. Churn is only slightly higher but net adds are well off.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> No he said that Q3 was the first time in 6 quarters that BOTH churn AND gross adds were better than the same quarter of the previous year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Different "day"/ Different "time"

DIRECTV has delibrately slowed down it push to add more users.
Growing too fast, sometimes is worse then not growing at all.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But avoid it at what cost?


Less than $805.00.



Earl Bonovich said:


> There is a line, where trying to keep a customer... costs you more, then it would be to lose that customer and signup a new one.


There's a pretty big margin there. My point is that they seem to be pretty far away from that line at the current point and that perhaps some focus in that area might help the bottom line.



Earl Bonovich said:


> But to the point... SAC is always a spot where the company tries to lower it to the most feasable point.


And they're is no better way to lower it than to not have to pay it if possible.

Obviously, you don't agree and you think they are doing everything within reason to protect those numbers, but based on my own recent experience and those of friends and family that have left, I do not believe that they are. I think they could do more and it would cost less than replacing them.

I will use my parents as a simplistic example, 3 months ago they wanted to add a 2nd HD DVR in place of an old SD receiver from their original install 4 or 5 years ago. They were offered the standard $149.00 + commitment so they checked around and ended up switching to AT&T. To replace them cost $805.00, to keep them would have cost at most $200-$300.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Different "day"/ Different "time"
> 
> DIRECTV has delibrately slowed down it push to add more users.
> Growing too fast, sometimes is worse then not growing at all.


If you are going to purposely slow additions wouldn't it be even more important to protect the existing base?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> With the *increase in churn and the HUGE increase in SAC *year over year...





BattleScott said:


> As you can see, quarter to quarter is a little better, but year over year not so much. *Churn is only slightly higher *but net adds are well off.


Tenths of a percentage point...yeah....a real trend there... !rolling

You're talking out of both sides, not to mention misrepresenting what the facts even say...

Bottom line....trend is improving and not any real problems. You make it sound like things are out of whack... 

*Battle*Zone....now I get it...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Less than $805.00.
> There's a pretty big margin there. My point is that they seem to be pretty far away from that line at the current point and that perhaps some focus in that area might help the bottom line.


There is actually a MAJOR focus on SAC. It is a VERY important metric. 
And one that is critical... but again... you can only go so far to make it work before it starts to become counter productive.



BattleScott said:


> And they're is no better way to lower it than to not have to pay it if possible.


In utopia... yes... but this isn't utopia. This is commercial business. And today you may have achieved at lowering the SAC, but then your competitor does something that throws that out of kilter... you adjust, and then so on.



BattleScott said:


> Obviously, you don't agree and you think they are doing everything within reason to protect those numbers, but based on my own recent experience and those of friends and family that have left, I do not believe that they are. I think they could do more and it would cost less than replacing them.
> 
> I will use my parents as a simplistic example, 3 months ago they wanted to add a 2nd HD DVR in place of an old SD receiver from their original install 4 or 5 years ago. They were offered the standard $149.00 + commitment so they checked around and ended up switching to AT&T. To replace them cost $805.00, to keep them would have cost at most $200-$300.


I don't disagree that lowering SAC is a good thing... it most certainly is.
But you can't sacrafice lowring SAC, if it is going to hurt in the long run

It would cost "$200-$300" today... but what about in 6 months, when the next deal comes along... cost another $200-$300... and then maybe in another 12 months... what happens then? (even with commitments, the ETF doesn't cover the cost)

That is 1 example, out of 1,000,000 unique cases. Each quarter.

Yes... trying to keep some of the 1,000,000 that leave, obviously would be better... no one would really argue that. However, again... at what cost?

If you give someone $100 in credits today... what happens in 2 months, when the next offer comes along? Another $100 in credits to keep them? When is enough enough? AFter they have already gotten $500 in credits, and they still leave?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Tenths of a percentage point...yeah....a real trend there... !rolling
> 
> You're talking out of both sides, not to mention misrepresenting what the facts even say...
> 
> ...


I'll post my original comment again so no one has to go back and read it again:


BattleScott said:


> With the increase in churn and the HUGE increase in SAC year over year, I would hope they will begin to focus a little more on retention of existing subscribers.


Now please enlighten me as to where "I talked out of both sides" or misrepresented anything. I merely stated that with an increase in churn and a very large increase in SAC year over year, that it would be a positive thing to focus on ways of retaining the more profitable exisiting subs.

Now instead of your usual snarky, passive-agressive, defensive babble, please indicate how my observation would in-fact "not" be a good idea.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> I think I would focus strongly on the "valued-customer" program and things along those lines. Additional and perhaps more "personalized" options for the loyalty rewards. Personally, I don't care about showtime, but If that same reward were applicable to "HD-pack" or perhaps NFLST it would be more meaningful and allow me to realize more bang for my continuing buck. Any way they can think of to allow customers to leverage their years of service to make leaving less attractive would be good.


In some respects, this is what the Free HD for new customers and 24-months Free HD for existing customers has turned out to be. It's not an absolute, but it has been a way for "valued customers" to be more likely to choose or stick with DIRECTV.

IIRC, Mike White stated that that was one of the surprises of this quarter .. that the Free HD helped DIRECTV get the customers that they wanted.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes... trying to keep some of the 1,000,000 that leave, obviously would be better... no one would really argue that.


This is the only point I have ever made in this entire exchange. But I guess that since I am of the opinion that they could do better at it and you are not, there must have been some sort of disconnect. For whatever reason it seemed as though you were arguing that.

edit:

Sorry, re-reading this it sounds antagonistic and it was not meant to be. Probably a result of the mind-numbing back and forth with a different poster here.
I only meant to say that since we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on their retention efforts, that probably carried over into the main discussion.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> Now instead of your usual snarky, passive-agressive, defensive babble, please indicate how my observation would in-fact "not" be a good idea.


Lay off the personal attacks...geez. :nono2:

Trying to defend your original comments as anything but negativity that simply isn't there is a farce. All the analysts raved about the results, yet you painted an entirely different picture.

If we were talking about Dish's results, it might actually make 1 ounce of sense...but not these results.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> In some respects, this is what the Free HD for new customers and 24-months Free HD for existing customers has turned out to be. It's not an absolute, but it has been a way for "valued customers" to be more likely to choose or stick with DIRECTV.
> 
> IIRC, Mike White stated that that was one of the surprises of this quarter .. that the Free HD helped DIRECTV get the customers that they wanted.


That is good news then and hopefully they can learn from that "surprise" and come up with additional ways to incentivise more of those existing subs to stay.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Lay off the personal attacks...geez. :nono2:
> 
> Trying to defend your original comments as anything but negativity that simply isn't there is a farce. All the analysts raved about the results, yet you painted an entirely different picture.
> 
> If we were talking about Dish's results, it might actually make 1 ounce of sense...but not these results.


Oh yeah, make your attack then try and turn around and play the victim when someone responds.

The only "negativity" in my comment was that I think they should do more to retain existing subs as a way to offest the increasing SAC and churn. Please tell me where that's wrong? Or preferrably, just go away.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

From SkyReport:



> *DIRECTV Takes the Cake*
> 
> Good cheer oozed out of El Segundo yesterday as DIRECTV reported a quarter's worth of high fives. Net new subs came in at 174K, way above consensus (and beating year earlier figures for the first time in six quarters). On the money side, ARPU grew 4.3% to $88.98/month. In Latin America, DTV added 206K subscribers and earnings (EBITDA) soared to $313M, up 57% y/y. The only (semi) bad news came in Latin American ARPU which declined 2.7% to $58.20/month as more customers opt for lower end tiers.
> 
> Speaking of those lower end tiers, DIRECTV's Mike White reiterated the importance of "greater package flexibility" in the U.S. Said he, they've been talking to programmers about more segmentation as a key strategy "for the entire (media) ecosystem." That said, *the company is flying high with its high-end subscriber push as more customers sign on to DIRECTV's whole home services and HD/DVR offerings*. Plus the company notes it is "aggressively connecting customers to the internet" for additional services.•


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> From SkyReport:


963,000 existing subscribers we're replaced in Q3 at a cost of more than $500M. I can't find anything in that statement that explains how reducing that number would be a bad thing.

Please, end this drama once and for all, and clearly explain where I lied about year-over-year churn and SAC being higher and WHY focusing on the retention of existing subscribers to help combat it would not be a good idea...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I can't say that focusing on retention is necessarily a good thing. There will be a segment of the population that jumps back and forth between providers because they want the "new customer" deals every year or two.

I'm just saying it's hard to look at a raw number and definitively say that reducing that number will improve the bottom line. I can certainly see the parallel you're trying to draw, but if it's a "bad customer" that is lost, does it make sense to spend money to retain them?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I can certainly see the parallel you're trying to draw, but if it's a "bad customer" that is lost, *does it make sense *to spend money to retain them?


Nope - of course it doesn't.

DirecTV has made it no secret that they are looking at churn as the pathway to improve the quality of their paying and loyal customers, with problem accounts being lost along the way. They hold no monopoly on that philosphy.

With increased new subscribers growing the total numbers while losing some less-than-stellar folks along the way, the overall picture looks better in terms of a more stable revenue stream moving forward. No downside to that.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I can't say that focusing on retention is necessarily a good thing. There will be a segment of the population that jumps back and forth between providers because they want the "new customer" deals every year or two.
> 
> I'm just saying it's hard to look at a raw number and definitively say that reducing that number will improve the bottom line. I can certainly see the parallel you're trying to draw, but if it's a "bad customer" that is lost, does it make sense to spend money to retain them?


Well, I certainly never said they should do whatever it takes to try and retain every existing subscriber. Obviously any effort to increase retention should also include safeguards to help ensure the when it's all said and done, the customer was worth retaining.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I can certainly see the parallel you're trying to draw, but if it's a "bad customer" that is lost, does it make sense to spend money to retain them?





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nope - of course it doesn't.
> 
> DirecTV has made it no secret that they are looking at churn as the pathway to improve the quality of their paying and loyal customers, with problem accounts being lost along the way. They hold no monopoly on that philosphy.
> 
> With increased new subscribers growing the total numbers while losing some less-than-stellar folks along the way, the overall picture looks better in terms of a more stable revenue stream moving forward. No downside to that.


If they're a good customer does it make sense NOT to?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

SACs will increase as the industry matures (and given 2Q10 and 3Q10 PayTv subscriber figures, impossible to argue that industry hasn't matured). A wildcard in the US PayTv industry is the impact Hulu, Netflix and co's like Sezmi have on churn.

DTV is the benchmark right now, but if I had to bet, I'd say that it would also begin experiencing subscriber decline within next year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> SACs will increase as the industry matures (and given 2Q10 and 3Q10 PayTv subscriber figures, impossible to argue that industry hasn't matured). A wildcard in the US PayTv industry is the impact Hulu, Netflix and co's like Sezmi have on churn.
> 
> DTV is the benchmark right now, but if I had to bet, I'd say that it would also begin experiencing subscriber decline within next year.


There's always that point in the bell curve when price confronts market acceptability (based on competition and customer value).

Obviously, DirecTV has not reached that point, but your points are well taken.

Perhaps when we look at how Dish has lowered prices a bit and repackaged themselves in 2010 and also added some new channels of late...and still lost net subscribers....they have hit that point.

With the trends in broadband (higher prices, restricted bandwidth, inconsistent delivery), I don't see streaming as having a major impact for maybe another few years down the road.

Some though that the FIOS/fiber rollout would really have a big impact...and yet only cable subscription losses seem to be the measurable impact.

Personally, I think content will have as much impact as anything else. As long as a provider delivers content that people want to see and are willing to pay for at market prices (whatever those are), they'll be fine. If there is continuing deterioration in the quality and quantity of content, the risks get bigger, and pricing and service models would have to change.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> In some respects, this is what the Free HD for new customers and 24-months Free HD for existing customers has turned out to be. It's not an absolute, but it has been a way for "valued customers" to be more likely to choose or stick with DIRECTV.
> 
> IIRC, Mike White stated that that was one of the surprises of this quarter .. that the Free HD helped DIRECTV get the customers that they wanted.


I want to thank Doug for his advice on getting the free HD for existing customers. All I had to do was call up and tell the CSR that I wanted the free 24 month HD special for existing customers. They wanted to make sure I had autobill pay (which I have done for the past 7 years), and in less than 5 minutes, I had the credits starting.:joy:


----------

