# DIRECTV Announces Second Quarter 2012 Results



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

*DIRECTV Latin America Increases Net Additions 37% to All-time Record 645,000 Surpassing the 9 Million Cumulative Subscriber Mark

DIRECTV Revenues Grow 9% to $7.22 Billion*

Increase driven by strong DIRECTV Latin America subscriber growth coupled with 4.2% higher ARPU at DIRECTV U.S.

*Operating Profit before Depreciation and Amortization Increases 9% to $2.01 Billion and Operating Profit Grows 15% to $1.41 Billion*

Growth driven by DIRECTV U.S.'s 10% increase in operating profit before depreciation and amortization to $1.59 billion and 20% increase in operating profit to$1.22 billion.

DIRECTV's Diluted Earnings per Share Rise 20% and Stock Repurchases Total $1.35 Billion in the Quarter

EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DIRECTV (NASDAQTV) today reported an increase in second quarter 2012 revenues of 9% to $7.22 billion, operating profit before depreciation and amortization1 (OPBDA) of 9% to $2.01 billion and operating profit of 15% to $1.41 billion compared to last year's second quarter. DIRECTV reported that second quarter net income increased 1% to $711 million and diluted earnings per share grew 20% to $1.09 compared with the same period last year.

"DIRECTV's strong second quarter consolidated results reflect the unique benefits from our diversified portfolio of businesses which are driving industry leading top-line and bottom-line results," said Mike White, president and CEO of DIRECTV. "DIRECTV Latin America's results demonstrate our competitive advantages in a rapidly growing market by achieving an all-time record of 645,000 net additions and 20% revenue growth in the quarter even with currency headwinds. In addition, DIRECTV U.S. delivered the highest operating profit before depreciation and amortization growth in two years accelerating to 10%, an early indication of successfully executing on our long term strategy of striking a more optimal balance between growth and profitability. Also by leveraging the achievements of both DIRECTV Latin America and DIRECTV U.S. with the continuation of our share repurchase program, earnings per share increased by 20% in the quarter."
*
DIRECTV'S Operational Review​**
Second Quarter Review*

DIRECTV's second quarter revenues of $7.22 billion increased 9% principally due to subscriber growth at DIRECTV Latin America (DTVLA) and DIRECTV U.S. over the past twelve months. Also impacting the comparison was higher ARPU and net subscriber losses of 52,000 in the second quarter at DIRECTV U.S. Operating profit before depreciation and amortization (OPBDA) increased 9% to $2.01 billion in the quarter compared with the same period last year. OPBDA margin declined due to higher customer service, upgrade and retention and subscriber acquisition spending at DTVLA, partially offset by higher DIRECTV U.S. OPBDA margin principally driven by lower subscriber acquisition, upgrade and retention costs, as well as relatively unchanged customer service expenses. Also in the quarter, operating profit increased 15% to $1.41 billion and operating profit margin increased to 19.5% due to lower depreciation expense at DIRECTV U.S.

http://investor.directv.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=697550


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

A net gain in LA
A net loss in US of 52k (I believe this is their first loss ever)

A total net gain for US and LA combined


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"DodgerKing" said:


> A net gain in LA
> A net loss in US of 52k (I believe this is their first loss ever)
> 
> A total net gain for US and LA combined


Are we seeing the affect of Dish Hopper marketing for the quarter?


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

raott said:


> Are we seeing the affect of Dish Hopper marketing for the quarter?


That and the Viacom dispute probably.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

raott said:


> Are we seeing the affect of Dish Hopper marketing for the quarter?


Nope. Dish lost even more...much more


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"DodgerKing" said:


> Nope. Dish lost even more...much more


Dish only lost 10k in that same period according to the thread in the Dish forum. Even so, shoots the theory down that they went to Dish.

FIOS isn't really building out, I think U Verse stopped as well, so is it cord cutters?


----------



## onthecake (Dec 11, 2006)

Happy to say I was in that list. Couldn't handle the performance of the lovely HR series anymore and their lack of a solution that didn't cost me even more money.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I think the overriding factor that caused both D* and E* to have net loss of subscribers is more to do with the souring of the economy finally showing up in pay to watch TV. It is hard for many to want or can pay for TV when everything they buy has gone up and their paychecks haven't.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> Nope. Dish lost even more...much more


While DISH hasn't made their official quarterly announcement, the 8K information says your much wrong.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/dish-network-loses-10k-subscribers-q2-2012/2012-07-20

In the first half of the 2012, DISH has added 65,000 more net subscribers.

DIRECTV's US profits remain high with their $94.40 ARPU; up $3.82 over last year's quarter. DIRECTV is fast approaching the triple digits in ARPU and I can't help but think that's going to be a plateau (but I could certainly be wrong).

The DIRECTV LA news would be happier if their ARPU wasn't just over $57 and their churn at 1.80% but that's how they roll.

SAC was $857, up 6.9% over last year. Attracting new customers has become VERY expensive.


----------



## Sgt. Slaughter (Feb 20, 2009)

Well I guess ppl are just cutting cords then overall....

freaking TWC lost 169K subs.... http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/02/twc-q2-2012/


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Sgt. Slaughter said:


> Well I guess ppl are just cutting cords then overall....
> 
> freaking TWC lost 169K subs.... http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/02/twc-q2-2012/


Comcast lost 176k:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Sees-156000-New-Broadband-Subscribers-120599

So Directv, Dish, Comcast and TWC were all down in the second quarter.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

harsh said:


> While DISH hasn't made their official quarterly announcement, the 8K information says your much wrong.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/dish-network-loses-10k-subscribers-q2-2012/2012-07-20
> 
> ...


Not wrong at all. This is the first quarter DirecTV has ever had a net loss is subs, ever. When you factor LA and US, they had a net gain. While Dish, over several quarters, has had a net loss of subs, a lot of subs.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Fios added 134,000....guess they dont have scissors.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"DodgerKing" said:


> Not wrong at all. This is the first quarter DirecTV has ever had a net loss is subs, ever. When you factor LA and US, they had a net gain. While Dish, over several quarters, has had a net loss of subs, a lot of subs.


The post you originally replied to (which Harsh then responded to) was about whether the Dish Hopper was affecting Directv's second quarter numbers. Nothing to do with LA or the first quarter. You asserted that Dish lost many more subscribers. It appears that is not true. Although they did lose 10k, it was not as many US customers as Directv. I'm sure Harsh will correct me, but that is likely why he said you were wrong.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Remember if you have nothing to do the conference call starts at 14:00 EDT, www.directv.com/investor


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Go Beavs said:


> That and the Viacom dispute probably.


The Viacom dispute occurred in the 3rd quarter.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> Fios added 134,000....guess they dont have scissors.


But Fios has a lot more to offer than most other providers (faster internet, perfect PQ, etc.). I think they are an anomaly. Nearly everyone else is losing subs, likely due to cord cutters, many of whom are driven by costs.

What is a bit surprising to me is these losses are despite the most aggressive marketing and best equipment ever (free ST and 5 tuner DVR with HD GUI from DirecTV, and PTAT and Auto-Hop with the Hopper from Dish). So even though the services are better than ever, there's still not enough value there to justify the high cost for many.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

It's finally impacted D*. Took awhile, but it was inevitable.

Glance at my signature line. 

The real median income continues to decline. Yet, PayTv distributors ask for 7%+ annual rate hikes. Something's gotta give.

The ESPN negotiations will be interesting. As someone who doesn't watch much sports (except for the occasional Cardinal football game), I do hope that the PayTV distributors tell ESPN, we'll pay you 70% of what we were paying you last year, take it or leave it.

Solve the ESPN problem and you solve the PayTV subscriber problem. 

Nonsports fans do not want to continue subsidizing the sports fanatic.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Gloria_Chavez" said:


> It's finally impacted D*. Took awhile, but it was inevitable.
> 
> Glance at my signature line.
> 
> ...


You really are fixated on espn. They are not the source of all evils in this business.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> It's finally impacted D*. Took awhile, but it was inevitable.
> 
> Glance at my signature line.
> 
> ...


I don't want to subsidize your Hallmark or Lifetime, or any of those type of channels either. So I guess we are even.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Glance at my signature line.


Your signature line makes no sense, since consumption has no bearing on the cost.

The cost of Milk has gone up too. Is that because people are drinking more milk?


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

tsduke said:


> I don't want to subsidize your Hallmark or Lifetime, or any of those type of channels either. So I guess we are even.


Not quite. Those types of channels only cost a fraction of what ESPN and the like cost. Sports channels that have risen to the point that they should be considered premiums are a big factor in costs rising for everybody, hence more cord cutters, hence subscriber loss.

I see this kind of news as a positive thing. When all providers see their domestic business shrink like it has, they'll start get more serious about controlling costs or face the consequences. Or they might just accept domestic losses, keep the status quo, and concentrate on foreign markets for profits. Who knows. I do think this at least shows we've reached a tipping point.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

spartanstew said:


> Your signature line makes no sense, since consumption has no bearing on the cost.
> 
> The cost of Milk has gone up too. Is that because people are drinking more milk?


I think this has to do with the falling value of the dollar.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


It would seem that early signs point that the new strategy is working...with the subscriber count change balanced to a higher revenue/profit result.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> The Viacom dispute occurred in the 3rd quarter.


Umm, yeah, I knew that... :sure:

Thanks.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


My only problem with this is, if they want to be a premium service provider I think the service needs to reflect that as well. They need to have better customer service, and offer a better selection of channels (get back to being the HD leader). To me a "premium" service provider should be better than the alternatives in every way, not just we have more sports, we have more movies.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


That doesn't bode well for Basic HD.

It does, however, bode well for PAC-12, TWC SportsNet and BeIN Sports USA!


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Beerstalker said:


> (get back to being the HD leader).


There is a difference between:

"We are the HD leader"

and:

"We are the BASIC HD leader".

The first statement is still true if you start counting all the sports and premiums. The second one, obviously, is not.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Not wrong at all. This is the first quarter DirecTV has ever had a net loss is subs, ever. When you factor LA and US, they had a net gain. While Dish, over several quarters, has had a net loss of subs, a lot of subs.


excuses
dish gained 65000 customers in the first 2012 quarter


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

The statement I saw on the CNBC website quoted Mike White as saying that D* would spend more effort retaining current customers than obtaining new ones. That has to be good for D* subs and subsequently for E* subs since they will have to follow suit.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

maartena said:


> That doesn't bode well for Basic HD.
> 
> It does, however, bode well for PAC-12, TWC SportsNet and BeIN Sports USA!


I listened to the financial conference call today and White basically said they would be using the same disciplined approach to sports channels as they do for entertainment. I don't remember the exact working but he also mentioned that with all the new sports channels coming online some folks are not going to be happy with what doesn't get added.


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

Hey Mike White, I`m not happy that Fox Sports Ohio isn`t in HD.
It`s not NEW, not coming online SOON, or any of that other crap.

You know, maintaining the current customer base.......BLAH BLAH BLAH


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> My only problem with this is, if they want to be a premium service provider I think the service needs to reflect that as well. They need to have better customer service, and offer a better selection of channels (get back to being the HD leader). To me a "premium" service provider should be better than the alternatives in every way, not just we have more sports, we have more movies.


Here, here! A "premium" service shouldn't have such buggy software. Bugs as basic as Channels I Get shouldn't be hanging around for years. Audio dropouts, Brrrrps, slow remote response etc, etc, have lessened but not fully fixed. Directv's DVRs may have more features, but when they're considerably slower, buggier than the competition, that doesn't make for a "premium" product.

And, yeah, the premiere home entertainment provider should be the HD leader in all categories, not just some.

And, yeah, this whole thing is probably a fantasy.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"mdavej" said:


> Not quite. Those types of channels only cost a fraction of what ESPN and the like cost. Sports channels that have risen to the point that they should be considered premiums are a big factor in costs rising for everybody, hence more cord cutters, hence subscriber loss.
> 
> I see this kind of news as a positive thing. When all providers see their domestic business shrink like it has, they'll start get more serious about controlling costs or face the consequences. Or they might just accept domestic losses, keep the status quo, and concentrate on foreign markets for profits. Who knows. I do think this at least shows we've reached a tipping point.


A tipping point is when something runs away. We haven't reached that yet that we know. More like we have reached equilibrium.

And watch the cord cutters come scurrying back as ISPs start imposing limits and raising rates.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

RAD said:


> I listened to the financial conference call today and White basically said they would be using the same disciplined approach to sports channels as they do for entertainment. I don't remember the exact working but he also mentioned that with all the new sports channels coming online some folks are not going to be happy with what doesn't get added.


Combined with the above statement regarding "focus on retaining customers rather than gaining new ones", I think the following:

*TWC Sportsnet/Deportes: Yes. 
PAC-12: Yes.*

Both of these will lose LOTS of customers if not carried. PAC12 not only in the Los Angeles area, but also very much in Oregon and Washington. TWC's channels for the Lakers are almost a "must have" for DirecTV, if they want to retain customers.

*BeIN Sports: Nope!.
CSN Philly: Nope!
FS New Orleans: Nope!*.

BeIN Sports, however much I would like it being a soccer fan, is not going to lose that many customers, and it is an upstart with an unsure future. They have no carriers right now, and they just wouldn't be very important to DirecTV's bottom line.

Comcast Philly..... they aren't losing *any* customers by not carrying it, as they have never carried it. They would only *gain* customers by adding this, and as Mike White has said this is not their focus right now, I think Philly will continue to get shafted for a few more years.

FS New Orleans.... is probably a desired channel, and it stands to lose customers in southern Louisiana if not carried. But is the market big enough to warrant it a good business decision? With DirecTV losing thousands upon thousands of physical dishes during Katrina, how many people are actually keeping a satellite provider as their provider down there still? I don't know the market situation there.

*
CSN Houston: Maybe!*

CSN Houston has pros: 2 Popular teams on it, large metro/market area. But it also has cons: Comcast owns it, and they will probably want PREMIUM pricing for this channel. DirecTV has some tough decisions to make here. This might be one they will hold off on till the 2013 MLB season begins, and no sooner then that.

I'm probably forgetting a few sports channels here.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


Let me out of my ETF, and Ill help you guys out with that strategy.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Let me out of my ETF, and Ill help you guys out with that strategy.


Don't you have 2 providers, with Tivos and a home DVRs? A little ETF should be nothing.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> A little ETF should be nothing.


$360 right now, plus the $399 HR34 Id have to return, which was the cause for the contract in the first place...plus they just tacked on $10 more a month for HD. I was just saying, Im never going to be a >$100 ARPU, so since that is what they are after, Id help em along on that


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

maartena said:


> There is a difference between:
> 
> "We are the HD leader"
> 
> ...


Once upon a time, they were both... 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

maartena said:


> FS New Orleans.... is probably a desired channel, and it stands to lose customers in southern Louisiana if not carried. But is the market big enough to warrant it a good business decision? With DirecTV losing thousands upon thousands of physical dishes during Katrina, how many people are actually keeping a satellite provider as their provider down there still? I don't know the market situation there.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I remember reading that the satcos (maybe even DirecTV in particular, I don't remember?) picked up A LOT of customers in the New Orleans (and some of the surrounding) area due to the mess that the cablecos systems were after Katrina.

~Alan


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Beerstalker" said:


> My only problem with this is, if they want to be a premium service provider I think the service needs to reflect that as well. They need to have better customer service, and offer a better selection of channels (get back to being the HD leader). To me a "premium" service provider should be better than the alternatives in every way, not just we have more sports, we have more movies.


I agree with you 100%!


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Alan Gordon" said:


> Once upon a time, they were both...
> 
> ~Alan


Yeah the good ole days Alan!


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Nah guys, they lost subs purposely. No, really, for the higher revenue, anNat. SatRacer even spins it this way and so should everyone else at DBStalk. Keep in line talkers.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


I hate it when this kind of talk comes around...

Don't get me wrong, I think DirecTV most likely has a good deal of customers that they'd be better off without, and I fully respect their tighter credit policies, and focusing more on their higher paying customers (DUH!!). What I have an issue with is this line: "_This is a long-run play, with DirecTV positioning itself as a premium service as television choices grow in number and complexity. _"

I've been with DirecTV since... almost the beginning. I remember when the monthly cost of DirecTV every month got me two to three times the amount of channels those I knew with cable had, with PQ that looked like the best DVD quality whereas they'd have PQ equal to what some people might experience with a pair of rabbit ears (of what I received via a large outdoor antenna) for around the same price.

Yeah, I'm aware that DirecTV has added channels, and I realize that technology has improved (HD, DVR, WHDVR), but to a lesser extent, so has the technology on cable, and Dish Network has entered the scene. Each route has their pluses and minuses, but I look back fondly at DirecTV from then.

A co-worker of mine earlier this year asked her co-workers about which satellite company was best as she was thinking of dumping cable. As I was sharing time with a Dish Network subscriber, I found myself not knowing what to say. I prefer DirecTV, but it works out better for me personally, whereas most people around here have Dish Network, and prefer it. I tried to think of something, but I really couldn't. Things being what they are, she'd probably save money with Dish Network versus DirecTV. In the end, the only advice I could offer was to check out what both services offered for what prices, and that I'd be there to answer any questions she may have.

Now DirecTV wants to position itself as a premium service? What does that mean?! Right now, I don't really see them being any better than some of the choices out there. If they're just talking about promoting their higher packages and better credit requirements only, I think the wording is weird. To me, a premium service is a service that is so good, it requires a premium, and I don't see anything differentiate DirecTV enough to require it at this time.

Criticize away... 

~Alan


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


Part of being a premium service is having most, if not all HD channels. They have a ways to go.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Sports. They are going to charge a premium price for the privilege of watching sports, and movie channels...at the expense of basics. That would be my take on it.

My boss tried to get DirecTv last month. He has Dish SD, and Dish wanted to much money to upgrade him to HD in the Living Room. He called DirecTv, and they wouldnt even give him an option to subscribe, because he did not have a good enough credit score. I even offered to sell him one of my boxes, and they wouldnt create an account on an owned box. So, now he has Comcast too (at my suggestion) for $39/mo year 1, $59/mo year 2, In HD, and NO CONTRACT.

That is what DirecTv considers premium. Sounds pretty elitist to me. Hope it works out for them.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"fireponcoal" said:


> Nah guys, they lost subs purposely. No, really, for the higher revenue, anNat. SatRacer even spins it this way and so should everyone else at DBStalk. Keep in line talkers.


Lol yeah the Directv spin "doesn't stop here"! Mike White is a joke!


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I hate it when this kind of talk comes around...
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think DirecTV most likely has a good deal of customers that they'd be better off without, and I fully respect their tighter credit policies, and focusing more on their higher paying customers (DUH!!). What I have an issue with is this line: "This is a long-run play, with DirecTV positioning itself as a premium service as television choices grow in number and complexity. "
> 
> ...


Yeah Alan this Directv spin only makes sense to those that drink the Directv Kool-aid!

Company direction shift Ok, losing paying customers on purpose! haha haha that's a good one!


----------



## Xizer (Apr 2, 2012)

Davenlr said:


> Sports. They are going to charge a premium price for the privilege of watching sports, and movie channels...at the expense of basics. That would be my take on it.


Sounds good to me. DirecTV is just digging their own grave here. :lol:

They're really going to be in a panic after alienating all these customers when fiber optics rollout efforts start getting serious.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Xizer" said:


> Sounds good to me. DirecTV is just digging their own grave here. :lol:
> 
> They're really going to be in a panic after alienating all these customers when fiber optics rollout efforts start getting serious.


Not necessarily. I still have DirecTV. FIOS isn't expanding and it will take quite a while I think for Google to expand past KC. Sonic.Net is regional as is my telco which isn't doing much FTTP any more.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> And watch the cord cutters come scurrying back as ISPs start imposing limits and raising rates.


And maybe requiring a basic TV package in addition to their internet service, if they keep losing TV subscribers.



maartena said:


> *FS New Orleans: Nope!*.
> 
> FS New Orleans.... is probably a desired channel, and it stands to lose customers in southern Louisiana if not carried. But is the market big enough to warrant it a good business decision? With DirecTV losing thousands upon thousands of physical dishes during Katrina, how many people are actually keeping a satellite provider as their provider down there still? I don't know the market situation there.


D* got FS-SD after the new contract was signed last year. I would think FS-NO would be included in that as well, and being that its a part time channel, I think they will get this one.



maartena said:


> *CSN Houston: Maybe!*
> 
> CSN Houston has pros: 2 Popular teams on it, large metro/market area. But it also has cons: Comcast owns it, and they will probably want PREMIUM pricing for this channel. DirecTV has some tough decisions to make here. This might be one they will hold off on till the 2013 MLB season begins, and no sooner then that.


I think they have a good chance of getting this one too since the channel is majority owned by the two teams (same with CSN-Chicago).



maartena said:


> I'm probably forgetting a few sports channels here.


I think you got them all.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

thelucky1 said:


> Yeah Alan this Directv spin only makes sense to those that drink the Directv Kool-aid!
> 
> Company direction shift Ok, losing paying customers on purpose! haha haha that's a good one!


Uhh... not exactly what I was getting at. 

I believe some of it's unintentional (there's always unintentional churn), and I'm sure the economy has forced others out, but I have no problems believing that DirecTV may be tightening their belt when it comes to retention for certain customers... thereby ticking them off.

No... my comments were directly related to my confusion as to the direction DirecTV is headed. Over the years, I've felt that DirecTV was either a premium product at bargain prices (90s), a mainstream product at average prices (much of the 2000s), a premium product at a decent price (post D10), and now, a decent competitor. At this point in time, I don't really consider DirecTV a premium product. Are they going to do something to make me feel it is again, or are they just going to market it as one?

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

TheRatPatrol said:


> maartena said:
> 
> 
> > I'm probably forgetting a few sports channels here.
> ...



TVG Network
Universal Sports

Does anyone know if Fox College Sports is still coming this year?

HBCU Network may already be released. They kept going back and forth on the date, so I have no idea.

~Alan


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Alan Gordon" said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I remember reading that the satcos (maybe even DirecTV in particular, I don't remember?) picked up A LOT of customers in the New Orleans (and some of the surrounding) area due to the mess that the cablecos systems were after Katrina.
> 
> ~Alan


The new sports channel for new Orleans though is a strait rebranding of a channel with the same things on it as before, (although evidently more games for the hornets) and DIRECTV has never carried it before either, so who knows if not picking that up would really have any affect on DIRECTV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I completely believe that they expected this and planned their budgets for promotions etc for this to happen. I just think its stupid to ever do business that way, and they are fools to plan that way. I have never seen apple plan anything based on losing ground somehow. Nor any other premium type of company. Drive your product that you make money with through innovation and advancement, the rest will follow. And screw the share holders that wanted $1 more a share. They can kiss my $$$

Being happy with where your at and going for the starts quo and becoming a cash cow, I can respect that. Manipulating to make a couple extra bucks is just wrong though. And unfortunately, I don't believe any public traded company falls into the first category anymore.


----------



## wegotdatwood (Jul 25, 2012)

When does the current contract run out with DTV? Expected to be similar to the Viacom dispute?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> No... my comments were directly related to my confusion as to the direction DirecTV is headed. Over the years, I've felt that DirecTV was either a premium product at bargain prices (90s), a mainstream product at average prices (much of the 2000s), a premium product at a decent price (post D10), and now, a decent competitor. At this point in time, I don't really consider DirecTV a premium product. Are they going to do something to make me feel it is again, or are they just going to market it as one?
> 
> ~Alan


I know I'm paying a premium price. Directv is $25 more a month than my local cable co for the same setup. I don't mind paying that premium, but with that, I expect better equipment (check), more HD (check), almost all HD that is available (no check). (Oh, and I also expect HRTV, but I won't hold my breath).

I still see them as a premium provider. If Mike White says the customer base they are going after is a premium customer base, that is all well and good, but give me a high end product with all the bells and whistles (ie HD channels).

They are close, but not quite there IMO.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

People have so many options when it comes to viewing sports in 2012. You would have to think this strategy could only go so far.. Personally I have movie channels on Fios(cheaper for me) and my sports on D*. I can imagine a future where my house will no longer have Direct TV simply because it will be cheaper to have Fios as a one stop shop for phone, Internet and TV.. Fios is still the only place to get CSN Philadelphia for me as well. I love Direct TV but my personal premium choice in the future will probably be Fios(or Google  ).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> Not wrong at all.


Absolutely wrong. You said that DISH lost more customers in the quarter and they didn't. Trying to stretch it out to as many quarters as is necessary to make it true isn't going to fly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> You really are fixated on espn.


Don't you suppose that ESPN is the single largest item on the monthly bill?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing


"Last few" is kind of an understatement. They've been pushing the shedding poor customers thing for the last few years.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Did you all know that BBC America is a PREMIUM channel? Right guys?

(Are you seeing this, DirecTV?  )


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> Don't you suppose that ESPN is the single largest item on the monthly bill?


Not for me. I have the sports packages. But what does the price of one channel mean? (I believe only the main espn is expensive, the others are not as they are add ons.)

But it does not drive the market as implied in the post I answered. Viacom didn't use espn as their price point. No one else seem to be or youd see much larger increases.

While I don't like a lot of what espn does an how they do it, it is not the root of all evil.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

thelucky1 said:


> Company direction shift Ok, losing paying customers on purpose! haha haha that's a good one!


Who said they lost paying customers?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> Viacom didn't use espn as their price point. No one else seem to be or youd see much larger increases.


How do you know this? Eight months ago, in a History Channel puff piece in the NYTimes, the general manger referenced ESPN repeatedly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/b...-history-channel-struggles-to-stay-there.html

When the Big 10 Channel negotiated rates with distributors, I'd be willing to bet that ESPN's current and historical pricing came up. And I assure you that Viacom used ESPN to argue for higher rates.

It's what you do in negotiations. You focus on the asset that has the most value in your market, and you use arguments to convince the opposing party that your asset should be valued as close to the benchmark as possible. If ESPN's managed to extract annual double-digit rate hikes, you argue, why not my asset?


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> How do you know this?


No one, except those inside the negotiations, knows whether the word "ESPN" was ever used of course.

But ESPN does offer a completely different kind of television than Viacom does. They also have ratings that are quite a bit more impressive than that of any of the Viacom channels. As a matter of fact, on some of the big games they show they draw more viewers than all Viacom channels combined, actually by more than quad-fold.

A football game can draw over 40 Million viewers on their "Monday Night Football" lineup, and that makes for quite a compelling reason to ask the price they are asking for.

Actually, I just Googled around a bit, and looking at the rough numbers from the Viacom channels and ESPN, ESPN gets about 3 to 4 times the viewers as all of the Viacom channels, yet they only ask roughly twice as much as the Viacom channels. So looking at ratings, the price TV carriers pay for ESPN isn't too far off base for the content they carry.

And in the end it all is personal choice. I could do without *ALL* of the Viacom channels, yet I am forced to pay for them if I want certain other channels. I could do without many other channels as well. But packaged channels are going to be a lot cheaper than individual channels, especially for the customers.

If you really *do not want* to pay for ESPN, you pretty much have to cut the cord. Dish has a $19.99 package with 55 channels that does not include ESPN, but it is 55 channels, and only the really family friendly stuff. Compare that to America's top 120 which actually has 190 channels for $5 more. But you do get ESPN along with those 135 more channels.

I don't think this is going to change AT ALL in the coming years either. Although not entirely sure, it is estimated the Disney contracts are due in 2013, after they had been re-negotiated for the last time in 2003, based on a 10-year contract. Assuming for a moment they will enter with another 10 year contract, (Comcast just did a 10 year contract with Disney as well), we probably, and very likely will continue to pay for ESPN well in to the 2020's.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> How do you know this? Eight months ago, in a History Channel puff piece in the NYTimes, the general manger referenced ESPN repeatedly.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/b...-history-channel-struggles-to-stay-there.html
> 
> ...


And it gets laughed off. To be successful, you don't use the outlier or the best in the business, you use those that are in your class.

The ARod contract with Texas, despite the dire warnings that it would drive the market extremely high, did not. The market for baseball contracts slowly rose by everyone comparing like contracts of like talent, not the outlier.

Since ESPN is pretty much an order of magnitude higher in price, explain to me how that works, exactly. Viacom asked for a whopping 30% increase but it was still peanuts per channel versus ESPN, who does not even use your supposed strategy for their own channels.

Your focus on ESPN is losing perspective on the real issues. Your strategy of telling ESPN to take a 30% cut would just get you out of business.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

maartena said:


> If you really *do not want* to pay for ESPN, you pretty much have to cut the cord. Dish has a $19.99 package with 55 channels that does not include ESPN, but it is 55 channels, and only the really family friendly stuff. Compare that to America's top 120 which actually has 190 channels for $5 more. But you do get ESPN along with those 135 more channels.


Don't confuse a fixation with facts.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

maartena said:


> A football game can draw over 40 Million viewers on their "Monday Night Football" lineup


Actually the most watched MNF ever is 22 million for packers/vikings.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

I have NO problem with DIRECTV's new direction and many companies are not doing this! BUT they MUST offer PREMIUM service and CSR and products for this to works. This means CSR that KNOW what they are talking about, stop shipping crap DVRs with bugs and allow customers to order specific equipment. OFFER the MOST HD channels and sports programming. Then a premium pricing if warranted. Look, D* does not wants deadbeats or basic TV subscribers. No money there.

Seems every similar to what I saw happened to Bank of America., which my wife works for. years ago when they were NationsBank, they were the priciest bank around. I joined them because of convenience. I asked her we and the answer was simple. they wanted people who KEPT money in the bak, not paycheck to paycheck customers; no value.

Then years went by and they changed there tune. Buying Country Wide, etc and got away form their core of the BST service around. Now look what happened!

So they are back to shedding lower tier customers, back to focusing on CS and the RIGHT customer base for them and smart business. In a few years they will be healthier than ever.

But DIRECTV needs o get better if they want to be this type of business.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Alan Gordon" said:


> Uhh... not exactly what I was getting at.
> 
> I believe some of it's unintentional (there's always unintentional churn), and I'm sure the economy has forced others out, but I have no problems believing that DirecTV may be tightening their belt when it comes to retention for certain customers... thereby ticking them off.
> 
> ...


Uhh Really no need for your rolleyes icon Alan! I don't consider Directv a premium product either!


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"cariera" said:


> Who said they lost paying customers?


Oh come on cariera...enjoy the kool-aid!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

thelucky1 said:


> Uhh Really no need for your rolleyes icon Alan! I don't consider Directv a premium product either!


I put the eye roll there because your statements made it out like I was trying to imply something I wasn't.

No offense was intended with it though. 

~Alan


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I put the eye roll there because your statements made it out like I was trying to imply something I wasn't.
> 
> No offense was intended with it though.
> 
> ~Alan


Hey Alan didn't mean to imply anything on your part or twist your words. We're good...


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


Tell your bosses I will be waiting patiently for my consulting fees.
Cash please, not "Free Showtime" ! 

*http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2629617&postcount=82*


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The numbers seem to indicate that getting rid of some "rif-raff" customers increases profits. I guess there's a message in there somewhere.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The numbers seem to indicate that getting rid of some "rif-raff" customers increases profits. I guess there's a message in there somewhere.


Well, the truth is that gross disconnects are also lower for the qtr and year compared to same periods last year. So the net loss is really just a reflection of fewer *new *subscribers being signed up.

The bottom line is seeing the boost from the annual increase and the reduced SAC.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> Let me out of my ETF, and Ill help you guys out with that strategy.


Wait, aren't you the guy with two services? Did someone put a gun to your head to sign up for DTV and accept that ETF? Be a stand up guy and drop DTV, the ETF will be a drop in the bucket compared to what you are spending monthly. Take a stand.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Beerstalker said:


> My only problem with this is, if they want to be a premium service provider I think the service needs to reflect that as well. They need to have better customer service, and offer a better selection of channels (get back to being the HD leader). To me a "premium" service provider should be better than the alternatives in every way, not just we have more sports, we have more movies.


I attended a Fox Networks conference this week in Arizona along with probably 500 other industry folks. Bumped into some DTV guys, Fios, Comcast, Time Warner, you name it, along with many guys and gals from the affiliates of Fox. I would say 70% of them are DTV subscribers based on the show of hands when asked who you subscribe to.

I bring that up because those in the industry know which service is the premium tv service. There customer service, as a whole, is always #1 or #2, they do have a broader selection of channels than anyone (tell me where else I can get NFL Sunday Ticket, Nascar, and all the premium channels and unique programming like Audience network and 3D content and sports where nearly all the RSNs are).

The problem with your analysis and many here on DBS Talk is that you compare them to someone that does only one or two things well, like have a lot of basic HD. While DTV does 5 or 6 genres well. That's the irony. You and others aren't comparing apples to apples.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Alan Gordon said:


> I hate it when this kind of talk comes around...
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think DirecTV most likely has a good deal of customers that they'd be better off without, and I fully respect their tighter credit policies, and focusing more on their higher paying customers (DUH!!). What I have an issue with is this line: "_This is a long-run play, with DirecTV positioning itself as a premium service as television choices grow in number and complexity. _"
> 
> ...


OK, since you offered. :lol:

The problem I see with a number of viewpoints here at DBS Talk is that they simply do not understand business, especially this business. They simply don't.

DTV used to be in a mode of acquiring customers where they would spin up the marketing machine, go after a large swath of customers and pull in gobs of them. Then, over the years as churn increased with deadbeats that don't pay their bills, they tightened who they would go after and churn lowered. In the last few years, with most new cusotmers going HD, all the additional technology, broadband infrastructure, labor costs, etc, the cost to acquire these customers is very high, north of $850 in many cases.

So they made a strategic change to pull back on who they go after, yet I hear really simpleton things (you didn't say this, but others have) that they shouldn't want to lose any customers. That is so naive it is almost sad that people say this. I would expect Swanni to come up with one of those gems.

The reality is there are a lot of deadbeat customers in the US and DTV has their fairshare like any other business. Customers that try to get a deal all the time, late on their bills, don't pay often, claim service is out when it isn't, etc, etc, etc, etc. These people are not worth having. In talking to one of the DTV guys at this Fox conference I was at, they lost some subscribers in the Viacom dispute but most of them were what they call low value customers. Many organizations put metrics like lifetime values of a customer, a way to determine how much money they are worth. Each customer is different and it is a very important metric. If you are spending $850 to bring in a customer, you better be bringing in a customer with a lifetime value much greater than that to make a profit.

Right now, DTV is more than happy to lose the deadwood and the deadbeats. I'm sure that sounds nasty and mean, but all businesses worth their salt have to do this when they are out of growth mode. With profit margins less than 10% per year and operating margins decreasing every year due to programming costs, they are going to be interested in signing up a high end customer only and if a low end customer is threatening to leave, wish them well and tell them goodbye.

That is what is going on right now and it is a smart business strategy. The deadwood brings down their customer service levels because they are high maintenance customers, they also tend to subscribe to low margin packages which makes them not very profitable.

Think about it this way. DTV spends $850 to bring someone in. If they pay DTV $75 a month with operating margins of only 50%, that takes two years for them just to break even. No profit, just to break even, that's assuming no customer issues, no credits given out, no service calls, etc. If there is a group of customers they can identify that they know are simply not worth spending additional money to keep around - LET THEM GO. In the long run, they are way better off.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Xizer said:


> Sounds good to me. DirecTV is just digging their own grave here. :lol:
> 
> They're really going to be in a panic after alienating all these customers when fiber optics rollout efforts start getting serious.




You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially since fiber isn't building out right now because their costs are so out of control. Good try though, maybe on planet xeon where this is happening, but not on planet earth or in the USA. And please, don't point to Google in KC, that is nothing more than a stunt. They have no plans to push that nationally because the costs do not justify it. Not going to happen.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> It's finally impacted D*. Took awhile, but it was inevitable.
> 
> Glance at my signature line.
> 
> ...


Good luck with that Gloria. The fact of the matter is that ESPN's deals across all distributors require a penetration rate of about 85% to 90%, meaning that they must be included in just about every package.

There is no distributor that is going to stand up to them because it would be suicide. There is nothing to "solve" because it is unsolvable without committing suicide. Pretty simple.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

thelucky1 said:


> Uhh Really no need for your rolleyes icon Alan! I don't consider Directv a premium product either!


Take a stand big guy, drop them. You deserve the best, most premiest product out there. :lol:


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Both Dish and Direct have indicated they are more interested in that better customer. The one that gets much more than just basic TV, has few customer service issues and pays their bills on time. And that makes good business sense and explains why even with loss of net subs, profits have been better.

The downside is that the general press makes a big deal out of net loss of subs because that is good news for them because they have something simplistic to report on. And since they perceive it as a negative, it is 'good news'!

That said, I don't consider D* to be any more premium than E*. I see them as 2 sides of the same coin. One with a bigger emphasis on sports, the other a more generalized viewing market. And I see both doing a good job of it. Not perfect, and I've complained about both at different times. But overall, I've had good experiences with both most of the time, with that occasional glitch that just irritates.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Alan Gordon said:
> 
> 
> > Criticize away...
> ...


Actually, you didn't criticize me at all... 

I know multiple businesses that have turned business away due to the amount of money they'd get back, the hassle, and multiple other considerations. I was not doubting Satelliteracer or DirecTV's words that this (maybe not the exact number, but close enough) was on purpose.

~Alan


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

If the day comes that NFL Sunday Ticket is available on FIOS or in some sort of true mobile way like MLB.tv and NHL Gamecenter, that will probably be my last day with Directv. That's the one final straw holding me to them.


----------



## Sgt. Slaughter (Feb 20, 2009)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> By design and has been communicated in the last few earnings calls that the strategy is changing
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/directv-loses-subscribers-on-purpose/?source=yahoo_quote


If strategy is shifting to a higher class so to say then things that are broken need fixing....*cough*DIRECTV android app streaming not working on high res devices like HTC EVO LTE and others.... *cough*

Just saying to shift to higher spenders, things will be expected to work even more so than before...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

zimm7778 said:


> If the day comes that NFL Sunday Ticket is available on FIOS or in some sort of true mobile way like MLB.tv and NHL Gamecenter, that will probably be my last day with Directv. That's the one final straw holding me to them.


It's available PS3.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

thelucky1 said:


> Yeah Alan this Directv spin only makes sense to those that drink the Directv Kool-aid!
> 
> Company direction shift Ok, losing paying customers on purpose! haha haha that's a good one!


Actually, it makes perfect business sense, and DIRECTV® isn't the only one hewing that line. It's a fairly well known business concept, but it's hard to implement.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The numbers seem to indicate that getting rid of some "rif-raff" customers increases profits. I guess there's a message in there somewhere.


Well, "riff-raff" may be a bit strong in some cases, but folks who can't pay or won't pay, good folks who've lost their jobs, idiots who call every other day, those whose dishes get shot out every month in gang wars, are all money losers to DIRECTV®, even though they are, for the most part, "paying customers".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Well, "riff-raff" may be a bit strong in some cases, but folks who can't pay or won't pay, good folks who've lost their jobs, idiots who call every other day, those whose dishes get shot out every month in gang wars, are all money losers to DIRECTV®, even though they are, for the most part, "paying customers".


It is more of a case of not signing up the riff raff.

The quarter's gross loss of 915k subscribers is less than a year ago when they lost 928k subscribers. DirecTV has "got rid of" 824k to 963k customers each quarter for the past three years.

The quarter's gross gain of 863k subscribers is the lowest since 2Q 2006 (six years ago). That is what kept DirecTV growing in "net subscribers" ... replacing the millions of customers who leave DirecTV each year with millions of new subscribers. Adding more than leave leads to a net increase.

2nd Quarters are not typically the strongest for adding customers. DirecTV has not had a third quarter without 1 million gross adds in the last six years. And have not had a 1 million gross loss quarter - so 3Q should be a "rebound". But if they actually drop over a million or fail to replace more than they drop again we may be seeing a trend.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"sigma1914" said:


> It's available PS3.


That's not the mobile I'm talking about, plus I don't have $200-$300 to go out and buy a game system for the purpose of watching football only to turn around and spend another $200 on NFL ST. I am really surprised though the cable and FIOS companies haven't struck a deal with Sony and gone down the "order our service now and we'll give you a free ps3 and pay for NFL ST free for the first year" deal unless Directv allowing them to carry ST required they could not.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> It's available PS3.


Only for customers who can't get DIRECTV service or have it already.

See: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/08/17/directv-and-playstation-bring-nfl-sunday-ticket-to-ps3/

It's not an option for every person out there who just wants to get it and not have DIRECTV.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Well, "riff-raff" may be a bit strong in some cases, but folks who can't pay or won't pay, good folks who've lost their jobs, idiots who call every other day, those whose dishes get shot out every month in gang wars, are all money losers to DIRECTV®, even though they are, for the most part, "paying customers".


I know of multiple businesses in which... and I want to state for the record that this is not an insult to these folks (as many of them are fine folks), but rather a statement of fact, that oftentimes, those who spend the least, or offer the least amount of profit, can be the same people who require more time/manpower, resources, etc.

Imagine you're a DirecTV customer... you have one of the lower tier packages, a single STB (no DVR, no HD, no WHDVR), and you don't subscribe to any premium packages, sports packages (Sunday Ticket), order any PPVs, and yet you call in any consistently try to get discounts on your bills, etc... so you start getting tougher with credits, retention discounts, etc.

~Alan


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The numbers seem to indicate that getting rid of some "rif-raff" customers increases profits. I guess there's a message in there somewhere.


The message is that not replacing those customers costs them a considerably less in the short term.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> The message is that not replacing those customers costs them a considerably less in the short term.


There is far too much emphasis being placed on them cutting "dead-wood" or "riff-raff". The fact is that gross disconnects are *LOWER* than the same periods last year, this *IS NOT *indicative of an effort to agressively trim existing customers for *ANY* reason. What *IS* lower is gross additions, so they are either being more selective about who they add or customers are being more selective about who they choose... probably a little (a lot actually) of both.


----------



## ChE74 (May 1, 2009)

IMO DTV doesn't have a business plan. Instead they rely on their sales staff and retention CSRs to make whatever deal they can. 
I was a long term sub. (since 1995) till mid this Jul. Never asked for any discounts, credits etc. Have a high credit score, exellent credit record , never late or missed a payment. Monthly bill higher than the average stated in DTVs quarterly report.
I had 2 HR20's one of which was starting to act up.
After seeing the DISH offers I called DTV to cancel and the CSR immediately offered some credits and free movie channels i.e. Showtime, TMC etc. When I mentioned that one of the HRs needed rebooting 1 or 2'ce a month I was offered a new HR. I said OK I'll stay and think about it. The HR they sent was not new but a refurb HR20 which I returned with out activating it. When I got my first bill I decided the credits weren't as much as DISH was offering and movie channels were worthless to us. But I thought I'll try to trade the movie channels for NFLST. The CSR I next talked to said I had agreed to take the movies and they couldn't give much of a discount on NFLST. Many people on these threads report of getting all kinds of deals on NFLST and free HD service. I've been on autopay through our phone company since 2008 and have been charged for HD service for the whole period. I decided it was time to say goodbye to DTV and called DISH back. When I called again to cancel the CSR tried to further negotiate but I said I'm done and just cancel us.
Now more of the channels we watch are in HD (Americas 250 pkg.) and have the NFL red zone. I think on our main TV (new 60" )and 2nd (32") the PQ in HD is equal to anything we had with DTV. A few of the channels we watch in SD are definitely better. All of this for a smaller monthly cost and new state of the art eqp. We're very happy we made the change.

Some close friends (also with DTV since 1998) have the same main TV we do and 2 smaller ones. After they saw our new set up they called DISH and within a few days they have the same package. When they cancelled they told the CSR they weren't interested in any credits , etc.and just wanted to cancel.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well you're wrong about their business plan they do have one it shows in the fact that they make a pretty darn good profit on a regular basis.

As for your experience with getting another HR 20 that's actually on purpose since that's the only unit that has a built-in over the air. 

Glad you like the service you're getting from dish so far though that's excellent!


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

ChE74 said:


> IMO DTV doesn't have a business plan. Instead they rely on their sales staff and retention CSRs to make whatever deal they can.
> I was a long term sub. (since 1995) till mid this Jul. Never asked for any discounts, credits etc. Have a high credit score, exellent credit record , never late or missed a payment. Monthly bill higher than the average stated in DTVs quarterly report.
> I had 2 HR20's one of which was starting to act up.
> After seeing the DISH offers I called DTV to cancel and the CSR immediately offered some credits and free movie channels i.e. Showtime, TMC etc. When I mentioned that one of the HRs needed rebooting 1 or 2'ce a month I was offered a new HR. I said OK I'll stay and think about it. The HR they sent was not new but a refurb HR20 which I returned with out activating it. When I got my first bill I decided the credits weren't as much as DISH was offering and movie channels were worthless to us. But I thought I'll try to trade the movie channels for NFLST. The CSR I next talked to said I had agreed to take the movies and they couldn't give much of a discount on NFLST. Many people on these threads report of getting all kinds of deals on NFLST and free HD service. I've been on autopay through our phone company since 2008 and have been charged for HD service for the whole period. I decided it was time to say goodbye to DTV and called DISH back. When I called again to cancel the CSR tried to further negotiate but I said I'm done and just cancel us.
> ...


My suggestion is in the future if something is offered and you know you won't have a value in it don't accept it. Companies have value on everything they offer and in taking something they have value attached that you don't. Good luck in the future.


----------



## ChE74 (May 1, 2009)

Hello, inkauhauts and Shades228,

Thank you for kind final comments.
After rereading my post I feel it comes off a bit harsher than I meant. 
I should clarify a few things though. When I first called DTV to cancel I fully intended to do so. I wasn't fishing for anything and everything that was offered me was volunteered by a CSR. When asked why the cancellation, I mentioned the incentives were both reduced cost and new equipment. I said my equipment was old, had small HDs and one unit was failing. The CSR then offered to send me a *new unit with a larger HD *and under stood* I did not need OTA capability*. As far as the movies I at first refused them but the CSR encouraged me to try them. I reluctantly agreed, but, only after I was assured that they would automatically stop at the end of the trial period. I said I did not want to find out after the trial period I was being charged for them and then have a battle to get them off my bill. With the credits and promise of a new HR it was still not as good a deal as what DISH was offering, but having been with DTV for 17 years and havin paid many thousands of $ for service and equipment and not having any real gripes I decided to stay. By the way I have had a number of 2 yr committments but none since 2010.
The disappointment of receiving a refurb HR20 instead of newer model with a larger HD wasn't the deal breaker, but, after reading many of these threads where people call numerous CSRs until they find one that gives them what they want it did not seem fair to me. INRE my attempt for a discounted NFLST to my recollection is the only request I've ever made. Until 2 years ago I was a regular ST sub. With the proliferation of NFL and college games on TV I was saturated with football and dropped it. But my reasoning was that if I could trade the movie channels for a reasonably priced ST I could try it again and I would have been willing to start a new committment. But as indicated earlier my request went no where and I had no intention of going CSR shopping as many do. I have no animosity toward DTV and wish it continued success. I did use one month of the credits given me by the 1st CRS before cancelling. In retropect that last CSR did me favor. Thanks again gentlemen for your comments and allowing me this vent. I also wish you good luck in the future.


----------

