1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV 2010 3rd Quarter Results

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by RAD, Oct 18, 2010.

  1. Nov 6, 2010 #101 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    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.
     
  2. Nov 6, 2010 #102 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    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..
     
  3. Nov 6, 2010 #103 of 124
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    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.
     
  4. Nov 6, 2010 #104 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.

    [TABLE]|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[/TABLE]

    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.
     
  5. Nov 6, 2010 #105 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    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.
     
  6. Nov 6, 2010 #106 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.

    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.
     
  7. Nov 6, 2010 #107 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    If you are going to purposely slow additions wouldn't it be even more important to protect the existing base?
     
  8. Nov 6, 2010 #108 of 124
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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... :rolleyes:

    BattleZone....now I get it...
     
  9. Nov 6, 2010 #109 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    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.

    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.

    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?
     
  10. Nov 6, 2010 #110 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I'll post my original comment again so no one has to go back and read it again:
    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.
     
  11. Nov 6, 2010 #111 of 124
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    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.
     
  12. Nov 6, 2010 #112 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.
     
  13. Nov 6, 2010 #113 of 124
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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.
     
  14. Nov 6, 2010 #114 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.
     
  15. Nov 6, 2010 #115 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.
     
  16. Nov 6, 2010 #116 of 124
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    From SkyReport:

     
  17. Nov 6, 2010 #117 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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...
     
  18. Nov 6, 2010 #118 of 124
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    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?
     
  19. Nov 6, 2010 #119 of 124
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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.
     
  20. Nov 6, 2010 #120 of 124
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.
     

Share This Page