Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by rrrick8, Apr 2, 2009.
Nothing there that would make me give up MLB.
just reality in the current economy.
to see a company keep their business plan and be successful is a cool thing these days.
ah well, headin out ...
cool. and DirecTV can do the same with D12. and be cautious with D11 until then. reasonable business plan. thanks for the info.
No, I think the real reality is that people who are not looking out for their side is why corporations have run over the average American citizen.
Well said, although I attribute some of a low(er) churn rate to the ETF. Every time the commitment gets bumped back up to 24 months, the ETF gets bumped back up to $480. Now that's capitalism at its finest, if you can't keep 'em hooked with programming, then hook 'em by the bills.
I think you actually have a point here that needs to be explored a bit a further in this discussion.
It is easy to increase HD programming without marketing on the back end if they need to slow growth, unless its stipulated in the contract that x amount of marketing of the product is required.
Furthermore, if some other company can pick up the mantel of HD leadership, churn will increase.
What I get then, from this, is perhaps the idea that additional HD programming is not being witheld due concerns about slowing growth. I also assume that DirecTV is not looking to lose the impression it has successfully provided that they are inded the HD leader.
So then, why not fill up those channels?
If I were them, which I am not.... nor do I think they would want me to be...
I'd probably play the waiting game, balancing churn with growth and programming with the competition. (This logic of course, excludes all that muddled crap dealing with contracts, negotiations, carriage agreeements... blah blah blah... barf!)
Capacity is minimal, some have suggested that they are holding on to it in case the launch of D-12 flops or some other technical mumbo jumbo. So, there is the conservative approach why not take it and see what happens?
My guess is that DirecTV realizes that Dish is pushing the envelope adding capacity. Let them degrade their service trying to catch up. Its only a matter of time until D12. Cable is trying to catch up as well, let them throw dollars at it, likely forcing them to ignore other essential advancements. Let them come to you. And if by chance they get close before the launch of D12, then you have, what, 9-12 HD channels you can blast at them and hype all at once, with lots more to come! The closer to the launch of D12 all the better. And if they don't, you hold those channels for back up.
Same with churn... as long as they are experience growth and low churn why move. If the numbers began to change... then sure, throw your customers a bone or two.
Okay.. we can now return to true reason and logic. Sorry if I took this in an other direction.
I wonder if that is more an indication that most people aside from the geeks lurking about in these forums - including myself - are not as interested in HD. Someone will throw out the numbers, what is the penetration for HD these days?
Regardless, I think Dish is flailing. Lest I be accused of being a fan boy, I will remind everyone that even a flailing opponent can land a knock out. Then again, in January the Dish half of this forum may well be complaining about how D* just added 40 HD channels all at once. Who knows what we will be complaining about this time next year.
I agree we may be a skewed subset of the viewing audience but, if your assertion is correct, then why do most providers employ HD channel count (or extent of HD VOD availability) in their marketing campaigns?
I wonder how many people (that care about HD) came to DirecTV back when they added a bunch of HD channels, and I wonder how many of those people are still in a 2 year commitment because of it....all of them?
How much do you want to bet that about two years after the first big push to more HD we'll be hearing a lot more from DirecTV about adding HD channels. They have a significant number of people contractually hooked, they don't need to do much to keep them until the contracts start coming to an end.
And with the commitment extended another 24 months (triggered by any number of events - for me it was them replacing a defective receiver) - the contract end date is not Fall '09 for many people who signed up in Fall '07.
In the financial call Chase stated how they are starting to slow growth. Higher credit standards, lowering the credit for new customer discounts and reducing deals to existing customers. Nowhere does it say to not add content.
If people are suffering over TV then they have issues bigger then a lack of HD. I personally don't have any other channels other then WGN HD that I really want added and to me it's not worth getting upset over.
So let's see....add the cost of some new HD channels....and don't increase revenue to offset the cost....yeah...that's a great formula all right...
If they could forecast increased revenue...which isn't likely in this market unless they raise rates...there is little financial incentive to expand the lineup.
At least the expense of the new D12 sat and its launch is already capitalized and can be amoritzed from an expense standpoint. It's likely that added carriage costs are already built into the model for the D12 deployment.
Sound business sense is the only way DirecTV or any other provider will prevail in this economic downturn. It's not what any of us wants to hear in terms of getting more HD at the same price....but these are not "normal" times.
Here's what he actually said:
Raising credit standards was the long-held solution to reducing churn. The existing customer upgrades and gross additions caught them entirely by surprise and the surprise wasn't pleasant.
But that seems to be what has happened.
Of course all of this financial news is more to groom Liberty Media for a sale as opposed to a long-term strategy for the operation of DIRECTV. Once that happens (or it becomes obvious that it isn't going to happen), things will probably loosen up.
Could you recap the DIRECTV plan and how it is being stuck to? You've made mention of this repeatedly and I'm not sure what it is about.
I'd also like some clarification on how you view the latest numbers as a success. There was much commentary in the conference call (well, in the transcript of the conference call anyway) on problems with the results.
That statement is almost laughable.
Who in their right mind would have a problem with exceeding their projections for adding new customers?
ANSWER: No one.
They didn't make any such claim that it was "unpleasant" - that's your interpretation....and its plain wrong.
Those additions, and by they way...were NET additions....and translate into current AND future revenue - which any business would welcome.
If you want to compare that to several substantial consecutive quarterly drops in Dish subscribers...than your same logic would seem to indicate things are hunky dorry there....which of course, is the furthest thing from the truth.
I realize it sounds counterintuitive on the surface, but it can be a problem. When you think about the fact that it costs DirecTV over $700 to add a single subscriber, that high growth comes at a high price.
I just logged on for the first time today. My heart dropped when I saw the DBSTALK front page. I thought, oh my god, DIRECTV finally added new HD channels. :bang
Way to go DISH! Competition rocks!
Perhaps this is why DIRECTV removed the DISH comparison. See attached screenshot off the DIRECTV site.
Great, DIRECTV now makes cable comparisons. You know it’s bad when your sales pitch is “we’re better than cable”.
Hence the 2-year contract.
However, so long as churn is low (which is is) and subscriber growth is positive (which it is), then the "high price" is more than worth it, notwithstanding the usual negativity from the usual sources being passed off as fact.
Oh yeah, I'm not trying to say that DirecTV is going to lose money in the long run on these subscribers. But it's just that they may be looking to spend less money in the short term, which would necessitate adding fewer subscribers.