ExpressVu 1st QTR Results...4000 new subs vs 12,000 last yr...Avg Rev up to $57/month

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mozza
  • Start date Start date
M

Mozza

Guest
I still think the fact that they added 4,000 new net subscribers, after adding more in the previous quarter, still shows they are ADDING NEW CUSTOMERS. It's still growth.
 
Today's News Release about the March 31st results http://www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/corp/2007/05/02/74247.html
seems to be a mixed bag....

- First quarter revenues were up 13.4% from last year to $314 million.
- ARPU increased by $4 to $57.
- EBITDA grew by 34.1% to $55 million with EBITDA margin increasing by 2.7 percentage points to 17.5%.
- Total subscribers increased by 4.9% to reach 1,824,000.
- The net addition of 4,000 subscribers this quarter was lower than the 12,000 recorded last year due to decreased sales through independent retail channels and slightly higher churn at 1.1%.
 
Hugh article was accurate, Bell just changed the time line for the release of the new mpeg4 ird's as there is still stock available. And even though they are now saying mpeg4 HD brodcast will not start till 2009, someone would have to be crazy to shell 600 plus tax for a 9200 when it may e useless for HD in as little as 19 months, when they can wait 6 months and have get a HD receiver that will be good for years. (If expressvu lasts that long)

Better to wait and get the mpeg4's
 
Right. Great performance.

Metric One: Subscribers

2005 Q1 - 29,000 net new subscribers
2006 Q1 - 12,000 net new subscribers
2007 Q1 - 4,000 net new subscribers

That is not a business that is "growing".

Metric Two: Keeping Customers

2005 Q1 "churn" - 1.0%
2006 Q1 "churn" - 0.9%
2007 Q1 "churn" - 1.1%

translation: 1.1% of all ExpressVu customers LEFT the company from Jan 1 to Mar 31, 2007 EVERY month and had to be replaced before the company shows any new subscribers. Based on 1,820,000 subscribers that means:

54,600 subscribers told ExpressVu to take a hike
58,600 subscribers are brand new to ExpressVu

from Jan 1 to Mar 31 2007.

Metric Three: Charging More

ARPU is Average Revenue Per User (aka "customer"). That is, how much can the same customer be coaxed into paying every month, for the same or perhaps enhanced, service, on average?

2005 Q1 ARPU - $48
2006 Q1 ARPU - $53
2007 Q1 ARPU - $57

Lemme see: $2 price rise Mar 2005; $3 price price Jan 2006; $4 price rise Feb 2007 ... $9 dollars more squeezed out of existing customers in two years; overall company performance shows the same rise.

Is that more value for the same dollar? More dollars but more value? Or just more dollars for the same value?

Yes, sure ... prices rise all the time everywhere. But that's around 19% in two years ... has the average service improved 19% less inflation?
 
I'm no business analysis guru, but by the looks of things, their little 'problem' may be starting to bite them in the a$$.

It's a vicious circle.
Metric 1 & 2, possibly due to the growing popularity of FTA & piracy contribute to Metric 3, which in turns drives up the bad metric 1 & 2 again.

Pretty much a downward spiral to oblivion if left unchecked.

Reminds me of the classic school science project about all the drosophilia melangaster (Fruit Fly) in a bottle with bananas and peanut butter.

The environment was SO good with tons of food and not too many of them that they flourished beyond belief, but in a closed container, eventually all their waste products built up to toxic levels and they all perished.
 
Is it just me, or does anybody else get alarm bells going off about a company that emphasizes EBITDA rather than GAAP profit/loss? If you ignore enough expenses, sure you can report a profit. But it's not for real. EBITDA was wildly popular during the dot-com boom; we all know where that ended up.
 
and who's to say when the newer mpeg4 receivers come out that the units won't be subbed out for little or no cost?

right now, everything is merely speculation.
 
Kudos to hugh for leaving the article up, specially when they wouldnt deny anything specifically in it. But on the other hand, BEV has every right to withdraw its advertising if it see's fit.

I think most readers can see through the trolling on these threads and make up their own minds.
 
bell needs better marketing plans to combat rogers aggressive "bundle" advertising...the 50% off for six months was decent, but the current 2 months free isn't very popular with customers...to be quite honest, i think 10% off for 2 years would be the most attractive, even though it is less of a discount than 50% off for 6 months...it would allow bell to combat bundle savings offered by cableco's.

also, 2 of those three months, we didn't have any HD hardware to sell (we still don't have 6100's), so that didn't help either.

in contrast, Rogers added just over 69,000 digital cable customers during Q1.
 
Did anyone notice Bell has stopped producing monthly flyers and seasonal offers?

My local Bell World, previously well-kept, had about 300 flyers for April sitting in a bin, in disarray, at the front of the store last week, expired. They have two HD TVs: one always on CP24 (which was off, with the CP24 signal burned into the screen) and the second tuned to CTV with a PVR in front but not connected, also in SD. I guess HD isn't worth showing.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mother's Day around the corner? Previously, Frank and Gordon would be offering cellphones, TV and Internet in some tasty offers in a nicely produced four page flyer. I guess marketing can't be bothered this year. Maybe they are hibernating eating all those Christmas jelly beans.

Or maybe the take-over fever is injecting such chaos into senior and middle management, and lower ranks where no one is prepared to take any risks, or decisions, that the whole ship is on hold for a few months. Then a new crew will come aboard and take a few more months to learn the ropes.

Tune in again in 2008, folks, same time next year. The good news is you'll be able to buy MPEG4 HD recievers by then but still have a year to wait before any new HD services will be available. :eek:
 
This thread is about the financial/business performance of Bell in Q1.

Bell's growth is slowing; in relative terms, they are losing market share. Star Choice is at a stand-still with less than 1000 customers added in the quarter. It's hard to believe that the satellite delivery of TV has reached its apex: 2.7 million Canadian households. That's around 22% -- after 10 years in market. Much more troubling is that a service in its infancy, like MTS TV delivering IPTV over phone lines in Winnipeg, can chalk up 25%+ of all TV households in about three years.

In this context, Bell ExpressVu's 4k growth given it tries to position itself as HD and technological and value leader in the market is clearly not resonating. Further, while it has shown good growth in revenue, it's traceable almost entirely to price increases, not happy customers buying more TV and paying more as a result.

The flipside of revenue is expenses. By switching to a model of rental, vs box sales, the accountants amortize all install costs/customer hardware over three years instead of writing it off when the cost occurs. If you suddenly are able to "pretend" you didn't pay for 300,000 STBs this year when you did, and have your balance sheet only register 1/36th of that every month, you get to claim more short-term "profit". There is nothing wrong with this strategy and Bell is very clear that this is what it's doing. However it does mask the immediate costs of running the business.

1,827,000 customers currently agree that Bell is doing a good enough job to keep the service. I would only caution, down the road, that the industry continues to evolve and Bell cannot afford to sit on the sidelines for two years as it sorts out HD and ownership issues. A few years ago, AOL was the largest ISP in North America with 24 million customers. Today it has 12 million customers and is number three behind two cable companies. Food for thought in the Bell boardrooms I should think.
 
they did claim that there was false information in that article, and that's why they wanted it pulled...hugh refused, so BEV pulled their ads...IMO, it was a rather silly thing to do by Hugh...it's one thing to be a "free speech" freedom fighter, but you need to ensure your "facts" are actually true and not rumour or "this is what i think is going to happen", as many people will take your words for fact.
 
Wow. Lots of BEV-hatin' going on in here, it seems. I think some moderators need to clean up this thread and have it stick to the facts - BEV has more customers again this quarter than they did last quarter.
 
It appears the moderators are happy to let the BEV haters troll all over the BEV forums, yet when BEV people post in, say, the Starchoice forums, they're banned. Nice double standard.

-Mike
 
Satellite TV has 2 major problems...
  1. Satellite TV has run into a brick wall in bandwidth. The cablecos in Windsor, London, Toronto, and Ottawa can run totally separate feeds, without stepping on each-other's bandwidth. Meanwhile, one satellite signal has to serve all those cities. Guess which model (cable or satellite) can deliver all the local channels, and ethnic channels that have high demand in each local market?
  2. In just about any apartment/condo in Canada, the owner or renter can pick up the phone, call the local cableco, rattle off their credit card number, and soon they're connected to cable. Satellite dishes are illegal to clamp on to balconies by city bye-laws in most places. And that's assuming you're on the south side of the building, and there isn't a large building to your south, blocking your view of the satellite. As Canada becomes more urbanized, it'll only get worse for satellite.
Assuming Bell gives up on ExpressVu, the logical thing for the CRTC to do would be to sell ExpressVu's bandwidth to Starchoice, with the proviso that Starchoice use the additional bandwidth for HDTV. This would also solve the ExpressVu piracy problem, while allowing Starchoice to remain competitive, but it won't help with problem #2.
 
It may have something to do with Bell business practices over journalistic rights, that wether the statements made have some air of authenticity and the manner or wording in which the dialog is made.

I seriously don't hope you expect Hugh to hug and embrace Bev after they took a swipe at his pocketbook.

Actually, I didn't see much to complain about.
If the facts are as they are, then each poster has an interpretation as to what it means.
Some will see good news and others see bad news.
Not unlike a governments budget.
It all depends on your perspective and personal circumstances.
 
The fact is your nothing but a troll in the BEV forums. And No, I don't expect Hugh or anyone else to do anything about it. Like I said, double standard.

-Mike
 
Bell spokesman Paolo Pasquini later back-peddled and did not deny the facts, at least as reported by Hugh in follow-ups. Bell then went on record saying NO NEW HD models would be released in 2007; but allowed that current models would be "updated" for MPEG4.

Hugh, not Bell, has the higher ground here.
 
Even the biggest pirates are laughing at BEV's numbers. Here is a link to one of the largest hacking sites...they quote digitalhome.ca in this thread.

IDK if i can place a live link so just replace the hxxp with http
 
Back
Top