Virgin Media subscriber numbers

The Cush

Liberty Global (Virgin Media) Q3 2016 numbers published today (in brackets, quarter on quarter +/-)
http://www.libertyglobal.com/pdf/press-release/LG-Earnings-Release-Q3-16-FINAL.pdf

Video Subscribers - 312,200 (-11,100)
--- Analogue Cable - 28,700 (-1,100)
--- Digital Cable - 283,500 (-10,000)
Internet - 363,800 (-400)
Telephone - 352,200 (+100)

Total Subscribers - 1,028,200 (-11,400)
Premises - 457,700 (-3,800)

Mobile Subscribers - 13,600 (+1,800)

JTMan

Wow. The decline in television subscriptions is accelerating rapidly. The figures are stark. Cord cutting is growing as people are not willing to pay for TV bundles anymore.

jack presley

JTMan wrote: »

Wow. The decline in television subscriptions is accelerating rapidly. The figures are stark. Cord cutting is growing as people are not willing to pay for TV bundles anymore.

The outcome of the Eir/BT Sports issue I suppose.

JTMan

That would be one aspect. However, the decline has being evident for a while now. The bigger long term cause is people no longer willing to pay for TV bundles. All LG locations, except the UK, suffered a decline in TV subs.

beauf

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/sky-profits-climb-12-but-customer-churn-increases-1.2737481

I know quite a few people who got rid of UPC TV, kept the bb and got the tv from sky. Mainly because they didn't like the horizon box. Hard to know if that has an effect on the UPC numbers.

Kensington

I don't think it can be attributed to cord cutting, after all:
- Sky's subscriber numbers are higher than ever before and continue increasing
- Eir TV has grown to 45,000+ subscribers in 3 years
- Vodafone TV don't have publicly released subscriber numbers but by all accounts demand is strong

The only ones losing numbers are Virgin Media.

beauf

I think UPC is see as a cheaper alternative to Sky so people will put up with a box that not as good as the Sky box. But when it gets expensive and still isn't a great box, then other options become more attractive. So there are probably a number of factors at play.

JTMan

Exactly, there are a number of factors at play. One of those factors is cord cutting. One just has to take a look at the Android or HTPC forums to see how popular Android TV boxes are. This is having a knock on effect on TV subs.

Szero

When you look at this year-on-year things become far more stark.

TV subscriptions were 375,600 a year ago. TV subscriptions are now 312,200. Massive massive drop. Virgin are loosing TV customers hand over fist.

Regarding the reasons:
- Let's not forget about price. Virgin have hiked prices several times in recent years. This has a direct effect on customer numbers.
- New competition from Vodafone.
- New-ish competition from Eir.
- Competition from online TV providers like NetFlix.
- A better TV experience offered by Sky.
- Growing popularity of free-to-air.
- Piracy from Android boxes.
- Young people no longer caring about TV bundles.
- Problems with Horizon boxes.
- Debacle with Setanta Sports.
- Legacy technology wind downs and closures. Analogue and MMDS.
- Virgin focusing marketing on broadband over TV.
- Global cord-cutting trend as people rebel against TV bundles full of crap.

A tidal wave change is coming to cable. TV bundles seem to be on a terminal decline curve.

Delta2113

JTMan wrote: »

Exactly, there are a number of factors at play. One of those factors is cord cutting. One just has to take a look at the Android or HTPC forums to see how popular Android TV boxes are. This is having a knock on effect on TV subs.

- Ironically without the Android TV boxes the numbers could be even higher.

7upfree

Szero wrote: »

When you look at this year-on-year things become far more stark.

TV subscriptions were 375,600 a year ago. TV subscriptions are now 312,200. Massive massive drop. Virgin are loosing TV customers hand over fist.

Regarding the reasons:
- Let's not forget about price. Virgin have hiked prices several times in recent years. This has a direct effect on customer numbers.
- New competition from Vodafone.
- New-ish competition from Eir.
- Competition from online TV providers like NetFlix.
- A better TV experience offered by Sky.
- Growing popularity of free-to-air.
- Piracy from Android boxes.
- Young people no longer caring about TV bundles.
- Problems with Horizon boxes.
- Debacle with Setanta Sports.
- Legacy technology wind downs and closures. Analogue and MMDS.
- Virgin focusing marketing on broadband over TV.
- Global cord-cutting trend as people rebel against TV bundles full of crap.

A tidal wave change is coming to cable. TV bundles seem to be on a terminal decline curve.

On the above points:

- Eir have taken THREE years to get to 45,000 subs? THAT is more evidence of cord cutting. What are the Voda numbers?

- V Sky is debatable. I have Sky. The folks UPC. Its a toss-up. For all the hype.
And i'm paying extra for HD.

- Free To Air is VERY attractive.

- The piracy is not confined to Android boxes. Those Sky f5 boxes are everywhere. The quality of the android is terrible.

- Young people only want two things. Free and now. THAT is the biggest threat.

- Some people have Horizon and they swear by it. But it seems to be a mixed bag.

- Setanta is over hyped.

- MMDS is a biggie alright. And don't those figures above show it.

- Virgin see what's coming down the road. IPTV is where it will be at.

- TV bundles full of crap indeed. And that won't just affect Virgin.

But, as mentioned above, Virgin's constant price increases HAVE to be affecting things. It's ridiculous.

mike2084

And Ireland made history on eir tonight. That won't help :-)

icdg

I wouldn't write off the Eirsport debacle so easily. Free to air is very attractive it's true, and the biggest reason for anyone these days to stick with pay TV is access to premium sports channels. And if a pay TV provider cannot deliver premium sports channels, then it is in trouble.

I read one poster on another part of boards last night call for a "Netflix style revolution in sports broadcasting". That will not happen. For one thing, Netflix itself has zero experience in delivering live content, but I suspect that's not what the poster meant . A lot of people look at the out of market sports packages offered in the US without realising fully how these work and especially the fact that there is a traditional terrestrial broadcaster of each of these matches. The proof of the pudding for internet delivery will be if the Premier League ever take the plunge but they show no sign of doing so - and why would they when Sky is willing to offer them a whole pile of cash and take all the risk on the delivery side.

Piracy (or "other methods" as its euphemistically referred to so often here) only works so long as there are enough people willing to pay subscriptions to support those freeloading. If too many people do it, it drives the legitimate broadcasters out of business. If that happens, say goodbye to a massive chunk of the sports coverage currently out there. It isn't too long ago when rugby union on TV consisted of the Six Nations and little else.

scamalert

as above user stated people dont like to wait,look at time it takes for US show to appear on continent or local tv-its 6 to 12months at best if they can afford it,thus people go with likes of netlix,amazon if gaining popularity or straight downlaod or likes of kodi.

those who dont want to wait get shows instantly for fraction of cost or nothing-free sat with 20e dish and smart tv that has coax has over 200 channels that spin from uk,to streaming all popular tv shows that are out there in a loop for years now,all one needs tv with inbuilt sat receiver and coax connection

so whats the point for someone who isnt into sports to get bundles that basically consist of sport channels and few cartoon,movies for 30-40e extra .

US has great channels such as HBO,AMC,nat geo that are split in different categories and at least one gets latest tv shows out of them,now here you pay for the shows that are out for years-so this trend of decline in tv subs will eventually become whats happened with renting cd's from xtravision or the likes.

icdg

They are all pay TV channels - in HBO's case premium level, like Sky Movies or Sky Sports here.

7upfree

mike2084 wrote: »

And Ireland made history on eir tonight. That won't help :-)

And only 45,000 people saw it.......

Johnboy1951

icdg wrote: »

I wouldn't write off the Eirsport debacle so easily. Free to air is very attractive it's true, and the biggest reason for anyone these days to stick with pay TV is access to premium sports channels. And if a pay TV provider cannot deliver premium sports channels, then it is in trouble.

I read one poster on another part of boards last night call for a "Netflix style revolution in sports broadcasting". That will not happen. For one thing, Netflix itself has zero experience in delivering live content, but I suspect that's not what the poster meant . A lot of people look at the out of market sports packages offered in the US without realising fully how these work and especially the fact that there is a traditional terrestrial broadcaster of each of these matches. The proof of the pudding for internet delivery will be if the Premier League ever take the plunge but they show no sign of doing so - and why would they when Sky is willing to offer them a whole pile of cash and take all the risk on the delivery side.

Piracy (or "other methods" as its euphemistically referred to so often here) only works so long as there are enough people willing to pay subscriptions to support those freeloading. If too many people do it, it drives the legitimate broadcasters out of business. If that happens, say goodbye to a massive chunk of the sports coverage currently out there. It isn't too long ago when rugby union on TV consisted of the Six Nations and little else.

The same warning (FUD?) was spread about music and we all know how that turned out!
Providers had to give the customer what they wanted or they were not going to get paid at all.
It took a lot of time and 'fighting' for the providers to change their services and adapt to what people actually wanted and were willing to pay for.
That 'fight' is still ongoing I guess, but the 'old' way has lost.

I expect something similar to happen with TV services.
People want, and are willing to pay for, a sports service that does not rip them off and provides the content they want.
Heck there are multitudes paying for 'dodgy' services which could fail at any minute.
They do so because they get what they want at a price they are willing to pay.

The providers will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to the point of providing what customers want, or else they will change willingly and become very successful ........ a 'Netflix-type'or 'Spotify-type' provider.

in the meantime I will stick to FTA multiroom and multi-device, and pick up sport however I can manage it.

Johnboy1951

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The same warning (FUD?) was spread about music and we all know how that turned out!

Just recently an Irish indie band broke up and announced that one of the factors was that they just weren't getting paid enough for their music. They said that the likes of Spotify and Deezer don't make any money for them and cited the loss of TXFM too.

Others such as Taylor Swift have very publicly done the same. So, if they're correct, the consumer is getting the content that they want at a price they want to pay, but to the detriment of those who produce it.

Johnboy1951

Karsini wrote: »

Just recently an Irish indie band broke up and announced that one of the factors was that they just weren't getting paid enough for their music. They said that the likes of Spotify and Deezer don't make any money for them and cited the loss of TXFM too.

Others such as Taylor Swift have very publicly done the same. So, if they're correct, the consumer is getting the content that they want at a price they want to pay, but to the detriment of those who produce it.

Many businesses fail or close for many different reasons.
No one has the right to success.

Expectations are very high for most artists ...... but the majority never make it.
Some make it and value their output much higher than a lot of people are prepared to pay.

The 'middle men' were the ones making the huge figures, on the backs of the artists. Yes a small percentage of artists went on to monetary success ...... in a lot of cases by being able to break with the middle men who were ripping them off.

The "music industry" (mostly middle men) have suffered ... and I have no sympathy at all for them .... but music has not died, nor will it.

Interesting quote from FLA

It’s a deadly time in so many ways to be in a band; you can have so much control over your work if you’re clever; you can release it how and when you like and in our opinion, right now, Ireland is the healthiest it’s ever been in terms of talent and diversity.

Anyway this is rather OT.

loyatemu

Karsini wrote: »

Just recently an Irish indie band broke up and announced that one of the factors was that they just weren't getting paid enough for their music. They said that the likes of Spotify and Deezer don't make any money for them and cited the loss of TXFM too.

Others such as Taylor Swift have very publicly done the same. So, if they're correct, the consumer is getting the content that they want at a price they want to pay, but to the detriment of those who produce it.

that band was Fight Like Apes - if you picked 100 people off the street I'd say 98 of them would never have heard of FLA, there's no era in which they would have made a long term living out of music.

icdg

People are still paying for music - astronomically in some cases. I haven't been to a concert in years because ticket prices are now quite normally exceeding €100 for general sale tickets (not premium). Artists are making up the money they can't make from album sales at the box office.

What will be the equivalent for sports broadcasting? If you can figure out how sports broadcasters can make money if people won't subscribe any more, let me know. They don't have an equivalent of jacking up ticket prices - they can't very well hike advertising rates if measured viewership is falling. Saying they'll become a "Netflix style" or "Spotify style" a bad comparison, because you are talking about (in those industries) a move from paying individually for each recording to a subscription model. Sports broadcasting already works on a subscription model. Changing the delivery mechanism from satellite/cable to internet doesn't matter, because it won't reduce one bit the payments the rights holders are expecting.

Johnboy1951

icdg wrote: »

People are still paying for music - astronomically in some cases. I haven't been to a concert in years because ticket prices are now quite normally exceeding €100 for general sale tickets (not premium). Artists are making up the money they can't make from album sales at the box office.

What will be the equivalent for sports broadcasting? If you can figure out how sports broadcasters can make money if people won't subscribe any more, let me know. They don't have an equivalent of jacking up ticket prices - they can't very well hike advertising rates if measured viewership is falling. Saying they'll become a "Netflix style" or "Spotify style" a bad comparison, because you are talking about (in those industries) a move from paying individually for each recording to a subscription model. Sports broadcasting already works on a subscription model. Changing the delivery mechanism from satellite/cable to internet doesn't matter, because it won't reduce one bit the payments the rights holders are expecting.

There was no mention of not paying anymore.
Quite the opposite!

Give people what they want, at a reasonable price, and they will pay.
Else rip off those who do pay and the rest will go the 'dodgy' route.

The choice is there for those service providers.
They tried 'strong arm' tactics and it does not work, so the next move is theirs.
Remember it is legal to stream content in the EU, regardless the copyright situation, provided the content is not stored (outside of the buffer necessary to stream).

Like everything else in this consumer society ..... give the people what they want and they will pay a reasonable amount for it. Else fight the losing battle that is 'dodgy' access to the same content.

icdg

I'm not sure what gives you that idea. The offence of unlawful reception (s371 Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000) would appear to cover it.

Johnboy1951

icdg wrote: »

I'm not sure what gives you that idea. The offence of unlawful reception (s371 Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000) would appear to cover it.

http://www.satandpcguy.com/legal-uk-tv-in-spain/

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed that watching pirated video streams online does not break any copyright laws. The CJEU confirmed that the existing EU copyright provide exemptions for temporary copies for viewing and streaming online. Viewing or streaming, the court says, is different to making a copy and would be exempt from copyright laws, but the copies "must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process." It's worth noting that this ruling does not exempt operators of these streaming services from legal responsibility, only the viewers and users of these services.

7upfree

icdg wrote: »

People are still paying for music - astronomically in some cases. I haven't been to a concert in years because ticket prices are now quite normally exceeding €100 for general sale tickets (not premium). Artists are making up the money they can't make from album sales at the box office.

What will be the equivalent for sports broadcasting? If you can figure out how sports broadcasters can make money if people won't subscribe any more, let me know. They don't have an equivalent of jacking up ticket prices - they can't very well hike advertising rates if measured viewership is falling. Saying they'll become a "Netflix style" or "Spotify style" a bad comparison, because you are talking about (in those industries) a move from paying individually for each recording to a subscription model. Sports broadcasting already works on a subscription model. Changing the delivery mechanism from satellite/cable to internet doesn't matter, because it won't reduce one bit the payments the rights holders are expecting.

I wouldn't pay that for concerts either. It is extortion. The next big thing will be VR.

The Cush

Liberty Global (Virgin Media) Q4 2016 numbers published yesterday (in brackets, quarter on quarter +/-)
http://www.libertyglobal.com/pdf/press-release/LG-Q4-2016-Press-Release-FINAL-for-Website.pdf

Video Subscribers - 304,800 (-7,400)
--- *Analogue Cable - 29,700 (+1,000)
--- Digital Cable - 275,100 (-8,400)
Internet - 363,500 (-300)
Telephone - 352,400 (+200)

Total Subscribers - 1,020,700 (-7,500)
Premises - 454,700 (-3,000)

Mobile Subscribers - 17,900 (+4,300)

U.K./Ireland: we posted a 39% increase in organic RGU additions to 304,000 in the U.K. in 2016, delivering our best annual result since 2009, helped by our network extension program. Subscriber additions in Q4 in the U.K. were impacted by increased churn related to our second price increase in 2016, while sales remained strong throughout the quarter. In Ireland, intensified competition increased RGU attrition by 36,000 in 2016

*Analogue Cable, more correctly a Basic Video Subscriber, a home, residential multiple dwelling unit or commercial unit that receives their video service over their broadband network either via an analogue video signal or via a digital video signal without subscribing to any recurring monthly service that requires the use of encryption-enabling technology.

This category has seen an increase of 1,000 in the last quarter surprisingly, as it's no longer possible to subscribe to their analogue channels via cable, what would account for this increase in numbers? Discounts to digital TV subscribers maybe?

JTMan

Thanks The Crush.

The Analogue growth is puzzling.
- The cause is not new subscribers.
- The cause should not be better counting of subscriber numbers because if that is the case then prior periods should also have been restated as per normal financial reporting convention.
- Is it an error / typo by Liberty? These things happen!

Interesting that TV subs continue to fall at a very fast pace on an annual basis.

Interesting that VM are blaming competition for subscriber loss in Ireland.

icdg

They don't seem to want to put the blame straight where it should be laid - the loss of Eir Sport. (It happened in Q3; but a lot of people who wanted to change were tied into contracts. IIRC there was a price rise in Q4 which would have allowed those who wanted out to escape).

The Cush

Liberty Global (Virgin Media) Q1 2017 numbers published (in brackets, quarter on quarter +/-)
http://www.libertyglobal.com/pdf/press-release/LG-Q1-2017-Press-Release-FINAL.pdf

Video Subscribers - 297,900 (-6,900)
--- Analogue Cable - 28,400 (-1,300)
--- Digital Cable - 269,500 (-5,600)
Internet - 364,400 (+900)
Telephone - 353,900 (+1,500)

Total Subscribers - 1,016,200 (-4,500)
Premises - 452,500 (-2,200)

Mobile Subscribers - 27,900 (+10,000)

Virgin TV V6 STB, no indication as to which additional markets it will be rolled to

Take-up of our new 4K enabled "Virgin TV V6" set-top box was robust in Q1 and customer satisfaction for this product has been significantly higher than our prior device. This new box is expected to be rolled out across additional markets later this year

The new V6 set-top box was launched in the UK for existing customers in December and for new customers in January 2017, the 4k box has 6 tuners, a 1TB hard drive and a faster processor.

colm_mcm

I would guess a lot of the increased phone subscriptions are to customers who cancelled cable and kept internet.