Cablevision Enters into Interim Agreement Regarding VOOM
- Thread starter Sat Junkie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 219
- Views 29K
I don't expect $0 operating loss after 18 months, but $75 million operating loss vs $5 million revenue (3Q) growing to $95 million operating loss vs $5 million revenue (4Q) is not showing growth. (And that is being kind and not including the baloons Cablevision charged off in 4Q.)cfarm said:
The reported operating loss for 2004 was $661 million vs $14 million revenue (including the baloons).
Cablevision doesn't report monthly loss, so I'll go quarterly. I EXPECT that revenue will grow quarter by quarter. Forgetting costs for the moment: Voom went from 5k subs to 25k subs between the end of 1Q and the end of 2Q 2004 - and still pulled of only $4 million in revenue for both quarters combined. 3Q was promising, $5 million in revenue - but they didn't gain the subs! In 4Q they still reported $5 million in revenue. That number NEEDS to increase EVERY QUARTER until they are profitable.
Now back to operating losses: This is a number that should be going down, but I'll accept it as "going down" on a startup if it goes down in ratio in the ratio with revenues.
3Q was $75m loss vs $5m revenue
4Q was $95m loss (for just the quarter expenses) vs $5m revenue
- the ratio went the wrong way -
As I just posted in another thread, I wouldn't mind seeing $180m loss on $20m revenue - that is showing improvement on the revenue side as well as reducing the loss ratio.
Before you throw D* in here note that it is an established business that is spending money to expand services. One quarter's loss, even if a billion more than V*, isn't a trend. V* hasn't shown a winning trend yet.
Losses are secondary when you have revenue. Based on 3Q04, V* needs 95,000 customers to have $20m in revenues. They are not there.
You wanted figures? There you go. I'm looking for:
1) Revenues increasing EVERY quarter, and
2) Loss ratio decreasing EVERY quarter
JL
justalurker said:
I've told you before, billing issues were significant. If you were a Voom sub or visiting other Forums where actual users post their billing issues you would understand this. The is most likely the direct explanation for the large number of 90 day accounts which quite probably turned into no pay accounts. Lost revenue.
Then I expect your complaints will grow louder and more frequent, because at this piont in time it's more likely that losses will increase, not decrease for the short term. There are flawed marketing approaches to be addressed and that costs money to fix. As does accelerating the sub acquisitions through promotions. Heavier sub signups will result in heavier losses for the short term. Simple common sense. No MBA required.
And they won't for some time. See above. Again, I don't think you have much personal experience or knowhow when it comes to startups to make a qualified or even educated evaluation of what's expected. Your posts clearly show you choose to ignore cost etimates made three years ago. Continuing to act surprised suggests ignorance. That is not a personal attack. It's an obervation.
Loss ratios will not be decreasing. I can tell you that right now, for the reasons stated. We also do not have accurate figures to analyze this picture because Voom is under the CVC umbrella. Hard to say everything being pinned to them belongs. And if Dolan Sr. manages to acquire the assets, it will be even more difficult because the resulting company will probably go private for the near term.
So you know, the DirecTV figures are quoted out of context. There are one time costs within their latest loss numbers pertaining to shutdowns of certain units, etc. which do not paint an accurate picture.
It really doesn't matter how Voom is losing revenues, whether by not having paying customers or not billing their willing customers. What matters is that Voom isn't getting the revenue they need.cfarm said:
It is a personal attack and you can't avoid that by lying about it. It is OBVIOUS that those that made the predictions are not happy with the current state of affairs - those that know much more than you or I. Those sitting inside Cablevision who said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - SHUT IT DOWN!cfarm said:
The SEC will help let us know that.cfarm said:
But what you have missed in your push to say that they have lost less than expected is that they have also completly blown the revenue side of the equation. Perhaps you missed in the previous post wher I said it would have been BETTER to lost $180m on $20m revenue than $95m on $5m revenue? Perhaps the word ratio isn't taught in math any more.
It would be OK to lose more if the promise of recouping it all was there in the form of a revenue stream. As it stands, they are struggling.
JL
Nobody's lying and I don't think it warrants handing you a tissue. If you can't act like adult, please refrain from participating in adult Forums.
The ratios argument is a red herring. I've read enough of your posts to understand that you'll use the facts as they suit your argument. In your case it's not about being objective.
If facts are readily available to me, even to the point of others pointing them out during the discussion, then me pretending they don't exist is ignorance. Feel less threatended now?
Perhaps it's time you ignored my posts?
The ratios argument is a red herring. I've read enough of your posts to understand that you'll use the facts as they suit your argument. In your case it's not about being objective.
If facts are readily available to me, even to the point of others pointing them out during the discussion, then me pretending they don't exist is ignorance. Feel less threatended now?
Perhaps it's time you ignored my posts?
cfarm
It is obvious that the content of my posts has passed your level of understanding. If you would like to discuss financials I'll be glad to join in the debate. But since you slipped in to this mode of calling people children (in SEVERAL posts) and other personal attacks. Let's talk Voom, OK?
Otherwise, stay in school. (Even if you are 45 yrs old ...)
You asked for goals, I gave them to you, and your response is to attack my personallity. If you don't agree with the goals that is fine. But can you do it without the rank emotionalism?
JL
It is obvious that the content of my posts has passed your level of understanding. If you would like to discuss financials I'll be glad to join in the debate. But since you slipped in to this mode of calling people children (in SEVERAL posts) and other personal attacks. Let's talk Voom, OK?
Otherwise, stay in school. (Even if you are 45 yrs old ...)
You asked for goals, I gave them to you, and your response is to attack my personallity. If you don't agree with the goals that is fine. But can you do it without the rank emotionalism?
JL
justalurker:
You're really amazing!!! You have more post than anybody else in this thread (18 so far) and most of your post are really long. In fact, as I look through your posting history, I notice that you only post in the VOOM forum even when your profile says that you subscribe to E*.
How can you affort to spend so much time posting about a service that you don't even have?
You're really amazing!!! You have more post than anybody else in this thread (18 so far) and most of your post are really long. In fact, as I look through your posting history, I notice that you only post in the VOOM forum even when your profile says that you subscribe to E*.
How can you affort to spend so much time posting about a service that you don't even have?
GadgetRick said:
Geez, Rickster read the post, I said you spew without facts to back it up.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh#t. Just because you think it's true in your mind doesn't make it fact.
BTW, where did you get your MBA?
Walter L. said:
Because their ain't shicrap on E*, the PQ is bad and he's ticked off because his wife won't let him get Voom.
Long posts by others require long answers, lest I be accused of not giving answers by those who don't really want to understand but just want to shout me down. As for the rest, it has been covered in other threads (and is inaccurate as I do also post in the E* forums).Walter L. said:
BTW: This is the Voom forum not the Justalurker forum - let's talk Voom.
When last we left the topic, cfarm asked for goals to be met and I posted goals:
1) Increasing REVENUE every quarter
2) Improving the LOSS vs REVENUE ratio every quarter
JL
Although I don't find anything offensive in your posts, the facts are:justalurker said:
1) You don't subscribe to VOOM
2) You only post on the VOOM forum
3) You have more posts than anybody else in this thread (19 total)
4) Your posts are too long
I'm not sure what your agenda is here but you're really suspicious. Sorry, I have to add you my "Ignore List" and I suggest everybody else do the same.
Fact #2 is a lie. Absolutely, positively a lie. Don't misunderstand me, you are a liar and you are lying when you claim #2 as a "fact".Walter L. said:
Fact #4 is an opinion, not fact. I've explained the long posts. Do you want two word replies to every post in the forum, those two words being "you're wrong". Most of my posts are not that long. But look at the posts being replied to - long posts.
I know you just want to shut me up - but is that really what a DISCUSSION forum is all about? Really! Feel free to choose to be ignorant. My ignore list is empty, because no matter what I think of any poster in this or any other forum, I respect all enough to at least see their posts.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to VOOM? Or can't Voomers handle the topic?
JL
