I expect a lot of these were YouView customers making up the 70,000 net TV additions.

Good description of BT's strategy from Ovum analyst Emeka Obiodu today "So what Sky was doing before was to give broadband away for free or at a very cheap price, encouraging customers to believe that sports TV was the premium product. Now what BT has done is to turn that narrative on its head. So BT is now saying to customers, sports TV is the free commodity. Broadband, especially our Infinity fibre products, is the premium product."

Further breakdown: "estimates based on company guidance" of BTS homes:

Sky - 1.3m (free or pay - split unknown)
BT TV (ie BT TV box) - 450,000 (ie about half of the 900,000 BT TV homes)
BT without a TV - 450,000 (ie online / app only)
Sub total - 2.2m
VM - 1.8m
Grand total - 4m

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...cess-rival-sky

These are the viewers who are always being overlooked when BT Sport's ratings are discussed. I expect only a tiny percentage in BARB homes are attaching their devices to the TV to be counted.

Surely the same would apply to viewers who watch Sky Sports through Sky Go etc.

Do online viewers count in BARB figures in any event?

The fact remains that with 4m potential viewers (or is that households in which case the number of potential viewers is much higher) the ratings are generally pretty disappointing. The existence of BT Sport has clearly had an initial effect on Broadband retentions, take up etc but will that continue if it turns out that most of those who have access to BT Sport hardly or never watch it. At the moment they are still in the honeymoon period. How many more people who haven't already signed up will do so. Both setanta and ESPN peaked quite early and then struggled to attract significant additional numbers.

I speak as a new BT Infinity customer and a BT Sport subscriber (although now only paying for HD).

I assume that will just be an attempt to make Sky think they aren't bothered about bidding (which won't work). If BT genuinely don't add any decent rights to their channels in the next few years and after the next Premier League auction they're left in the position they are now, having passed on NBA, NHL, Champions League and whatever other rights will be available in the next 2-3 years - then I wonder whether people will reconsider subscribing if they're paying - I'm paying at the moment and I don't know whether I'd be happy with what they have now rights wise for the long term - at the moment they're in the "these were the rights available to them so far" period.

1) True, but Sky Go is an add on for subscribersj and on line viewing is a small percentage. For nearly a quarter of BT's activations/subscribers (excluding VM's passive ones) online is the only way to watch.

2) If connected to TV.

4m households. Only 2.2m customers outside VM have signed up so great opportunity for BT to switch on more of its broadband customers especially as the nights draw in. Per loyalsince's point in post #2484 customers feeling they are getting value is more important than stark viewing figures for BT's business modl. It's a customer perception thing.

Just coming back to this question, EE/Orange have already announced that they had 10,000 net adds in the quarter - per link below.

So the table can now be updated as follows:

BT - up 156,000
Sky - up 111,000
EE/Orange - up 10,000
Rest of market - down 109,000
Total market - up 168,000

As you said, TalkTalk's numbers are out on 12th November. I'm reluctant to guess them but in the last 3 quarters they have had positive net adds of 10,000, 10,000 and 8,000 and they have previously said they have not been affected by BT Sport.

So if we had to guess I think TalkTalk is likely to be broadly flat or slightly up - if they are down at all I don't think they will be down a lot.

So the conclusion appears to be that it is all the other small ISPs who are losing customers in pretty large numbers (subject to seeing TalkTalk's actual numbers!!!)

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10_log.php

Is it somewhat more complicated, and marginal gains for BT a lot lower? For every switch (except from cable) BT's wholesale arm loses the wholesale revenue from the other supplier. It is somewhat complex (for me at least) to work out what the economics is where the line has been unbundled, but, in general, the gain to BT as a whole is a lot lower than the revenue from a switched customer. Marginal costs are significant in the calculation of the net worth to BY.

All of this just goes to show how you can twist statistics (not you but BT, Sky etc) to create a misleading headline. If your figures are correct then BT has 93% of net adds but then Sky has 66% of net adds and EE 6% of net adds. Those add up to 165% - clearly a nonsense.

The 93% figure claimed by BT implies that other companies share 7% between them. Clearly rubbish based on the Sky and EE figures and therefore misleading in that light.

The only relevant figure is the number of net adds and how that compares to previous quarters and other suppliers. The only relevant % figure is the % increase quarter on quarter as regards your own broadband customers.

The 93% quoted is headline grabbing but doesn't really reflect the overall market.

Indeed in % terms both BT and Sky have had similar growth levels in their most recent quarter.

Using your link if you look at BT's last 4 quarters the increases have been (in '000s) 122, 136, 95 and 156. So the most recent quarter was better than the one before but not spectacularly better than the previous two when there wasn't the same hullabaloo. The recent growth will just as likely be down to the special offers floating around as much as BT Sport.

For comparison the last 4 quarters for Sky have seen growth of 132, 152, 519 and 111. The 519 figure includes the gobbling up of 400,000 O2 customers included in that quarter so the real Sky figure was 119.

Comparing the various quarters Sky has gained in raw numbers more broadband customers than BT (10k, 16k and 24k) in the first 3 quarters but 45k less in the most recent quarter. That does show that the BT advertising campaign and the arrival of BT Sport has worked both to slow Sky's growth and to stop the narrowing gap in subscriber numbers between the two but has involved a massive ad and sports rights spend and promotions.

The more interesting figures might be those for the next quarter or two to see if the turnaround in momentum can be maintained. That is what BT needs to achieve in the longer term and on a consistent quarterly basis if it is to maintain its subscriber base lead over Sky. If next quarter Sky were to revert to beating BT in net adds then the BT strategy is in danger. If BT maintains a lead over Sky in net adds going forward then the strategy is working but how far it is working then has to be quantified and how far is the cost of BT Sport worth the gains.

Of course!!


If your viewing figures are low, go with a meaningless share figure. Less people watching TV Saturday lunchtimes so share is obviously going to be a lot higher than ESPN's Saturday evening slot.

Just as an aside, there's no Tim Lovejoy on BTSP on BT Sport at the moment - they've got Helen Skelton standing in, who is not only a great presenter (she knows her sport) but is looking absolutely fantastic this morning!!! Worth taking a look

BBC radio interview with Gavin Patterson, Chief Executive of BT being grilled on BT Sport here. No gentle questions!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24754202

Do BT camera operators not own a cloth?

Yes Richard, I agree entirely!

I did say in my previous post "(and that's not all 100% profit - there will be some incremental costs)".

Understand your point but I think the % figure is of some relevance - simply because (using hypothetical numbers) it's easier to get 40,000 net adds if the market total rises 100,000 (you have 40%) than it is to get 40,000 net adds if the market total rises 50,000 (which requires you to have 80%).

It can be misleading if you don't understand the numbers properly but in fairness these numbers aren't being looked at by the general public - they are being looked at by city analysts who will understand them.

And once you do understand them it's very simple - all it requires is an understanding that some companies will have a negative percentage.

Finally look at BT's graph of its % of net adds over the last two and a half years - it's remarkable how consistent the % is (up until this quarter) which I think indicates that it is a figure worth looking at - because it implies BT net adds have had a correlation with total market net adds (up until this quarter). Slide 24 (middle pane):

http://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperfor...213_slides.pdf

However I agree entirely with the rest of your post re the future - for BTS to be a success it has to keep on boosting BT's broadband/phone business - to justify BTS at this cost level BT needs very roughly an extra 1m broadband / phone customers and that will take many years (if it ever happens).

To be fair, she was the only reason to watch Blue Peter for a while!

But they normally show their Scottish match then (hang over from ESPN contract). Will have Scottish games until 2017 (?).

By the next contract will Sky and BT become 'overseas' broadcasters

Richard, just coming back to your point - in a bit more detail:

If someone switches their broadband from another ISP to BT, BT Consumer division will still pay BT Wholesale division for the line etc so BT Wholesale's reported numbers will be unchanged.

So what it boils down to is the profit margin within BT Consumer division - the Consumer division's P&L having been charged with the payment to BT's Wholesale division.

So what is that profit margin?

The answer is we don't know precisely but we do know the overall EBITDA% of BT's Retail division (which is Consumer + Business; Consumer accounting for 50% of Retail).

BT Retail EBITDA is £429m on revenue of £1,843m - ie an EBITDA% of 23%.

Now, we don't have the numbers for Consumer and Business separately and of course within Consumer there is phone, broadband and TV (and TV will include all the BTS costs) but even so, allowing for all of that, we can see that the combined Phone + Broadband EBITDA is very unlikely to exceed about 50%.

If it was much higher than 50% the numbers overall just wouldn't fit - unless Business had negative EBITDA which seems very unlikely.

In reality, it's probably quite a bit below 50%. If you add back the numbers for BT Sport (EBITDA minus £100m), the overall Retail EBITDA% excluding BT Sport becomes 29%. Now maybe Business has smaller margins - I don't know - but very plausible that Consumer Phone + Broadband EBITDA doesn't exceed about 40%.

Interested in your thoughts as always!

I can give the last couple of weeks' figures:

Overnight all-day shares

http://www.channel4sales.com/data/ov.../November/2013

Helping to explain that 1.3% share, in Broadcast magazine it is reported that the overnight average audience for coverage last Saturday (26 October) of Arsenal v Crystal Palace on BT Sport 1 from 11:30 to 15:00 was 617,700 (7.0%).

It compares with the following ratings on Sky Sports 1 that weekend:

Sat 17:00-20:00 - Southampton v Fulham: 431,900 (2.3%)
Sun 12:30-15:30 - Sunderland v Newcastle: 1,093,600 (9.7%)
Sun 15:30-18:55 - Chelsea v Man City: 1,470,200 (8.4%)

and on the previous Monday (21 October):

Mon 19:00-23:00 - Crystal Palace v Fulham: 482,200 (2.2%)

All the above figures will be finalised in the BARB consolidated numbers released on Monday, after timeshift is added and the lower-rating adverts are stripped out.

With the proviso that BARB are not showing any BT Sport 1 data for 9-15 September, I believe that the final figure for Arsenal v Crystal Palace will be the highest audience on record for the fledgling channel, by quite a margin. Although perhaps not quite as high as one might have expected on a 'free weekend'.

Thanks very much for that - I concur with your thoughts.

Note that BT have said they will split out BT Retail between consumer and business, but are unlikely to report in that way until their next financial year.

Helen skelton Has to be the worst presenter ever so annoying as is matt Dawson who I hate anyhowe.

Many thanks for all of that!

The overnight for Man Utd v Crystal Palace on 15 Sept was 480,000 which is the number I've used so far in the table I've been posting each week - hopefully we may get the official for that on Monday.

Assuming Man Utd v Crystal Palace isn't higher, the highest rating so far is 496,000 for Newcastle v Liverpool so as you say 617,700 is the highest by a very wide margin.

But, again as you say, it's debatable how good a figure that is given that it was a free weekend. My own view would be that it's so so - not bad but not great either.

Most people won't have been aware of the free weekend and the vast majority of casual viewers aren't going to stumble across even a live PL game on BT Sport given its EPG position and low prominence in newspapers and listings magazines etc.

Thanks - I missed that you had the overnight for 15 September. Yes, the official for it should be confirmed in the six-week BARB amendment cycle tomorrow. With regard to the week of 21-27 October, it will be interesting to see the reach figure and weekly share for BT Sport 1 tomorrow as well.

Yesterday BT Sport 1 had an all-day share of 0.9%, the same as two weeks ago.

http://www.channel4sales.com/data/ov.../November/2013

Newcastle v Chelsea at lunchtime peaked at 826k (8.3%) for BT Sport 1 (5-minute peak).

Arsenal v Liverpool on Sky Sports 1 from 17:00-20:00 averaged 1.4m and peaked at 2.11m (11.3%) (5-minute peak).

All according to reliable Twitter sources:
https://twitter.com/LiamHamiltonDCD/...52934266961920
https://twitter.com/TVRatingsUK/stat...50035088572416