indian c&s market– distribution perspective december 18, 2005 presentation by shri anuj...

INDIAN C&S MARKET– DISTRIBUTION PERSPECTIVE

December 18, 2005

Presentation by Shri Anuj Gandhi, President, SET Discovery Pvt. Ltd. at

TDSAT Open House Forum – Guwahati

2TDSAT presentation: for review and discussion

Indian Market – Overview

C& S Industry – Stakeholders/Distribution Chain/Investments

Ground Realities/Concern Areas

Regulation Impact

Possible Way Forward

Myths


a market called India 1billion + Individuals living in less than 200 million Homes

Spread across a huge geography

Literacy level of 62%

Television reaches 108 million homes

Cable & Satellite in about 61 million homes

Television is a great platform for providing education, promotes literacy, science and technology, sports, general entertainment and encourages individual talents.

If there is one word that describes Indian Television industry’s outlook, it will be “Potential”.

The Cable and Satellite industry is expected to grow to INR18,900 crores by 2006*.

* Source KPMG Research


Urban vs. Rural

C&S market growing; max growth from Rural markets

India C&S Market ( source NRS 2005 )

Total Subscription in INR Crores

70%

30%

Urban Market

Rural

Total TV Households: 108 mn

Total C&S Households: 61 mn

Urban – about 32 mn @ Rs150 pm

Rural – about 28 mn @ Rs 75 pm

Total Subscription Revenue: INR 8280 crores

Subscription Revenue expected to grow to INR 10,700 crores in 2006*

*Source KPMG Research


Stakeholders/Distribution ChainBROADCASTERS

Distribution Agency of Broadcasters

Cable Operator

(one headend owner)

MSO

(Multiple headend owner)

LMO LMOLMO LMO


Broadcasters Costs / Revenues

Broadcasters Costs

• Cost of content-

1. Sports rights

2. Movies

3. Programs

• Cost of production

• Distribution costs

• Marketing/promotion

• Carriage Fees

Broadcasters Revenues

• Advertisement Revenue

• Subscription Revenue

• Revenue from sub-licensing of content


Distribution of Subscription Revenue -% Share of Stakeholders

BroadcasterMSO/ CABLE OPERATOR LMO Viewer

Broadcaster 5-10% 75-80% Viewer100%20-25%10-15%

The share of the Retailer i.e the LMO is 75-80% whereas the Industry average worldwide is about 50%.

Is it wrong for the Broadcasters to demand a fair share????

Distribution agency of

Broadcasters


Uneven Distribution of Subscription Revenue : A case study

Case Study: Bangalore

– Total C&S Households: 1 million

– ARPU: Rs. 175/- pm (Avg.Price ranges from Rs 150/- to Rs. 350/-per house )

– Total inflow (Annual) Rs. 250 crores

– Broadcasters: Rs. 35 crores *

– MSOs: Rs. 10 crores *

- Retained by LMOs Rs. 210 crores (84 percent!)

*Estimated

Not considering installation charges and 2nd/3rd TV connections at home


Some Myths

• Myth – Subscriber numbers are negotiated on the basis of TRP’s and popularity of channels

• Reality – Popularity of channels and TRP’s have no bearing on subscription numbers.

• Myth -- If Broadcasters offer channels on a stand alone basis, consumers will be able to choose the channels they want

• Reality -- In the absence of addressability consumers cannot choose the channels they want.

• Myth – If the operator is not charging the consumer Rs 642/- (cost of all pay channels and applicable taxes), there is no under declaration

• Reality - As explained in the last slides, even when the operator collects at an average Rs 150/ per household the broadcaster gets only 10-15% of the total subscription revenue.


Regulation Impact

• The industry has been affected by virtually no meaningful regulation until a couple of years back

• The present regulations are ad-hoc, one-sided and do not take into account the realities on the ground

• This adhocism vitiates the investments and growth opportunities for the broadcasting business without meaningfully benefiting the consumer.

• While the regulations were intended to correct the ills of the trade, the imbalances in the regulations has resulted in these ills continuing to grow.


Must Provide Impact : A Case Study

City: Moradabad Existing Cable Operators: 2

– Declared Subscribers to Broadcasters : Operator 1= 2000 & Operator 2 = 750

– Truce on ground/ areas demarcated

– Ground collection by Cable Operator from LMO’s : Rs. 100/- per ‘declared’ subscriber

– LMO’s charge consumer average Rs 150/- per home

Enters New Cable Operator – Cost of entry: Post office registration – Rs 500/- (presently)

• Headend equipment and cable costs- Rs 15 lacs (Estimated)

• Content costs: would want to start at 300 subs to the Broadcasters

– New cable operators offers connection to LMO’s at throwaway prices of say Rs 70/- per `reduced declared subscriber’

LMO’s shift to new Cable operator on account of price advantage – The LMO continues to charge the customer the same amount but their margins go up !!!

The broadcasters starts to receive lower revenues from all the CO . Ground wars starts amongst cable operators Availability of signals to consumers becomes uncertain The value chain suffers in the medium to long term


`Must Provide’ without a `Must Carry’ obligation on the cable operators - Impact

• Huge unregulated carriage fees

•Disincentive for cable operators/MSO’s to digitalise and increase bandwidth

•Reduced channel options for consumers

• No recourse to broadcasters if the Cable operator refuses to carry its channels.


Notice period : Imbalances and Impact

30/2 days notice by Broadcasters/ Mso’s to operators and Public before disconnection:

– encourages multiple defaults

– takes away the tool to put pressure on operators to pay

– modifies credit/payment terms

– Does it help the consumer???

• Meaningless in so far as the consumer is concerned unless there is a

similar obligation on Cable operators /LMO’s to give notice to customers.

• For example when a Cable operator refuses to carry the channels of

broadcasters and switches off the channels without any notice to

consumers despite the Broadcasters willing to provide signals to the

cable operators.

– Notice period is unduly long; even essential service providers like water and electricity do not give such long notice.


Impact- Price Freeze

• “Interim” price freeze has now been in force for almost two years even though it was intended to be a “temporary measure”.

• Price freeze

• fundamentally inconsistent with the current realities

• pricing of other goods and services are being deregulated in favor of market competition: energy, telecommunications, utilities, and insurance (to name just a few)

• To use the Wholesale Price Index (the “WPI”) which is based on the prices of food, grains, vegetables and fuel, among other items, as a basis for a rate increase of television channel pricing is clearly illogical

• In the garb of this interim price freeze even commercial establishments, who are not really subscribers under the industry norms and practices, are seeking to secure cable signals at individual residential subscription pricing.


Viewer/ Cable TV Customer

Why don’t I get receipts

for my payments?

Can I pay by cheque?

Why don’t I get receipts

for my payments?

Can I pay by cheque?

Do I really care for Cable

Operator?

Do I really care for Cable

Operator?

If the cable operator

denies me signals,

where do I go?

If the cable operator

denies me signals,

where do I go?

What am I paying for? Cable TV/ Channels

What am I paying for? Cable TV/ Channels

Why do rates go up

anytime?

Why do rates go up

anytime?


Possible solutions

Territory-wise Licensing– Encourage the availability of choices for consumers in terms of LMO’s

– Discourage Monopolies at the LMO level

Voluntary CAS– The choice should be with the consumer, when he wants to shift

– MSO should be the drivers

Phase-wise introduction of Digital Cable– TRAI has already initiated steps in this direction


THANK YOU

indian c&s market– distribution perspective december 18, 2005 presentation by shri anuj...

Documents