ETV's wonderful business plan

Just as fake as your calculations ...

1) 150 000 €/month for satellite distribution means: costs for all transponders on (at that time) 4 satellites, including spaceport fees and and the costs of the leased lines to transport the signal to the space port.
2) I know a lot of ppl that would be very happy if your assumption about the wages was anywhere close to reality.
3) Your assumption about the call rate is far to low. If you wanna calculate conservative 80 % would be fine (in reallity it is higher).
4) Offline services: you know that nasty little adds that spoil the view?
5) Running costs for equipment, rent, heating, electricity, water, insurances, decorations, phone, mail, internet, production of the offline services, ....

If you like to, you may now recalculate (I'm pretty sure you don't want to as it wouldn't fit into your picture of the world ...)

Sorry, I was to forget:

we have to consider also how many smss we see and calls are fakes...
...and they are a lot

hello kasenit,

I'm not a specialist in this field, but we can show some more realistic numbers.

<<< How much cashflow needs a TV station to be profitable? >>>

smss

Let's start from your numbers:

<<< we get 24 seconds per SMS >>>

Consider this number as an average daily number (in the nught it could be a bit higher, in the early morning lower):

we have 3600 smss/day.

According to their numbers,

Gross revenues SMS (€3/SMS): €10800/day
After Carrier Share (60%): €4320/day
TV Network Revenues (50%): €2160/day

calls:

let's consider how many girls are employed during the different shifts.
Moreover: let's consider these models have "half-full traffic" every day (very optimistic).
Finally: let's consider an average 3 €/min for the calls.

Then:

Shift 03:00-->06:00 : 2(models)*3(hours)*60(minutes)*3(euro/min)= 1080 €
Shift 06:00-->11:00 : 3*5*60*3=2700 €
Shift 11:00-->17:00 : 4*6*60*3=4320 €
Shift 17:00-->22:00 : 5*5*60*3=4500 €
Shift 22:00-->03:00 : 7*5*60*3=6300 €

Tot (1 day) 18900 € (full traffic) ---> 9450 € (half-full traffic)

Gross revenues calls : 9450 €
After Carrier Share (60%): 3780 €
TV Network Revenues (50%): 1890 €
--------------
Conclusion:

total TV Network Revenues (calls + smss) : 120000 €/month (optimistic...)

--------------
We remembere HvB's words:

<<< Remember that the costs for satellite distribution alone are somewhat around 150 000 €/month >>>
[hidden link - please register]
post 02.07.2009, 05:55

So actually they have 300000 €/month costs for HB + Astra.
There are many other costs for ETV: the studio, the equipment, salaries of 100 persons employed,...): let's consider more than 100000 €/month.
So, to be profitable, ETV nowadays needs more than 400000 €/month.

Then we can say that calls + smss can't provide even a 30% of these 400000 euro.

<<< I hope the specialists in this field can tell us soon how many U.S. TV stations took the bait. >>>

From the previous numbers we see that,for the future, they need many "partners", otherwise ...
...and I think that presenting such "fantasy" numbers (the numbers on their site) is not the best way to attract partners, unless they think all people are a bunch of idiots ...

Well, maybe I wanted to put the cat among the pigeons, and it seems I succeeded quite well. If serious or no, I hope the specialists in this field can tell us soon how many U.S. TV stations took the bait.

Btw, I sat a while watching the Internet feed and counted the SMS with stopwatch in my hand. In about 6 minutes (afternoon show) I counted 12 + 1 VIP. If we count this as 3 screen messages, we get 24 seconds per SMS. In a night show this might be a bit higher I think. But it would be difficult to display more than say 8 - 10 messages per minute. How much cashflow needs a TV station to be profitable? I am quite sure that with 2000 Dollars you would not buy a lot of advert time.

Why shouldn't I be amused?
Can't see any reason for that.
When he was serious: rotfl. Come on Kasenit, you should know better ...

<<<I was really amused about Kasenits post.
Does anyone really believe he was serious when he posted it? >>>

I think he was seriuos... and I suppose you are not so amused..., but at this point being pitiless would be too easy, and I am not an executioner ...

:) no hint necessary. That is already public.
No I was really amused about Kasenits post.
Does anyone really believe he was serious when he posted it?

But it's a good joke. Thumbs up!

Damn have been busy and missed the whole fun ...
DB already braught it to the point: sample calclation
It's single purpose is to show the splitting of the text message generated income. The figures itself are totaly unimportant although someone choose to take pretty nice looking ones :) .

What's the next project?
Maybe a deeper investigation of the blue replacement fluid ('Ersatzflüssigkeit') in the Tampax adds?
But be carefull, with Michael Mittermeier another comedian already investigated that topic. ;)

I got a stiffy because I know my money is saved in my pocket.:-)))

The curiousity factor doesn't work with this kind of show.

@ DB , that was only a question , and a bit an answer .If you read it well . BUT

Why asking Vappiano ?? I read his posts very well , and know what he thinks about members .

>>>But there's a great advantage to being an accountant. You do not have to rely on tv to get a stiffy. You can get one by just reading a Balance Sheet. <<<<

This are your words . The last 2 sentences , are they for the accountant or ME ?? I need not to look at ETV for a "stiffy" , and I do that for some months no more !! So it has to be for "the accountant " !! Right ??

I read all your posts , but the at this one , I thought you should have to be more clever !! Thanks

<<< Accountants look at past numbers >>>

They do it just in the way you specified here:

<<< They know the number of callers and work back to a realistic ratio and the potential audience. >>>

You said

<<< The 'sample' is not intended to be realistic in the long term and they will know that. >>>

I say that the "sample" is not realistic in 1 hour term, and everybody who could be interested in this business can understand this fact in 2 minutes, through a simple calculation like that of our fellows kasenit or Ghost.
Try to go in front of a banker with such numbers and you will see how many kicks in your ass you receive...

Then it's another expression of the behaviour of this TV: promises and lies

Am I ETV's accountant ? You would have to ask Vappiano for the answer to that one. He knows them all.

But there's a great advantage to being an accountant. You do not have to rely on tv to get a stiffy. You can get one by just reading a Balance Sheet.

@ DB , do I understand it well ??

>>> Accountants (my role) look at these <<<. You have to tell , if ETV does all well ?

Sorry for you . Then I have the feeling , I was right !! Greetings !

"Accountants look at past numbers....."

How can they possibly look at such numbers when they do not exist ? Did accountants and bankers have the benefit of past numbers when ETV started in Europe ?. No. There were no past numbers just a potential.

America is a brand new, un-tapped, market. So, just like when the European operation started there is a potential. They do not know how many viewers they will receive. They do not know how many viewers they get in Europe. They know the number of callers and work back to a realistic ratio and the potential audience.

The 'sample' is not intended to be realistic in the long term and they will know that. Like with anything new, there could be a potential for that ratio at the start - the curiousity factor. But in the longer term I am sure they will work to the lower ratio that they currently use.

Now consider if they did it the other way. They quote a much lower potential audience. They quote the audience/participator ratio that they currently have. The income result is much lower. The prospective broadcast partner still does not know the real figures and uses the same logic as before to produce a lower expectation of earnings. Much lower than in the first example and now not at all attractive.

So in the first example there is a potential. In the more realistic example there is not. But the idea is that the broadcast partner works to a lower figure internally. When the actual results come in they see that their own projection was quite accurate and are happy. And that IS how things work.

I am still open for questions. Replies will be given at my normal chargeable hourly rate.

Come on DB, do you really think to be the only one who knows how things work in this world ?
I've never seen in my professional life someone searching for some partners and presenting some numbers based on "nothing".

Accountants and bankers look at the past numbers you produced to make a projection about your project and they require a Feasibility plan, so there is no purpose to present some "numbers of pure fantasy", moreover totally inconsistent.

<<< Bring on the next 300 questions. >>>

No questions when I see such answers...