Tefficient Public Industry Analysis 10 2013 From 4 To 3 Austria
Tefficient Public Industry Analysis 10 2013 From 4 To 3 Austria
Tefficient Public Industry Analysis 10 2013 From 4 To 3 Austria
Austria, with a population of 8.5 million, used to have five mobile network operators, making it
one of the most competitive mobile markets in Europe. Now there are three left.
When Hutchison-Whampoa, the owner of 3, made a bid on Orange, the European Union
needed 11 months to approve it.
EU appears to have changed their thinking since. Its roaming that is under scrutiny now: If
operators would agree to abolish roaming fees within EU, maybe EU could be more forgiving to
national M&A?
Consequently, European operator executives are publicly advocating the need to cut the
number of mobile operators to three per country. If Telefnicas bid for E-plus in Germany is
approved by KPNs shareholders and by the EU, it will be the ultimate starting signal for
Europes march towards national consolidation: If it can be done in EUs largest country, why
not elsewhere?
But since Austria serves as the the 4-to-3 precedent of Europe, lets check what the first six
months with three mobile operators did to the business results.
Austria, with a population of 8.5 million, used to have five mobile network operators A1 (Telekom Austria),
T-Mobile, Orange (formerly One), 3 and tele.ring making it one of the most competitive in Europe. The
characteristics of the Austrian market continued also after T-Mobiles acquisition of tele.ring in 2006: Low
me-too bundle prices, aggressive handset subsidisation and -sales focus, early mobile data
adoption and high usage but also, somewhat counter-intuitive, a very high customer loyalty. Operator
margins continued to be on the low side and with shareholders being interested in leaving Austria, it was
logical that the consolidation would continue: This time from four to three MNOs.
When Hutchison-Whampoa, the owner of 3, the smallest of the Austrian operators, in February 2012 made
a bid on Orange1 (number 3 on the market), the European Union needed 11 months to give its approval;
much longer than what was the case for other mergers in EU previously even though no incumbent was
involved.
This gave A1 and T-Mobile plenty of time to prepare meeting the new up-scaled 3.
In January, Orange was consolidated into 3. All of Oranges business wasnt becoming part of 3, though.
As part of the agreement, Hutchison-Whampoa sold Oranges low-cost brand yesss! to A1.
With yet a competitor out of the market, the industry might expect:
Lets use the actual business results of the Austrian operators to test these four expectations against reality.
1
Only minority held by Orange at this time buyout investor Mid Europa Partners had 65% ownership
Before looking at the revenues, we need to understand the market shares in Austria. Figure 1 shows the
development per quarter during 2012 and 2013.
7000
6000
5000
Mobile subscriptions [k]
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
3 Orange A1 T-mobile
After the inclusion of the yesss! subscriber base in January, A1s market leadership improved further,
reaching almost 6 million subscriptions2. T-Mobile has about 4 million subscriptions a steady number since
2011. Orange did only occasionally report business results, but their subscription base was indicated by
Orange group to be above 2.2 million by the end of 2012.
3 reports only every 6 months, so the Q1 and Q2 subscription bases are shown as identical. In January, the
subscription base effectively doubled when Orange (excl. yesss!) customers were included.
Figure 2 compares the revenue development of the Austrian mobile operators. 3s half-year results are
evenly distributed into two quarters.
2
A1 applied a stricter criterion on the subscription base in Q2 2013, but historical numbers have been adjusted
350
300
Revenue [MEUR]
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
3 Orange A1 T-mobile
The revenue erosion of T-Mobile has continued in 2013 after 3s acquisition of Orange. A1 seems to have
fared a bit better3, but we need to consider the strategic shift A1 did in Q2 2012, concentrating mainly on
high value customers. This has led to that a more significant part of A1s revenues is equipment-driven now.
Take a look at Figure 3 that also shows the service revenue for A1, T-Mobile and 3 in addition to the total
mobile revenue.
3
Since A1 doesnt report mobile-only revenue, an assumption has been made that A1s mobile revenue equals what A1 calls ARPU
relevant revenues and the total equipment revenue including A1s fixed business (mobile-only equipment sales not reported). The error
is believed to be small since handsets should like with other integrated operators dominate A1s equipment sales.
350
300 Equipment
Revenue [MEUR]
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
3: Total 3: Service A1: Total A1: Service T-mobile: Total T-Mobile: Service
Figure 3. Development of total mobile and mobile service revenues for A1, T-Mobile and 3
The equipment portion of A1s sales has increased significantly during the period. If looking only at A1s
mobile service revenues, its clear that revenue erosion continues also for A1 have in mind that yesss!
revenues have been added in Q1.
The old rule of thumb in the industry used to be that EBITDA margin equalled market share. With one player
out of the market, the average market share increase so the average EBITDA margin increases, right?
Table 1 shows that 3 improved EBITDA significantly after having added the higher-margin Orange business.
Also A1 improved slightly after adding yesss!
But the average EBITDA margin in Austria weighted against the market shares remained at the same,
low, 25% level as before.
4
A1 doesnt report mobile-only EBITDA. The figures are instead for the integrated A1, including fixed. Since the fixed broadband market
is quite competitive in Austria, theres little reason to believe that the fixed margin should be higher than the mobile margin.
5
For 9 month period January-September 2012, not reported for the full year 2012
100
80
EBITDA [MEUR]
60
40
20
0
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
3 Orange A1 T-mobile
6
A1 doesnt report mobile-only EBITDA. Figure 3 applies A1s reported integrated EBITDA margin (including fixed) to the mobile
revenues in Figure 2.
As said already, churn levels are traditionally very low in Austria even if the number of operators has been
high. Figure 5 shows the churn development in 2012 and 2013.
25%
20%
Churn, annualised
15%
10%
5%
0%
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
3: Contract A1: Contract A1: Blended T-mobile: Contract T-mobile: Blended
All three remaining operators are in 2013 having the same low contract churn of about 10% on annual basis.
In contrast to other markets where 3 operates, 3 had the lowest contract churn in Austria. The addition of
the Orange customers has significantly increased the churn rate for 3.
A1s blended churn increased when yesss! was added, but is still lower than for T-Mobile.
7
Orange didnt report churn. 3 doesnt report blended churn.
Figure 6 compares the blended SAC and SRC as reported by A1 and T-Mobile8.
200
180
160
140
SAC or SRC [EUR]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013
A1: Blended SAC A1: SRC T-mobile: Blended SAC T-mobile: SRC
A1s subscriber retention cost (top line in Figure 6) has been increased throughout 2012 and 2013.
According to Telekom Austria, this is because of A1s strategy shift to focus on high value customers. The
absolute SRC level (183 EUR in Q2 2013), is very high also internationally9. What A1 appears to do less of in
2013 is acquisition: Blended SAC is on its way down since Q4 2012.
T-Mobile follows A1s SRC increase in 2013. Contrary to A1, T-Mobile increases blended SAC in Q2 2013.
In spite of the significant increase in SRC, neither A1 nor T-Mobile sees any reduction in contract churn rates
(as seen in Figure 5). This means that also the relative the cost to defend the subscription base has
increased in 2013 even though one competitor is out of the market.
8
3 doesnt report SAC or SRC. Orange didnt report it.
9
Compare A1s position:
www.tefficient.com/.cm4all/iproc.php/tefficient%20public%20efficiency%20analysis%202%202013%20SAC%20SRC.pdf?cdp=a
Based on the 1H 2013 results of the Austrian operators, there is really nothing speaking for national
consolidation as a quick fix to profitability issues in a market: Revenue decline continues, EBITDA doesnt
improve, churn doesnt improve and SAC/SRC increases.
Is it too early to conclude? Maybe. But more likely the explanation is that it was the hungriest operator 3
that became bigger, becoming a more serious threat to market leaders A1 and T-Mobile. A threat that A1
and T-Mobile anticipated and took very seriously, indicated by their massive investments into customer
retention.
With EU opening up to the idea of national operator consolidation, its tempting for operator executives to
not initiate necessary efficiency improvements but hope for a quick M&A fix. The experience from Austria
is, so far, that national consolidation doesnt fix a broken market, though.
tefficient is an international efficiency specialist providing telecom operators and -suppliers with analysis,
benchmarks, consulting and coaching. Efficiency Index is invented and managed by tefficient.
www.tefficient.com