Posts Tagged ‘Grass Valley’

More Broadcast Vendor M&A: Screen Service Targeted in €30.5m Takeover Bid

Broadcast technology vendor financials, Broadcast Vendor M&A | Posted by Joe Zaller
Oct 22 2012

Italian broadcast transmitter vendor Screen Service became the target of a €30.5m takeover bid launched by Monte Bianco, according to a filing with the Milan Stock Exchange.

The bid values Screen Service, which for the first half of its financial year posted a loss of €3.67 on revenue of €25.1m, at a 35% premium over its previous stock price.

Monte Bianco, which is backed by French PE firm HLD, said it had not previously discussed the proposed deal with any of the shareholders of Screen Service, including Opera who own about 30% of the company.

Monte Bianco, who currently has an holds about 1.2% of Screen Service’s shares, said the proposed deal will increase the competitiveness of Screen Service, and ensure its medium and long term growth.

Screen Service is based in Brescia, Italy also has operations in the US and Brazil.  In July 2012, the company paid €1.1m to up its stake in its Brazilian subsidiary to 75% from 60%.

This is the second PE-backed deal for a broadcast transmitter in the last two years.  In April 2011, Technicolor announced that it had sold the Grass Valley transmission business to PARTER Capital Group for a “non-material” amount.  At that time Technicolor said that the Grass Valley transmission business has 291 employees and posted a loss in 2009 of revenues of approximately €43m.

The Harris broadcast communications division (BCD), which supplies broadcast transmitters along with a wide variety of other products, is currently being divested by its parent company, Harris Corporation.  It is believed that Harris BCD posted revenue of approximately $500m in its last fiscal year, but transmitter revenues were not broken out.

Although many in the broadcast industry may perceive transmitter as “old technology,” Harris BCD president Harris Morris said at the IBC 2012 exhibition that the company’s transmitter business are the “tip of the spear” into high growth emerging markets.  According to Morris, when countries in emerging markets make the transition to digital broadcasting one of the first things they buy is a transmitter, so  Harris BCD is able to sell through its additional elements of its product line on the back of these deals.

.

.

Related Content:

Reuters Article: French group launches bid for Italy’s Screen Service

More Broadcast Vendor M&A: Technicolor Closes Deal to Dispose of Grass Valley Transmission Business

Analyzing the Sale of the Harris Broadcast Division

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

 

 

Impressions of IBC 2012: M&A, Cloud, Multi-Platform, 4K, Efficient Operations, CiaB, and the “Return of Grass Valley”

broadcast industry technology trends, broadcast industry trends, broadcast technology market research, content delivery, market research, technology trends | Posted by Joe Zaller
Sep 20 2012

A previous version of this article appeared in the “Tech Thursday” Spotlight Section of TVNewsCheck

.

Against the backdrop of the ongoing European debt crisis and the afterglow of the 2012 Olympics, nearly 51,000 visitors made their way to Amsterdam for the annual IBC trade show. Major themes of the five-day broadcast technology jamboree included vendor consolidation, buzz about new technologies for multi-screen content delivery and social TV, futuristic technology demonstrations, and several important new product introductions.

The broadcast vendor community got a little less fragmented on the first morning of IBC, with a merger announcement by two Norway-based video transport technology providers — Nevion and T-VIPS

Although no additional deals were unveiled at the show, vendor consolidation was one of the most discussed themes at IBC, and according to statements made by some of the leading vendors, there is potentially a lot more consolidation on the way.   

Newly acquired Miranda technologies made its debut as a “Belden brand” at IBC, and Belden EVP Denis Suggs was on hand at the show to meet customers and explain his company’s vision for the broadcast industry, and why they decided to buy Miranda in one of the largest broadcast technology M&A deals in recent years. 

In a nutshell, Belden saw the opportunity to acquire a cash-generating company with a top-class management team that’s growing faster than the overall market and jumped at it. Including Miranda, Belden now generates approximately $450 million a year in broadcast-related revenue, making it one of the industry’s largest players, and it appears they are not done doing deals in this space. 

Suggs said Belden views Miranda as a platform from which is can further expand its broadcast industry operations, and that it intends to support Miranda’s existing plan for further acquisitions.

Grass Valley CEO Alain Andreoli echoed a similar sentiment at his company’s press conference. He said that Francisco Partners, the private equity firm that owns Grass Valley, has a $3 billion fund behind it and will support Grass Valley’s efforts to become an industry consolidators.

When the dust settles, he said, Grass Valley may not be the largest player, but it will certainly be in the top three. Last year, Grass Valley bought PubliTronic, a provider of channel-in-a-box (CiaB) technology, to gain a larger foothold in the playout market. Expect to see Grass Valley and other players making additional strategic moves that help them enter attractive new market spaces.

But most IBC M&A talk centered on Harris Broadcast, which is currently being divested by its parent company. Although rumors were flying at the show about who might buy the division, its executives were tight-lipped. Harris Broadcast President Harris Morris would only say that the deal is progressing according to plan, and is on track to be completed as soon as the end of 2012.

New products and services based on cloud technology, multi-platform content delivery and social TV services dominated many demonstration and hallway conversations at IBC, particularly in the “Connected World” pavilion, where dozens of new and established firms displayed a host of products aimed at securing a place in this emerging ecosystem.

Despite the enthusiasm of vendors, many buyers publicly and privately expressed caution about the technology.

Critics of cloud technology cited immature technology, bandwidth limitations, security, and an unproven business case as barriers to its adoption. Likewise, broadcasters and content owners expressed concern over the “disconnect” between the desire of end-users to receive and consume video content on an ever-increasing number personal devices, and the ability of broadcasters to create sustainable and profitable multi-platform business models.

Cloud-based discussions at IBC ranged from real-world case studies of how EVS helped broadcasters set up private clouds to facilitate remote production of the Euro 2012 soccer championships and London Olympics, to practical solutions from Signiant and Aspera for managing the delivery of file-based content over IP-enabled and cloud-based infrastructure, to new solutions for cloud-based video production.

Cloud-based production is an emerging trend, but initiatives such as the ‘Adobe Anywhere’ initiative will prove to be a catalyst in this area. Taking cloud-based production to the “next level” are new firms like VC-backed start-up A-Frame, which is building from the ground-up a complete cloud-based video production environment that marries the experience of broadcast and post-production experts with forward-thinking IT-based software experts. 

On the multi-screen front, Ericsson introduced its first encoder based on HEVC/H.265 compression technology. The company says that its HEVC implementation offers the potential for users to reduce bandwidth by up to 50%, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of content over multiple platforms, including mobile networks.

Harmonic unveiled a new version of its ProMedia transcoder, aimed at enabling its customers to deliver an integrated multi-screen experience to their subscribers. Harmonic also introduced new members of its senior management team: CMO Peter Alexander, and CTO Krish Padmanabhan, who recently joined the company from Cisco and NetApp, respectively.

Noticeable by their absence on the Harmonic booth at IBC were the familiar Omneon and Rhozet brand names, which have now been absorbed into Harmonic. “Harmonic is a branded house, not a house of brands, and our singular focus is delivering excellent video quality to consumers everywhere,” said Alexander.

The Sony/SES Astra demonstration of live delivery of 4K images over satellite drew a lot of attention.

For many years, 4K images have been trade show “eye candy” for visitors, but at IBC 2012 Sony and SES showed that technology exists today to transmit high quality 4K images over satellite at a manageable 50mbit/s using h.264 compression technology.  The stunning live video images were delivered via an SES satellite to an 84-inch Sony Bravia 4K display.

The demo prompted speculation that 4K will be the “next HD” in terms of consumer adoption and broadcast infrastructure upgrades. Other observers took a more practical approach, saying that the industry might see 4K being used as a high-end production format in near to mid term, but that it will be a long time before broadcasters who have already spent millions on the transition to HDTV decide to upgrade again to 4K.

Indeed, when it comes to broadcast infrastructure upgrades it is operational efficiency, not higher resolution, which appears to be the primary demand of broadcasters. Thus, many vendors at IBC were promoting solutions designed to help broadcasters transition their operations to file-based and IT-oriented workflows. 

One of the ongoing initiatives in this area has been the development by a large number of vendors of integrated IT-based playout technologies, more commonly known as channel-in-a-box (CiaB).  These systems offer the promise of increased operational efficiency and significant cost savings through the integration of previously disparate playout and master control functionality into a single IT-based platform. Over the past several years, major vendors including Grass Valley, Miranda, Snell, Harmonic, and Evertz have offered products.

At IBC 2012, Harris became the latest entrant into the market with the launch of Versio, a CiaB system based on several of the company’s existing technology platforms including the Nexio server family, ADC automation, and Inscriber graphics. 

When describing the new Versio product at the company IBC press conference, Harris Morris said the No. 1 requirement for automated IT-based playout systems is reliability, and that this is an area where Harris Broadcast excels. Morris also emphasized that CiaB platforms rely heavily on automation technology, where Harris Broadcast is an established leader, making the company a natural choice for broadcasters considering integrated IT-based playout.

Although Harris Broadcast touted the fact that their Versio platform is based on the company’s existing technology platforms, it stopped well short of saying that the new system is a direct replacement for its current products, particularly its popular Nexio server family.

Instead the company described Versio as a robust cost-effective way for broadcasters to quickly add new services and digital subchannels channels, and to provide backup in emergencies.

“Channel-in-a-box should be about opening up new possibilities rather than limiting how a broadcaster can operate across multiple on-air scenarios,” said Andrew Warman, senior product manager at Harris Broadcast. “It’s limiting to look at channel-in-a-box as a system replacement for servers, automation, and other play-to-air systems. Broadcasters need freedom to build appropriate workflows for their operations, including external components.”

However, other vendors clearly see the CiaB market differently, and have taken a very different approach than Harris Broadcast, especially those firms that do not have an existing playout server business to protect. 

Snell Chief Architect Neil Maycock said that his company’s ICE platform is not only “ready for prime-time,” it is on the air today delivering high value content for major broadcasters.  Maycock also said that ICE has a unique architecture that enables it to scale from a single channel implementation, through a multi-location centralcasting model, to a large multi-channel playout environment.

PlayBox CEO Vassil Lefterov said he has built his entire business on disrupting the traditional server-based playout market. “We believe our singular focus on this application is a key advantage,” he said.  “Playbox has thousands of live channels on the air today and is working to re-define playout operations for many of our customers.”

Grass Valley, which like Harris has a significant video server business, took a more pragmatic approach.  SVP and CMO Graham Sharp said that “it’s likely CiaB and other IT-based playout systems may ultimately impact everyone’s server business, so we’ve taken the decision to cannibalize our own products where necessary by embracing IT technology, because if we don’t do it to ourselves someone else will.” 

Grass Valley was among the vendors with significant new products. Introductions included a new LDX camera platform that scales from a basic model to a high-end super-slow motion system; a new video server family, and brand new electronics for the Kayenne and Karrera production switchers.  Grass Valley said all its new products feature native 1080p processing, and provide straightforward upgrades via software.

Grass Valley also made bold claims about its future product plans, stating that by 2014 it will have replaced its entire portfolio with all new 1080p, IT-focused products. 

GV’s Sharp also hinted at a major NAB 2013 announcement from Grass Valley: “Next year we will introduce a completely new integrated IP-based platform that is totally format agnostic.” he said.  “We believe this new platform will enable a new way of working that we call non-linear production….”

All Grass Valley products, including those launched at IBC 2012, will be compatible with the new architecture, he said.

Sharp concluded GV press conference by saying: “If there is one take-away from this presentation about Grass Valley, it’s this: We’re back.”

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

.

Evertz Beats Expectations in Q1 Fiscal 2013 as Profits Jump 41 Percent

Broadcast technology vendor financials, Quarterly Results | Posted by Joe Zaller
Sep 14 2012

Evertz announced that its revenue for the first quarter of its 2013 fiscal year was C$96m, an increase of 28% versus the same period a year ago, and up 26% versus the previous quarter.

Net earnings for the quarter were C$24.8m (C$0.34 per share), up 41% versus the same quarter last year, and up 87% versus the previous quarter.

The results for the quarter were well above the expectations of equity analysts, who on average were looking for revenue of C$84.9m and EPS of C$0.25.

Revenue in the US/Canada region was C$59.4, or 62% of total revenue, up 31% versus the same period a year ago, and up 62% versus the previous quarter.

International revenue was C$36.6m, an increase of 23% versus the same period last year, and down 8% versus the previous quarter. International sales were 38% of total revenue, down from 40% last year.

Evertz EVP Brian Campbell attributed the revenue growth to the ongoing transition to HD, a growing demand globally for high quality video, traction in the company’s workflow solutions from its purchase of Pharos, and several large projects that were recognized during the quarter.

The company had 76 orders in the quarter that were greater than C$200,000, and the top ten customers provided for 41% of revenue (C$39.4m), so Evertz clearly closed some big deals close during the quarter.

Significantly, one customer accounted for 15% of total revenue, or C$14.4m, during the quarter. C$14.4m is a huge order for any broadcast vendor, and this means that the company’s revenue during the quarter was significantly more concentrated than in the past.  For comparison, during the previous quarter no customer accounted for more than 5% of total revenue, or C$3.82m. In response to questions about the “15% customer” from Canacord Genuity analyst Robert Young, Brian Campbell pointed out that the 15% number relates to all product shipped to a single customer during the quarter, not necessarily a single order for one project.  Campbell also said that although this order was indeed large, the company has had large orders in the past.  What appears to make this order unusual is that it appears to have happened during a single quarter as opposed to delivery over multiple quarters, which Campbell said is more common.  Campbell declined to state who the customer was, or its geographic location, but given the rise in US/Canada sales, and the q/q decline in international revenue, it’s easy to speculate.

The strong results follow on from the previous quarter when Evertz announced that its order backlog had reached a record C$57m, and said that most of this backlog would ship during the current quarter. This appears to have happened, as the company’s order backlog at the end of the first quarter of its 2013 fiscal year was C$40m, or 30% lower than three months ago.

Gross margins in the quarter were 58%, up from 57% last year and up from 56% last quarter.  The company attributed its margin expansion in the quarter to higher revenue and traction in new product areas. Company CFO Anthony Gridley said that gross margins were within the company’s targeted range of 56% to 62%, and that the company is “comfortable” with that range.  Campbell added that this margin range allows Evertz to make money while remaining price-competitive in the market.

R&D expenses in the quarter were C$11.8m, an increase of 14% versus the same period last year, and down 8% versus the previous quarter when the company accelerated the purchase of materials and prototypes in order to take advantage of government tax incentives before the end of its fiscal year.  Gridley said the company is constantly adding R&D staff, so any reported decline in R&D spending is typically the result of an increase in prototypes in previous quarters.  Campbell said that the company will continue to invest in R&D as the company sees its engineering strength as a key market differentiator, and Evertz intends to “continue to extend this lead.”

SG&A expenses for the quarter were C$12.4m, an increase of 19% versus last year, and essentially flat with the previous quarter. Selling and administrative expenses represented approximately 13% of revenue in the quarter versus 14% of revenue during the same period last year, and 16% of revenue last quarter.

The company’s purchase order backlog at the end of August 2012 was in excess of C$40m, up 90% versus the same period last year, and down 30% versus the previous quarter.

Commenting on the recent IBC trade show, Campbell said that Evertz saw increasing awareness of some of its recent large R&D investments.  He specifically cited video transport, IT-based playout, asset management, and compressed domain products as areas where the company is seeing interest.

When asked by an analyst about the pick-up in broadcast technology M&A activity such as the recent purchase of Miranda by Belden, and the decision by Harris to divest its broadcast business, Campbell responded by saying that Grass Valley should be added to this list because it is also has been going through changes since being acquired by Francisco Partners.  Campbell implied that the distractions facing competitors was a net positive for Evertz.  “Customers look to Evertz as a very stable entity with very little disruption, so we’ve been able to capture market share” he said.

.

.

Related Content:

Press Release: Evertz Technologies Reports Results for the First Quarter Ended July 31, 2012

Previous Quarter: Evertz Q4 FY 2012 Revenue Rises 11 Percent, Order Backlog at Record Level

Previous Year: Evertz Beats Expectations in Q1 2012 as Domestic Revenue Increases Six Percent

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

Sales & Marketing Power Shift at “Profitable, Independent” Grass Valley

Uncategorized | Posted by Joe Zaller
Aug 20 2012

Grass Valley announced a reorganization of its sales and marketing leadership today, appointing three regional presidents and a chief marketing officer.

The company also slipped into the announcement the statement that it “is now a profitable independent company,” but did not provide any further details or financial metrics.

Grass Valley, which was acquired from Technicolor by private equity firm Francisco Partners in January 2011, says it has now completed the first phase of its corporate transformation by unifying its product line, modernizing its service offering, and improving supply chain management. The company says that the executive re-alignment signifies the next phase of its strategic plan, and will focus the company on better serving its customer base.

 

The following appointments were announced today.

 

  • Mike Oldham, who was the CEO of automation and channel-in-a-box provider OmniBus prior to its sale to Miranda in September 2010, has joined Grass Valley as region president, Americas

 

  • Alan Wright has been promoted to region president, EMEA

 

  • Andrew Sedek has been promoted to region president Asia Pacific

 

 

All four will report to Grass Valley president and CEO Alain Andreoli.

Grass Valley also said that longtime executive Jeff Rosica, the current EVP and chief sales & marketing officer, will leave the company near the end of the year.  Rosica, who ran Grass Valley when it was owned by Technicolor and oversaw the sale of Grass Valley to Francisco Partners, will serve as a strategic advisor to Andreoli until late November.

“Having re-aligned our product groups and streamlined our operations it’s now all about getting closer to our customers, becoming their trusted advisors and delighting them with the Grass Valley experience,” said Andreoli. “We are creating more strength in our regions and will now have three regional presidents reporting directly to me, as well as a newly created chief marketing officer role, bringing an even stronger voice of the customer to the executive team. Grass Valley is a strong global brand, with a balanced worldwide presence. We understand that customers in each region have unique needs and we want them to have a strong presence at the executive table.”

.

.

Related Content:

Press Release: Grass Valley Re-Organizes its Sales and Marketing Organization

Press Release: Grass Valley Names Graham Sharp to Guide Corporate Development

Grass Valley Names New CEO, Management Team

Technicolor Completes Sale of Grass Valley

More Broadcast M&A – Miranda Buys OmniBus for C$48.7m

.

© Devoncroft Partners.  All Rights Reserved.

.

 

Ranking Broadcast Technology Vendors Part 1 – The 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table

broadcast technology market research | Posted by Joe Zaller
Aug 14 2012

This is the fourth in a series of articles about some of the findings from the 2012 Big Broadcast Survey (BBS), a global study of broadcast industry trends, technology purchasing plans, and benchmarking of broadcast technology vendor brands. Nearly 10,000 broadcast professionals in 100+ countries took part in the 2012 BBS, making it the largest and most comprehensive market study ever conducted in the broadcast industry.

 

In previous posts, I have discussed the most important broadcast industry trends of 2012 and where money is being spent in the broadcast industry in 2012.

This is the first in a series of posts about how broadcast technology vendors were ranked and benchmarked on a variety of metrics by the respondents to the 2012 BBS.

Each year, as part of the Big Broadcast Survey (BBS), we ask a global sample of broadcast professionals to rank a variety of technology vendor brands on a wide range of metrics including “overall opinion,” “change of opinion,” and brand drivers including “innovation,” “quality,” “reliability,” “value for money,” and “great customer service.”

We use this information to create a series of reports, which through benchmarking and industry “league tables” provides a view as to how each vendor is positioned in the market relative to the industry as a whole, as well as against their direct competitors.

This post looks at how the global sample of broadcast professionals who participated in the 2012 BBS ranked their overall opinion of the 152 broadcast technology vendors we covered in the study. You can find a chart with the complete list of vendor brands covered in the 2012 BBS here

Please note that inclusion of any brand in the tables in this article is dependent on available sample size.  The minimum sample size for inclusion in these charts is 30 respondents per cut of the data. Therefore it is possible that a highly regarded brand was excluded from these findings based on sample size.

 

How These Results Were Calculated

Respondents were asked to rank their opinion of broadcast technology vendor brands on a scale of 1-10 — with 10 being best in the market, and 1 being worst in the market.

The top 30 ranked brands for overall opinion are shown below for both the global sample of all respondents as well as for all respondents in each of the geographic regions.

.

Results are shown in two ways:

  • An overall industry “league table” that shows the 30 highest ranked vendors for the metric “overall opinion.”  The data in this chart is broken out globally and regionally.

 

  • An analysis of the “frequency” of appearance in the “overall opinion league table”

 

The top 30 ranked brands for overall opinion are shown below for both the global sample of all respondents as well as for all respondents in each of the geographic regions.

.

Please note that in all cases, these results are shown in alphabetical order, NOT in the order in which they were ranked by respondents to the survey.      

 

 .

2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table

 

 .

A total of 48 broadcast technology vendor brands are included in this table, (up from 43 last year), illustrating the geographic variation of opinion, which will be discussed later.

In terms of frequency of appearance in this table:

 

  • 15 brands appear four times, meaning they were ranked in the top 30 globally and in each of the three geographic regions.  For comparison, in the 2011 BBS (when we covered 118 brands) there were 19 brands that appeared in the top 30 globally and in each of the 3 regions.

 

  • 10 brands appear three times. For comparison, in the 2011 BBS (when we covered 118 brands) there were 9 brands that appeared three times.

 

  • 7 brands appear two times. For comparison, in the 2011 BBS (when we covered 118 brands) there were 2 brands that appeared twice.

 

  • 16 brands appear one time, which demonstrates that some brands are strongest in one geographic area. For comparison, in the 2011 BBS (when we covered 118 brands) there were 13 brands that appeared one time.

 

Analysis of the data shows that are some clear market leaders on a global basis, while others are strong on a regional basis.

A breakdown of how many times each company appears in the ranking shows how many times each brand appears in the chart above.

.

Brands appearing four times in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table: 

  • Adobe, AKG, Apple, Avid, Canon, Cisco, Dolby, Genelec, Neumann, Panasonic, Schoeps, Sennheiser, Shure, Sony, Tektronix 

 

Brands appearing three times in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table: 

  • Angenieux, Autodesk, beyerdynamic, Clear-Com, Fujinon, Ikegami, JBL, Rohde & Schwarz, Wohler, Yamaha 

 

Brands appearing two times in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table:

  • Aja Video, Electro Voice, Grass Valley, RTW, Snell, Solid State Logic, Studer 

 

Brands appearing once in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table:

  • Adam, Blackmagic Design, DK Technologies, Evertz, EVS, Harmonic, Harris, HP, Lawo, NEC, Omneon, Riedel, RTS Intercom Systems, Salzbrenner Stagetec, Telex, Thomson 

 .

.

Frequency Analysis of the Brands in the in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table:  

The table below, which shows the global and regional performance for each brand in the top 30 ranking of overall opinion, provides a better understanding of where each brand was highly ranked for overall opinion.

 

Frequency Analysis of Brands in the 2012 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table

.

The frequency chart shows some interesting geographic variation in the data.

 .

Appearing in the top 30 “overall opinion” ranking globally + one region

Two brands managed to achieve a top 30 ranking globally, despite being in the top 30 of only one of the three geographic regions.

  • Aja Video, Grass Valley, Solid State Logic, RTW, Studer

  

Appearing in the top 30 “overall opinion” ranking in one region

The following 13 brands did not make the top 30 in the global league table of overall opinion, but they did appear in the top 30 overall opinion ranking in one of the geographic regions:

  

Appearing in the top 30 “overall opinion” ranking only in EMEA

  • Adam, DK Technologies, EVS, Harmonic, Lawo, Riedel, Salzbrenner Stagetec

  .

Appearing in the top 30 “overall opinion” ranking only in Asia-Pacific

  • Electro-Voice, Harris, HP, NEC, Omneon, Thomson

 

 Appearing in the top 30 “overall opinion” ranking  only in the Americas

  • Blackmagic Design, Evertz, RTS Intercom Systems, Telex 

 .

Please keep in mind when reviewing this information that all data these charts are presented in alphabetical order, not in the order brands were ranked by respondents to the 2012 BBS.  Also, the charts in this posting measure the responses of all non-vendor participants in the 2012 BBS respondents, regardless of their company type, company size, geographic location, job title and budget for broadcast technology products.

In order to get full value from this data, it is necessary to evaluate these results on a granular basis.  If you would like more information, please contact Devoncroft Partners.

 .

.

 

All data in this article measures the responses of all non-vendor participants in the 2012 BBS, regardless of organization type, organization size, job title or geographic location. Responses of individual organization types or geographic locations may be very different. Granular analysis of these results is available as part of the full 2012 BBS Global Market Report. For more information about this report, please contact Devoncroft Partners.

 .

Devoncroft Partners has published a variety of reports from 2012 BBS data.  For more information, please get in touch.

.

.

Related Content:

The 2012 Big Broadcast Survey – Information and available reports

The 2012 BBS Broadcast Industry Global Trend Index

Tracking the Evolution of Broadcast Industry Trends 2009 – 2012

Analyzing Where is Money Being Spent in the Broadcast Industry – The 2012 BBS Broadcast Industry Global Project Index

Last Year’s Overall Opinion Rankings: Ranking Broadcast Technology Vendors Part 1 – the 2011 BBS Overall Brand Opinion League Table

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

More Broadcast Vendor M&A: Grass Valley Sells Systems Integration Business to German Private Equity Firm

Broadcast Vendor M&A | Posted by Joe Zaller
Aug 07 2012

Leading broadcast technology vendor Grass Valley announced that it has sold the assets and resources of its systems integration (SI) team based in Weiterstadt, Germany to  BTS broadcast technology solutions GmbH. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

BTS is owned by Parter Capital, a German private equity firm.  This is the second Grass Valley-related deal for Parter Capital.  In May 2011  Parter acquired the Grass Valley transmission business and the right to use the Thomson brand from Technicolor for a “non-material amount.”.

The transaction involves the sale of Grass Valley’s system engineers and specialists that design and build outside broadcast (OB) vehicles as well as production and broadcast facilities across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA).  Grass Valley says it will continue to work with BTS, as well as other SIs around the world.

Grass Valley says the deal will reinforce its “strategy to focus on IT-centric software and hardware systems, while building a strong partners ecosystem,” and that it will work with BTS

“As an investment company, we saw the potential for growth as Grass Valley concentrates on its core businesses, and we are confident we can continue to make BTS broadcast technology solutions GmbH a global provider of high-quality leading solutions for fixed and remote production and broadcast facilities,” said Dr. Rüdiger G. Terhorst, Managing Director at PARTER Capital Group. ”
.

.

Related Content:

Press Release: Germany’s PARTER Capital Group Acquires Grass Valley German Systems Integration Business http://dcft.co/TeA92U

More Broadcast Vendor M&A: Technicolor Closes Deal to Dispose of Grass Valley Transmission Business

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

Guest Post: Investment Banker Perspective on Sale of Harris Broadcast

broadcast technology market research | Posted by Joe Zaller
May 08 2012

In a recent post called Analyzing the Sale of the Harris Broadcast Division I said I would defer to others on the valuation of and the structure of a transaction for Harris Broadcast. 

In response to this, Josh Stinehour from boutique investment bank Silverwood Partners contacted me and said he has an opinion to offer on the subject. 

So in the first-ever guest post on this site, Stinehour weighs in with his thoughts on the Harris Broadcast deal, including valuation, transaction type, and potential buyers.

Like many observers of the broadcast technology sector, and loyal readers of the Devoncroft blog, I have followed the recent announcements at Harris Corporation with great interest.  The merits of Harris Corporation’s decision to divest its Broadcast Division are well established.  This post is a perspective on the anticipated transaction – timing, type, and price.

Harris in its public messaging has established a few key data points:

  • There is no interest in pursuing a sale of the individual product lines or pieces of the Broadcast Division (Harris Morris’s interview with TVNewsCheck). It is difficult to understate how many vendors were disappointed with this announcement.
  • The expectations is for a price “substantially higher” than $200 million and Harris expects to “divest the business in a sale with cash returning to the company” (Q3 Earnings Conference Call).
  • There has been consistent inbound interest in the division (Harris Morris’s interview with TVNewsCheck, Chris Parson’s interview with Quincy Herald-Whig) – no surprise here.
  • The Company is assuming the transaction closes at the end of 2012 (Q3 Earnings Conference Call).
  • Based on historical SEC filings, the recently provided pro forma analysis (Harris Corp 8K filing), and selected assumptions, the income statement has a revenue and operating income (before corporation overhead) profile approximately as follows:

 

 

 

As the chart above suggests, the sale process will not have the benefit of meaningful revenue growth or a meaningful level of profitability in the Broadcast Division.  That is not to suggest the Broadcast Division is not a valuable asset.  The sale process will have the benefit of an end-to-end suite of products (several are category-leading), a great brand (as confirmed by Devoncroft’s Big Broadcast Survey), a well-regarded management team, and substantial size, presence, and revenue level in the media technology industry.  The caveat to those qualitative points is a portfolio that is much more hardware than software, and Harris Corporation’s self-admission that there is still operational work to do in streamlining the division’s operations (Q2 Earnings Call).

 

 

 

Harris will also have the benefit of a highly accommodating M&A environment, as illustrated in the below slide from our 2012 NAB Industry Analysis.

 

 

Possible Transaction Types:

 

Public Spinout to Harris Shareholders

One possible alternative for Harris is to spin out the Broadcast Division to its shareholders in the form of a stock dividend.  There is precedent for Harris taking this action with a subsidiary.  In January 2007, Harris Microwave Communications Division and Stratex Networks Inc. combined to create a new company having annual revenues of approximately $650 million.  On December 8, 2008 Harris announced it was evaluating strategic alternatives related to this majority-owned subsidiary, Harris Stratex Networks (now Aviat Networks). On March 31, 2009, the Board of Directors of Harris Corporation approved the spin-off to its shareholders of all the shares of Harris Stratex Networks owned by Harris Corporation.   Harris Corporation shareholders received approximately .24 of a share of Harris Stratex Networks for every share of Harris Corporation common stock owned.

This approach allowed the Harris Microwave Communication Division to gain scale, and find a public market with shareholders that were focused on small cap commercial communications growth investments rather than large cap, military communications investments.  A similar logical underpinning would apply in the case of the Broadcast Division. However, the business would need more scale and much more growth for such a strategy to be successful and attract public investors.  This approach would also be time consuming and there may be substantial uncertainty over the upside potential if the business continues to post modest or negative levels of growth and effectively break-even operating results. In sharp contrast, a straightforward sale of the Broadcast Division business for cash allows Harris Corporation to eliminate the distraction and redeploy capital into its core business.

 

Trade Sale to an Industry Participant

You can count on a single hand the number of industry participants capable of financing a greater than $200M cash purchase price.  In each case, it would represent a transformative deal and would require immediate rationalization of the combined organization and cost structure – product overlap would be almost unavoidable.  If such a transaction were successfully executed, the resulting business would have a dominant market position.

 

Trade Sale to a Broader Technology Vendor

Harris is certainly large enough to attract the attention of the comparably much larger IT vendors adjacent to the media technology sector.  For some time, IT vendors have lauded the growth opportunities in video as talking points to Wall Street, and in many instances these same vendors have occupied large booths at NAB and IBC.  However, head of digital media at these vendors is a difficult job to hold through an entire business cycle. 

In this circumstance, the biggest question is whether a broader technology vendor views the Broadcast Division’s portfolio as too hardware-centric and too specialized to the broadcast industry. Conceivably any IT vendor interested in moving into the broadcast sector had the opportunity to make such a decision in connection with the sale process at Grass Valley in 2010, the ongoing sale process at Miranda, or in connection with the evolving situation at other large vendors in the sector.

 

Purchase by a Private Equity Firm

A CapitalIQ screen of private equity firms with a focus in North America, technology, corporate divestitures, and investment criteria in the suggested range yields approximately 2,000 firms – that is not a typo.

There is a tremendous amount of private equity interest in the media technology sector.  The single biggest obstacle these firms have in finding investment opportunities in the sector is a dearth of businesses large enough to support the amount of money these groups are looking to invest. 

Unambiguously there is a private equity buyer for the Broadcast Division.  The challenge is price.  Without the benefit of existing, meaningful historical cash flow or near-term expected cash flows, there is little ability to borrow money to support the purchase price.  Therefore, private equity firms will value the division based on the expectation of near-term efficiencies that can be brought and the expected value of the ultimate exit (generally in a 3-5 year time horizon).  Recall that on a net cash basis, Technicolor provided cash to Francisco Partners at closing in connection with the purchase of Grass Valley. 

 

 

Price

Since 2004, Harris has spent just under $1 billion dollars on acquisitions for the Broadcast Division.  But the market has no memory.

Triangulating between the recent write-downs and the last publicly available balance sheet for the division, it is estimated there is approximately $600 million of assets associated with the division, and more important, the annual revenue is estimated at approximately $530 million.  In the context of those numbers, the level of profitability is insignificant, but critically it is not negative. 

The public comparable companies suggest a revenue multiple of 0.5x to 1.0x.  Recent M&A transactions might suggest a revenue multiple of 1.0 to 1.5.  In the case of the Broadcast Division, the multiples ignore the specifics of the situation; all but a select few industry participants can finance a transaction of the size expected. Private equity firms may have an interest, but they are inescapably bound to pay a price supported by the immediate prospects of cash flow, which price would imply the low end of the suggested multiples. 

In the context of an IT vendor’s balance sheet, a valuation “substantially higher” than $200 million is not a significant amount of money. For that group of buyers, it is a binary question of interest, more than of price. In the past 16 months, by my count, vendors accounting for almost one third of the industry’s revenue have been sold or have actively sought a sale.  With only a few exceptions, the broader technology vendor universe has not participated in those transactions.  The Harris Broadcast Division will make for a great litmus test of the interest in the broadcast technology sector by broader technology vendors: it is big enough to matter to them, spans just about the entire workflow, and comes with a quality and level of video expertise in both the management and engineering ranks that broader IT vendors can not replicate internally.

It will take several months to work through the sale process.  The end result will be a signature event in the industry and will reframe exit expectations for vendors in the sector.

.

.

Related Content:

Analyzing the Sale of the Harris Broadcast Division

Harris Corporation To Divest Broadcast Business

Press Release: Harris Corporation Reports Fiscal 2012 Third Quarter Results

Harris Q3 FY 2012 10-Q Filing

Harris 8-K Filing – Restates Fiscal 2011-12 Revenue on Pro Forma Basis (Without Broadcast and Cyber Integrated Solutions)

Press Release: Harris Corporation Reports Fiscal 2012 Third Quarter Results

Harris Fiscal Q3 2012 Analyst Presentation

Harris Fiscal Q3 2012 Conference Call Transcript

TVNewsCheck Article: Tech’s Big Question: What’s Next For Harris?

Quincy Herald-Whig ArticleProspective buyers seek information on Harris broadcast; business as usual in Quincy

Harris Broadcast Revenue and Income Rise in Q2 2012, Says It’s Laser Focused on Maximizing Shareholder Value.

 

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

Analyzing the Sale of the Harris Broadcast Division

Broadcast technology vendor financials, Broadcast Vendor M&A | Posted by Joe Zaller
May 07 2012

After last week’s announcement that Harris Corporation plans to sell its broadcast business, I was contacted by a number of people who wanted more information about Harris Broadcast and the transaction.  Here’s a list of the top questions, along with some thoughts on each one

 

How Big is Harris Broadcast in Terms of Employees and Revenue?

Employees: According to this article in the Quincy Herald-Whig, the Harris Broadcast Communications Division (BCD), has 1,700 employees, including 348 employees at its Quincy Illinois facility.

Revenue: The revenue of Harris Broadcast is somewhat difficult to calculate because Harris BCD is part of Harris Corporation’s Integrated Network Solutions (INS) business unit, which was created last year when Harris Corporation strategically realigned its business segments

Until last week, the last time Harris published data about the broadcast business was more than a year ago (Q2 Fiscal 2011).  However, on the company’s recent Q3 2012 analyst conference call, Harris CFO Gary McArthur disclosed that Harris Broadcast had revenue for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 was $111m, a decline of 14% versus the same period a year ago – thereby also implying that revenue in Fiscal Q3 2011 was $126.5m (interestingly this is a different number than Harris provided last year when it said that Broadcast revenue in Q3 2011 had increased 9% versus Q3 2010, implying Q3 Fiscal 2011 revenue of $134m, but for the purposes of this article, I will stick with the implied $126.5m revenue figure for Q3 2011). Fiscal 2011 Q4 can be calculated from previous earnings announcements.

Also on the Q3 FY 2012 earnings call, Harris revised its guidance for FY 2012.  The company had previously said its revenue for Fiscal 2012 would be approximately $6 Billion. In its Q3 2012 analyst presentation (last page), Harris now says that its FY 2012 revenue excluding Broadcast and Cyber Integrated Solutions (Cyber) operations, (which was also part of the INS Division and was shut down in February 2012) will be $5.45 Billion.  This implies that the company was projecting approximately $555m in revenue from the combination of its broadcast and cyber businesses in 2012.

Harris also recently filed an 8-K with the SEC that enables one to derive more information about the broadcast business.  The 8-K filing restated the performance of Harris’s INS division on a pro-forma basis (excluding Broadcast and Cyber).  By subtracting the pro-forma numbers from previously issued results, it’s possible to approximate the revenue of Harris Broadcast in both 2011 and 2012.

Other regulatory filings show that the revenue from the Harris Cyber business was $11.7m for the first nine months of the current fiscal year.   Thus the revenue of the broadcast business can be calculated as shown below. 

 

 

 

The table above shows that in Fiscal 2011 the Harris broadcast business generated approximately $545m in revenue.  What’s interesting is the company’s huge Q4 2011 performance, which was up 31% over the same period in 2010.

It appears that for the first three quarter of the company’s fiscal 2012, Harris Broadcast revenue is approximately $375m, roughly flat with the first nine months of fiscal 2011.  This begs the question as to whether Harris Broadcast will be able to achieve Q4 FY 2012 results that are strong as their performance a year ago.

According to the article reference earlier, a Harris Broadcast spokesperson said that 56% of the division’s revenue comes from North America.

 

 

What is Harris Broadcast’s Profitability and what is the Impact of Corporate Overhead on Profit?

Given the opaque nature of the broadcast division’s financials, it’s difficult to know its profit levels. The company said that broadcast made a profit in fiscal 2011, but did not offer details.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that Harris Broadcast is part of a $6 Billion defense contractor. As such it undoubtedly has significant corporate overheads allocated to it by the parent company.  While this number is unknown, it likely runs into the millions of dollars.  If these costs are substantial, then they could impact the profitability of the division.  Under a new owner, it’s possible that Harris Broadcast will not be charged these overheads, thereby substantially increasing its underlying profitability. 

 

 

How Much Did Harris Spend The Broadcast Business Together?

For many years, Harris has been a leading provider of radio and television transmitters.  However in 2000 the company went on a buying spree that the company began to transform itself into a multi-product industry giant starting in 2000 with the acquisition of Lout Automation. According to an article in TVNewsCheck, Harris spent $942m on M&A since 2000:

  • Louth Automation in 2000, $85m
  • Encoda Systems in 2004 for $340m
  • Leitch Technologies in 2005 for $450m
  • Aastra Digital Video in 2006 for $35m
  • OSI in 2006 for $32m

 

 

Who Will Buy Harris Broadcast?

This is the number one question people are asking, and I don’t have a clue what the answer will be. 

Harris Broadcast is of a size (see above) that makes it one of the largest pure play broadcast technology vendors.  As such there are not many industry vendors large enough to be able to afford the Harris Broadcast business.  This leave several options including a “strategic” sale to a large IT or media vendor, a private equity deal which leaves the current management in place, or the spinning off of the broadcast business as a separate public company. 

If I had to bet, I would say that the PE option is the most likely, particularly if it is a cash deal.  Harris CEO William Brown implied his preference for a cash deal when he said that Harris will use the first $200m of the proceeds from the sale of the broadcast business to buy back stock, and use the residual balance to fund core activities.

Incidentally, Harris Corporation bought back approximately $800m in stock last year.

 

 

Will Harris Broadcast Be Sold as a Unit or Piecemeal?

It would be pure speculation on my part to hazard a guess at this one, but I’d be remiss if this question was not included on this list.  I am sure Harris is evaluating all the options.

 

 

How Much Will Harris Broadcast Sell For?

This depends on a huge number of factors, and I will defer to others to answer this one.

On the one hand it’s possible that Harris Broadcast sells for a healthy multiple as per the Cisco/NDS and Harmonic/Omneon deals.  On the other hand the valuation may be much lower as per the Francisco Partners / Grass Valley deal. 

One key factor is the expectation of valuation that Harris Corporation has for the broadcast business and how quickly it wants to do a deal.  Although this is not known, the company has provided a few clues in both its statements to analysts, and its regulatory filings.

As stated above on the company’s recent earnings call, Brown said he expects a transaction to occur by the end of calendar 2012.  He went on to say that the first $200m from the sale of the broadcast business would be used to buy back Harris stock.  However, he went on to say that he “fully expects that the proceeds [from the sale of the broadcast business] will be substantially higher than $200m”, although he declined to speculate on a valuation or even a value range.

The company also said it “recorded in the third quarter a non-cash charge of $407m after-tax, or $3.62 per diluted share, to write down a significant portion of the goodwill and other long-lived assets in Broadcast Communications, resulting in the GAAP loss from continuing operations.

In its Q3 FY 2012 10-Q filing with the SEC, Harris Corporation provided useful information about how it calculated the $407m charge, and how it is internally valuing the broadcast business.

The following information is excerpted from the 10-Q:

“Goodwill and other long-lived assets held and used related to Broadcast Communications with a carrying amount of $800.0 million were written down to their preliminary estimate of fair value of $376.0 million, resulting in a preliminary estimate of $424.0 million for a non-cash impairment charge, which was included in income (loss) from continuing operations for the quarter and three quarters ended March 30, 2012. See Note N — Impairment of Goodwill and Other Long-Lived Assets in these Notes for additional information.

 

“Note N — Impairment of Goodwill and Other Long-Lived Assets

“We test our goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment annually, or under certain circumstances, more frequently, such as when events or circumstances indicate there may be impairment. Indications of potential impairment of goodwill related to Broadcast Communications (which is part of our Integrated Network Solutions segment) were present at the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012 resulting from the following circumstances and other factors: (i) an unanticipated revenue decline and operating loss for Broadcast Communications for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 (as a result of weaker demand in North America and longer international sales lead times), which also resulted in a decrease in the fiscal 2012 outlook for Broadcast Communications and (ii) depressed indicators of value resulting from analyses undertaken in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 in connection with the review of our business portfolio, including the evaluation of strategic alternatives for Broadcast Communications that included a potential divestiture of Broadcast Communications and the principal markets currently available. Consequently, in connection with the preparation and review of our financial statements for the third quarter of fiscal 2012, we performed an interim review of Broadcast Communications’ goodwill for impairment as of the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012. See Note R — Subsequent Event in these Notes for details regarding the approval by our Board of Directors on April 27, 2012 of a plan to divest Broadcast Communications.

“To test for potential impairment of goodwill related to Broadcast Communications, we prepared a preliminary estimate of the fair value of the reporting unit based on a combination of projected discounted cash flows and principal market-based multiples applied to sales and earnings. The current carrying value of the Broadcast Communications reporting unit exceeded its estimated fair value, and accordingly, we preliminarily allocated the estimated fair value to the assets and liabilities of the Broadcast Communications reporting unit to estimate the implied fair value of goodwill.

“In conjunction with the above-described impairment review, we also conducted a review for impairment of other long-lived assets related to Broadcast Communications, including amortizable intangible assets, fixed assets and capitalized software, and impairment of these assets was considered prior to the conclusion of the goodwill impairment review. The estimated fair value of other long-lived assets related to Broadcast Communications was determined based, in part, on an analysis of projected cash flows.

“As a result of these impairment reviews, we concluded that goodwill and other long-lived assets related to Broadcast Communications were impaired as of the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012 and we recorded an estimated non-cash impairment charge of $424.0 million ($406.5 million after-tax). Due to the length of time necessary to measure the impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets, our impairment analysis is not complete and is subject to change. We expect to complete our analysis prior to reporting our financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 and will record any adjustments to our preliminary estimate at that time. The portion of the estimated impairment charge related to goodwill was $379.0 million and is not deductible for tax purposes. The tax effect of that non-deductibility was treated as a discrete item in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 for purposes of calculating our effective tax rate. We do not expect to make any current or future cash expenditures as a result of the impairment. The estimated impairment does not impact covenant compliance under our credit arrangements, and we do not expect the impairment to impact our ongoing financial performance, although no assurance can be given.”

 

 

Timing – Why Now?

On the company’s conference call with equity analysts, Brown was asked why the broadcast business is being sold now.  Brown said that the divestment of the broadcast business was “Not a new topic with our board, it has been discussed quite frequently over the last several years given where broadcast happens to be… it’s been an active discussion with our board on is it a fit, how do we make it better, what is the timing if we decide to exit… we had a long conversation about it… in our view, given the tough environment that we are facing it’s important for us to focus our resources including our management time and attention on the businesses that we know to be core to our company so we can be successful into FY 2013 and beyond.”

One reason could be Brown himself, who became president & CEO of Harris Corporation in late 2011.   

The current broadcast business was put together under the watch of former CEO Howard Lance who retired last year.  Lance was supportive of the broadcast business so while he was at the helm of Harris Corporation, the structure was unlikely to change.

Brown joined Harris from United Technologies where he was responsible for the company’s global strategic planning and M&A activity.  He’s a deal-maker who has not wasted any time divesting of “non-core” assets, starting with the Cyber Integrated Solutions business, and now broadcast. 

Now that Brown has set up Harris to be more focused on its core defense business, one has to wonder whether he will continue to run the Harris as a defense company, or try to engineer a larger deal that would see Harris Corporation itself sold to a larger defense contractor.

 

 

What Happens to FAME and DooH Initiatives?

Harris Broadcast has for many years sought to leverage its expertise video processing, management, manipulation and storage into market verticals outside of broadcast.  The two most prominent examples of this are the work it does with the military, and its efforts in Digital Signage or “Digital out of Home” (DooH).

For military markets, Harris has long touted its FAME (Full-Motion Video Asset Management Engine) initiative, which seeks to use broadcast technology to capture, manage, analyze and store the vast amounts of video-based content that are now being created in military operations.  Harris has never revealed the extent to which this initiative has gained traction with customers.  However it seems logical that if Harris Broadcast is spun off, the contacts (and contracts) that Harris Corporation have with government customers will live on.  On the other hand it’s also possible that a more focused owner may devote fewer resources to this area in favor of initiatives that are more core to the broadcast industry.

Harris has also very active in the digital signage business, and has had good success with clients including 7-Eleven, Harrods, McDonalds, the Orlando Magic, and Madison Square Garden. Some of these  contracts (especially in the sports market) have undoubtedly resulted in the sale of a lot of Harris Broadcast gear including signal processing and storage products.  The retail-focused projects are more about the digital signage solution than the sell through of broadcast technology.  Thus the issue for DooH markets is similar to the Harris FAME initiative – the contracts will live on, but it’s possible that a new owner may shift resources away from these areas in favor of a more focused approach to the broadcast market.

 

 

Branding — What Happens to the Harris Name?

Harris is one of the biggest names in the broadcast industry, but if its broadcast division is sold off to a PE firm, or is somehow spun out as a separate company, it may have only limited rights to the Harris name.  So depending on the outcome of the sale process, branding could become a major issue for the firm.

So how strong is the Harris brand? As part of our annual Big Broadcast Survey (BBS) study of the broadcast market, we have measured the brand values of Harris Broadcast for the past four years, so we are in a good position to know. 

The 2012 BBS uses a broad variety of metrics to benchmarks how buyers of broadcast technology perceive the strengths and weaknesses of more than 100 broadcast technology brands.  The Harris Broadcast brand is regarded very highly throughout the broadcast industry, and appears to have increased in several key areas over the past twelve months. 

For evidence of the its standing in the market, one only has to look at various broadcast industry message boards to see the outpouring of affection for the Harris broadcast brand. 

 

So what are your thoughts?  There are certain to be many more questions about this deal.  It will be very interesting to watch.

.

.

Related Content:

Harris Corporation To Divest Broadcast Business

Press Release: Harris Corporation Reports Fiscal 2012 Third Quarter Results

Harris Q3 FY 2012 10-Q Filing

Harris 8-K Filing – Restates Fiscal 2011-12 Revenue on Pro Forma Basis (Without Broadcast and Cyber Integrated Solutions)

Press Release: Harris Corporation Reports Fiscal 2012 Third Quarter Results

Harris Fiscal Q3 2012 Analyst Presentation

Harris Fiscal Q3 2012 Conference Call Transcript

TVNewsCheck Article: Tech’s Big Question: What’s Next For Harris?

Quincy Herald-Whig Article: Prospective buyers seek information on Harris broadcast; business as usual in Quincy

Harris Broadcast Revenue and Income Rise in Q2 2012, Says It’s Laser Focused on Maximizing Shareholder Value.

Harris Corporation Shuts Down Cyber Integrated Solutions Business

Harris Corporation Strategically Realigns Business Segments; Broadcast Communications Rolled into New “Integrated Network Solutions” Unit

Harris Corporation Names New President and CEO

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

 

The 2012 Big Broadcast Survey

broadcast technology market research | Posted by Joe Zaller
Apr 03 2012

I am pleased to announce that the 2012 Big Broadcast Survey (BBS), our annual study of the broadcast market, has been completed and that the reports from this project will be published soon.

We once again had record-breaking participation in this project.   Almost 10,000 broadcast professionals in 100+ countries participated in the 2012 BBS, making it the largest ever and most comprehensive market study of the broadcast industry.  We are humbled by and grateful for the unprecedented participation from so broadcast industry professionals who took the time to contribute to this year’s study.

The 2012 BBS offers unique insight into the broadcast industry by providing information about industry trends, budgets, capital projects, HD and file-based upgrade cycles, and more. It also provides detailed brand data on more than 100 broadcast technology vendors in 30+ product categories (see list in post tags below).

We created the BBS to help our clients, and readers of this website, better understand the issues and trends impacting the broadcast and digital media industries.  We received many positive comments about the BBS from both participants and our research clients, so we feel that we are on the right track and we will continue to publish data about the market on a regular basis.

We will begin to post summary data from the 2012 study on this website, so please check back regularly.

I will also be presenting a summary of the 2012 data on Sunday April 15th at the NAB Show, at a half-day conference session called Media Technology: Strategy and Valuation, which is being produced by Devoncroft, Silverwood Partners and the NAB Show.  It’s free for all registered NAB Show attendees, so please come along.

.

.

Related Content:

Devoncroft – 2012 Broadcast Market Research Reports Now Available

Devoncroft – 2011 Broadcast Market Research Articles

NAB Media Technology: Strategy and Valuation Conference presented by Devoncroft, Silverwood and the NAB

.

© Devoncroft Partners. All Rights Reserved.

.

More Broadcast Industry M&A: Technicolor Sells Playout & Services Business to Ericsson

Broadcast Vendor M&A | Posted by Joe Zaller
Mar 13 2012

Technicolor announced that it is selling its broadcast services business to Ericsson for €19m.  The deal also includes a potential earn-out of up to €9 million based on 2015 revenues of the broadcast services business.  The deal is scheduled to close in mid-2012.

Technicolor’s Broadcast Services activity has 900 employees in France, The UK and the Netherlands.  It provides managed play-out services, live production support and media asset management services.

Technicolor says the transaction will contribute to its ongoing efforts to leverage its existing portfolio, optimize its investments allocation and free cash flow generation, and help reduce its debt level.

This is the latest of broadcast-related divestitures by Technicolor, and the first one for which it appears to have received any cash up front as part of the deal.  The company’s previous divestitures which include the sale its Grass Valley head-end business, the sale of its transmission business to PARTER Capital Group, and the sale of its Grass Valley broadcast business to Francisco Partners, were all done for “nominal consideration”.

Technicolor CEO Frederic Rose said: “This transaction is consistent with Technicolor’s strategy to focus on media monetization solutions, new growth businesses, and strengthen its balance sheet. For Ericsson, managed services are a core business and after completion of this divesture, the Broadcast Services activity will benefit from the company’s know-how and global scale necessary to remain a key player in the worldwide Broadcast industry”.

“As the TV industry is undergoing fundamental changes with the transition to multi-platform, on-demand television, teaming up with a trusted partner enables broadcasters to meet the increasing commercial and technological complexity and competition in the TV market”, said Magnus Mandersson, Executive Vice President and Head of Business Unit Global Services, Ericsson. “We combine our service and technology leadership with strategic investments in playout operations, broadcast capability and competence.”

.

 

Related Content:

Press Release: Technicolor to sell its Broadcast Services activity to Ericsson

More Broadcast Vendor M&A: Technicolor Closes Deal to Dispose of Grass Valley Transmission Business

Technicolor Receives Binding Offer for Video Head-End Business

Technicolor decides not to sell digital signage provider PRN

Technicolor completes sale of Grass Valley to Francisco Partners

.

© Devoncroft Partners.  All Rights Reserved.

.