Open Joint Stock Co Vimpel Communications
In their words
“Operating lease agreements for premises where telecommunications equipment is installed typically contain automatic year-by-year renewal provisions which stipulate renewal to the extent that neither party indicates otherwise, our experience to date indicates that renewal rates are in excess of 99%.”
“Churn 25.5% (driven by efforts to increase tariffs and tightening of churn policy)”
“Kazakhstan churn rate 30.3% 19.0% —. We believe that the significant decrease in our churn rate in 2004 compared to 2003 reflects the effects of an increasing proportion of our customer base coming from the regions of Russia and the CIS”
NPS disclosures (0)
No NPS disclosures yet.
Retention disclosures (61)
Churn (Russia): 45.8% (FY2009) — “Our churn rate was 45.8% (based on active subscribers), 38.2% (based on active subscribers) and 34.1% in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.”
Churn (Russia): 42.8% (2009) — “Churn rate (2) Russia 30.4 % 35.4 % 32.9 % 34.6 % 42.8 %”
Churn (Total mobile): 31% (9M 2009) — “Total Churn 27.7 31.0...In the first nine months of 2009, OJSC VimpelCom's churn rate in Russia increased”
Churn: 38.2% (2008) — “Our churn rate was 38.2% (based on active base), 34.1% and 35.1% in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.”
Retention rate: 99% — “Operating lease agreements for premises where telecommunications equipment is installed typically contain automatic year-by-year renewal provisions which stipulate renewal to the extent that neither party indicates otherwise, our experience to date indicates that renewal rates are in excess of 99%.”
Churn: 31% (9M 2009) — “Total Churn 27.7 31.0”
Churn: 38.2% (FY2008) — “Total Churn 38.2 % [for year ended December 31, 2008]”
Churn (Russia): 38.2% (FY2008) — “Our churn rate was 38.2% (based on active base), 34.1% and 35.1% in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.”
Churn (Mobile (3 months active base, quarterly)): 9.2% (Q1 2008) — “Churn 3 months active base (quarterly), % n/a 7.5 8.1 9.1 % 9.2 %”
Churn: 34.1% (FY2007) — “Our churn rate was 34.1%, 35.1% and 30.4% in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.”
Churn (total): 34.1% (FY2007) — “Our churn rate was 34.1%, 35.1% and 30.4% in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.”
Churn (Georgia mobile): 23.8% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 23.8 %”
Churn (Tajikistan): 1.2% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 1.2 %”
Churn (Uzbekistan): 10.6% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 10.6 %”
Churn (Ukraine): 20.9% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 20.9 %”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 5.8% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 5.8 %”
Churn (Russia (active subscribers)): 7.1% (Q4 2007) — “Churn 7.1 %”
Churn (Ukraine): 25.5% (Q3 2007) — “Churn 25.5% (driven by efforts to increase tariffs and tightening of churn policy)”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 5.9% (Q3 2007) — “Churn 5.9%”
Churn (Russia consolidated): 10.1% (Q3 2007) — “Churn 10.1%”
Churn (Ukraine): 7% (Q2 2007) — “Churn 7.0%”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 6.3% (Q2 2007) — “Churn 6.3%”
Churn (Russia consolidated): 7.6% (Q2 2007) — “Churn 7.6%”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 5.5% (Q1 2007) — “Churn 5.5%”
Churn (Russia consolidated): 8.6% (Q1 2007) — “Churn 8.6%”
Churn (Armenia): 9.1% (2006) — “Armenia 9.1 % — — — —”
Churn (Uzbekistan): 44.9% (2006) — “Uzbekistan 44.9 % — — — —”
Churn (Tajikistan): 95.1% (2006) — “Tajikistan 95.1 % — — — —”
Churn (Ukraine): 18.6% (2006) — “Ukraine 18.6 % — — —”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 32.8% (2006) — “Kazakhstan 32.8 % 30.3 % 19.0 %”
Churn (Russia): 35.4% (2006) — “Churn rate (for the period ended) (8) 35.1 % 30.4 % 29.6 % 39.3 % 30.8 % Russia 35.4 % 30.4 % 29.3 %”
Churn (Russia): 35.1% (2006) — “Our churn rate was 35.1%, 30.4% and 29.6% in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.”
Churn (VimpelCom consolidated): 9% (Q4 2006, quarterly) — “Churn, quarterly 9.0%”
Churn: 9.8% (Q3 2006) — “Churn, quarterly 9.8 % 8.8 % 7.8 %”
Churn (total): 7.8% (Q2 2006) — “Churn, quarterly 7.8% 6.7% 8.4%”
Churn (Kazakhstan): 30.3% (2005) — “Kazakhstan churn rate 30.3% 19.0% —. We believe that the significant decrease in our churn rate in 2004 compared to 2003 reflects the effects of an increasing proportion of our customer base coming from the regions of Russia and the CIS”
Churn: 8.4% (Q1 2006) — “Churn, quarterly 8.4 % 5.9 %”
Churn (Total): 30.4% (FY2005) — “Total churn rate 30.4 % 29.6 % 39.3 %; slight increase in our churn rate in 2005 compared to 2004”
Churn: 30% (FY2005 (annual)) — “The annual churn rate in the past two years was stable at approximately 30% (30.4% in 2005 and 29.6% in 2004)”
Churn: 8.3% (1Q06 (quarterly)) — “Churn (quarterly) 8.3% 5.7% -- 8.8%”
Churn (Total): 8.8% (Q3 2005) — “The Company's quarterly churn rate in the third quarter of 2005 was approximately 8.8%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 7.2% reported for the same period in 2004.”
Churn (Total): 6.7% (Q2 2005) — “The churn rate for the second quarter of 2005 was 6.7% which is significantly lower than the 9.4% reported for the same period a year ago”
Churn (Total): 5.9% (Q1 2005) — “Churn rate for the first quarter of 2005 was 5.9% which is significantly lower than 8.6% reported for the same period a year ago.”
Churn (VimpelCom total): 29.6% (2004) — “Our churn rate was 29.6%, 39.3% and 30.8% in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively”
Churn: 29.6% (FY2004) — “VimpelCom recorded a significant improvement in its 2004 annualized churn rate. The decrease in 2004 to 29.6% from 39.3% in 2003”
Churn (Regions): 25.5% (9M 2004) — “Regions churn rate 25.5% (2004) compared to 27.3% (2003)”
Churn (Moscow): 44% (9M 2004) — “Moscow churn rate 44.0% (2004) compared to 47.9% (2003)”
Churn (total): 33% (9M 2004) — “Total churn rate...33.0% (nine months ended September 30, 2004) compared to 40.0% (nine months ended September 30, 2003)”
Churn: 7.2% (Q3 2004, quarterly) — “quarterly churn rate in the third quarter of 2004 was 7.2%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 9.6% reported for the same period in 2003”
Churn: 18% (H1 2004, six months) — “Total churn rate 18.0% [H1 2004] compared to 20.2% [H1 2003]”
Churn: 9.4% (Q2 2004) — “The Company's quarterly churn rate in the second quarter of 2004 was 9.4%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 10.5% reported for the same period in 2003.”
Churn: 8.6% (Q1 2004, quarterly) — “Company's quarterly churn rate in the first quarter of 2004 was 8.6%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 9.6% reported for the same period in 2003”
Churn: 39.3% (FY2003) — “The Company's annual churn rate in 2003 was 39.3%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 30.8% reported for 2002.”
Churn: 9.7% (Q1 2004) — “Churn (quarterly) 9.7% 8.7% — 9.6% —”
Churn: 10.5% (2Q 2003) — “The Company's quarterly churn rate in the second quarter of 2003 was 10.5%, compared to 6.9% for the same period in 2002.”
Churn (Regional): 14.5% (FY2002, annual) — “Regional churn rate 14.5%”
Churn (Moscow license area): 33.9% (FY2002, annual) — “Moscow license area churn rate 33.9%”
Churn: 9.6% (Q1 2003, quarterly) — “The Company's quarterly churn rate in the first quarter of 2003 was 9.6%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 5.7% reported for the same period in 2002.”
Churn: 8.7% (Q4 2002) — “Churn (quarterly) 8.7%”
Churn: 30.8% (FY2002) — “The Company's annual churn rate in 2002 was 30.8%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 23.0% reported for 2001.”
Churn (overall): 8.5% (Q3 2002) — “Company's quarterly churn rate in the third quarter of 2002 was 8.5%, compared to the Company's churn rate of 6.5% reported for the same period in 2001”
Lighthouse companies in Telecom & media
About these figures
Every figure here was publicly disclosed by the named company: press releases, annual reports, SEC filings, earnings calls and news coverage. Companies tend to publish their NPS when it is good, so these numbers run higher than a true industry average: read them as what leading companies in this vertical say publicly, not as an industry benchmark.
NPS runs from −100 to +100. Retention figures are reported as the company defines them (net revenue retention, gross revenue retention, customer retention rate, churn). Every entry links to its source in the full database.