Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[RedSpark]

I completely understand your perspective, RedSpark, and you make very valid points. However, I think this may be one area we disagree, with respect. I believe you that customers would be better served by having a higher quality wireless experience, and everything you've suggested from deployment, density, spending, etc. are all great ideas Sprint ought to be doing/changing.

 

The problem though which I share the same viewpoint with those mentioning Sprint's past reputation, is with a rebrand, the company can start fresh, without the stigma in the mind of people who still are stuck on the old Sprint and whatever negative experiences they remember having that makes them think and sometimes say really bad things about the company.

 

Still, a name change alone isn't enough. They need a complete rebranding in advertising, etc. to get through to customers that this is a whole new opportunity for the company based of course on the most important aspect of them all, network improvements. I would like to see them do a Domino's-style advertisement campaign at first, directly addressing those people who "hate" on Sprint with a positive message meant hopefully to give them another try, including those who aren't so negative towards Sprint, but simply are skeptical.

 

 

No amount of rebranding can change the baggage that a company brings with it. There's no starting fresh these days. People are one internet article away from reading about how "Sprint" is now "Company X" with a new name. Any money spent on a rebrand is a waste and takes away from improving the actual product.

 

However, I do completely agree with your idea for Sprint to do a Domino's-Style Campaign... For those who haven't seen it:

 

 

 

However, it shouldn't happen until Sprint has feature parity as the other carriers with VoLTE deployed.

[Arysyn]

With all do respect it seems like you're in a dream. I would love a rebrand and so would most. Financially it's not a few thousand, its millions. The worst part is the wireless industry is so aggressive the negative press would absolutely slaughter sprint. Can't you hear JL and everyone saying "you can change the name but the network is the same"

 

I fully agree at some point sprint needs a rebrand but that can't some until the network is in a much better position it's just money wasted that could have been put somewhere more useful. As mentioned early sprint needs to advertise more where the network is strong, increase advertising in areas as the network gets better. --- meaningful advertising directed at that specific local market... As in Sprint has the fastest speed/coverage etc here in this specific market vs whoever was the top.

 

 

--- But I do agree with your last part about the domino effect

You're absolutely right, and to be correct with my view, renaming/rebranding should be done after the network gets much further along with deployment and densification. Also, despite my bringing up both positive and negative points here on S4GRU, and I know some here think perhaps I could be a bit more forgiving/understanding of Sprint's financial position in regards to its progress capabilities, I assure everyone that my intentions for my outlook of Sprint is nothing but for the best, and like everyone else here, I despise the Sprint "hate" on the internet, etc.

 

If at any time I felt that I couldn't be objective about Sprint, I simply wouldn't be here. I have alot of respect for S4GRU and the members here, even those who disagree with me. I admit when I first joined here and some of my views were taken with skepticism and thought unusual for the site, I became offended when I should have been more understanding of the perspective others here had. I've since learned from this, and have tried to be more thoughtful when posting.

 

As I've said in the past, I think because of how S4GRU has been a tremendous help to Sprint, it would be nice for Sprint to recognize the site and its members in some way. If a rebranding were to happen, I can conceive of Sprint possibly doing ads featuring people here as "The faces of those who use Sprint" or something similar, showing examples of people who like and use Sprint, but with whatever new name of the company. Even if its just a marketing shift and not a new name, I still think its a good idea and might help the image of Sprint without changing the name.

[Arysyn]

RedSpark, as I mentioned to dnicekid in my above post, I'm all for a marketing campaign done right, if it would help Sprint without a rebranding. My suggestion would be to place people in ads, possibly from S4GRU, showing customer loyalty to the brand. Do you think that is a good idea Sprint could do?

 

I'm glad you like my Dominos-style suggestion though. From what I read at the time of the ads, it helped Dominos tremendously, which is why I believe something similar might help Sprint.

[RedSpark]

RedSpark, as I mentioned to dnicekid in my above post, I'm all for a marketing campaign done right, if it would help Sprint without a rebranding. My suggestion would be to place people in ads, possibly from S4GRU, showing customer loyalty to the brand. Do you think that is a good idea Sprint could do?

 

I'm glad you like my Dominos-style suggestion though. From what I read at the time of the ads, it helped Dominos tremendously, which is why I believe something similar might help Sprint.

 

 

I'm all in favor of Sprint being a better advocate for itself through more effective advertising. Sprint's NASCAR/NBA Sponsorships were extremely expensive and didn't actually improve the network.

 

Self-Marketing (like my signage idea) can be more targeted and cost-effective. I think the Domino's-Style Campaign you suggested would be a real winner.

 

Sprint's current marketing message is that its reliability is within 1% of Verizon. At this point, I think it has the opposite effect Sprint wants it to have.

 

Compete on price. Say "works for me". Mention new network technology like HPUE and Carrier Aggregation. I think it's time to drop the 1% marketing message.

[Arysyn]

I'm all in favor of Sprint being a better advocate for itself through more effective advertising. Sprint's NASCAR/NBA Sponsorships were extremely expensive and didn't actually improve the network.

 

Self-Marketing (like my signage idea) can be more targeted and cost-effective. I think the Domino's-Style Campaign you suggested would be a real winner.

 

Sprint's current marketing message is that its reliability is within 1% of Verizon. At this point, I think it has the opposite effect Sprint wants it to have.

 

Compete on price. Say "works for me". Mention new network technology like HPUE and Carrier Aggregation. I think it's time to drop the 1% marketing message.

I'm currently in the car with my mother traveling up to Abt, and as I was watching the Domino's Pizza commercials you posted, she was listening in, so I suppose I'll mention this to her later and see what she thinks about Sprint doing something like this. Yet, when I was telling her about Sprint's improvements in Lombard while at my doctor appointment earlier today, she seemed impressed by it.

 

I think if Sprint were to contact former Sprint customers who left the company due to network issues, especially those who went to T-Mobile, and took these customers on a free drive around for an hour or two letting them test the new improved network once everything has been deployed and densified, this would make for great marketing for Sprint.

 

I know if they drove me through Lombard and Schaumburg, I'd likely be praising Sprint.

[Arysyn]

I posted this in the T-Mobile thread, but figured for anyone who may not view that thread, here is a link regarding the latest Sprint/T-Mobile merger situation :

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2017/05/sprint-softbank-informal-merger-talks-deutsche-telekom-t-mobile/

[laqn1283]

http://investorplace.com/2017/03/t-mobile-us-inc-tmus-needs-merge-sprint-corp-s/2/#.WRYPu9Tytkg

 

I posted link to this article because there is a paragraph in there that mentions that tmobile is not prepared for 5g because they lack the fiber necessary for I guess for small cell backhaul.  Whereas, verizon and att are way ahead of tmobile and sprint in term of fibers.  But Sprint has a way around this problem mainly because of the amount of spectrum it has but also sprint has been installing massive mimo.  

 

Can anyone confirm if any of this is true?

[Arysyn]

http://investorplace.com/2017/03/t-mobile-us-inc-tmus-needs-merge-sprint-corp-s/2/#.WRYPu9Tytkg

 

I posted link to this article because there is a paragraph in there that mentions that tmobile is not prepared for 5g because they lack the fiber necessary for I guess for small cell backhaul. Whereas, verizon and att are way ahead of tmobile and sprint in term of fibers. But Sprint has a way around this problem mainly because of the amount of spectrum it has but also sprint has been installing massive mimo.

 

Can anyone confirm if any of this is true?

I figured Sprint would be ahead of all the other wireless carriers with fiber, considering Network Vision.

[richy]

With all do respect it seems like you're in a dream. I would love a rebrand and so would most. Financially it's not a few thousand, its millions. The worst part is the wireless industry is so aggressive the negative press would absolutely slaughter sprint. Can't you hear JL and everyone saying "you can change the name but the network is the same"

 

I fully agree at some point sprint needs a rebrand but that can't some until the network is in a much better position it's just money wasted that could have been put somewhere more useful. As mentioned early sprint needs to advertise more where the network is strong, increase advertising in areas as the network gets better. --- meaningful advertising directed at that specific local market... As in Sprint has the fastest speed/coverage etc here in this specific market vs whoever was the top.

 

 

--- But I do agree with your last part about the domino effect

 

I'b been through 2 re brands of a large cable co. It's insanely expensive, disruptive, and usually is counter productive. The money is usually better spent on capex. It also usually brings out the inner Stalin of brand teams. They decide on one specific date every tv commercial, letterhead, sales collateral, piece of staff clothing, sign on building, sticker, etc must be changed. No using your last batch of letterhead and switching over. The waste is insane. It's comical to watch these little dictators raging through your offices replacing everything and searching your desks for contraband logos. Every cable installers van has to be re branded, every piece of their clothing, it's just such a gargantuan effort for zero benefit to the customer.  

 

If Sprint offered a service on a par with Verizon across the entire country than any past issues would be forgotten by the vast majority of people in a year, the remainder of people wouldn't be fooled by a re brand. I'd rather see the money spent on network, that pays real dividends. A different color logo doesn't fix *(&^ apart from the bank balance of the coke hounds who tell you it is required.

[Jones]

 

 

It also usually brings out the inner Stalin of brand teams.

Inner Stalin. I love it. I'd tell them Do svidaniya bitches!

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[richy]

Inner Stalin. I love it. I'd tell them Do svidaniya bitches!

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

It is so funny watching them storm in like ants invading a picnic. It's just SOOO important that everything is switched at exactly the same time and if THEY screw up and don't have a re branded replacement for something you cannot use the old one. After the first time I just stored what we needed in my office at home until they were gone. The level of disruption is totally unjustified but these peoples entire existence is dependent on the perceived value of this completely pointless exercise. You can't polish a turd, it is far more sensible to invest in not being a turd then trying to polish one.

[chamb]

It is so funny watching them storm in like ants invading a picnic. It's just SOOO important that everything is switched at exactly the same time and if THEY screw up and don't have a re branded replacement for something you cannot use the old one. After the first time I just stored what we needed in my office at home until they were gone. The level of disruption is totally unjustified but these peoples entire existence is dependent on the perceived value of this completely pointless exercise. You can't polish a turd, it is far more sensible to invest in not being a turd then trying to polish one.

Best post of the day:

You can't polish a turd, it is far more sensible to invest in not being a turd then trying to polish one.

[floorguy]

I'b been through 2 re brands of a large cable co. It's insanely expensive, disruptive, and usually is counter productive. The money is usually better spent on capex. It also usually brings out the inner Stalin of brand teams. They decide on one specific date every tv commercial, letterhead, sales collateral, piece of staff clothing, sign on building, sticker, etc must be changed. No using your last batch of letterhead and switching over. The waste is insane. It's comical to watch these little dictators raging through your offices replacing everything and searching your desks for contraband logos. Every cable installers van has to be re branded, every piece of their clothing, it's just such a gargantuan effort for zero benefit to the customer.  

 

If Sprint offered a service on a par with Verizon across the entire country than any past issues would be forgotten by the vast majority of people in a year, the remainder of people wouldn't be fooled by a re brand. I'd rather see the money spent on network, that pays real dividends. A different color logo doesn't fix *(&^ apart from the bank balance of the coke hounds who tell you it is required.

can we say comcast---->Xfinity.... and yet the comcast and the shit they have are still very much there... WASTED money for sure

[ITK79]

Comcast is a bad example. After all Comcast is the corporation that holds Xfinity cable services, NBC/Universal and all other subsidiaries.

 

There are few times lately when true rebranding takes place. Most of the times it is dropping a less known name for the larger brand name that acquired it.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Well, SBC dropped their name, along with Cingular, to become AT&T. So far by all reports, that rebranding seems to have worked, or at least it could be considered as a successful brand re·shifting.

[utiz4321]

Well, SBC dropped their name, along with Cingular, to become AT&T. So far by all reports, that rebranding seems to have worked, or at least it could be considered as a successful brand re·shifting.

It worked because AT&T was an established brand with a good reputation. Also, there was nothing wrong with either SBC or Cingular, AT&T just tested better. Not exactly the same circumstances in which Sprint would be executing a brand change.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

Comcast is a bad example. After all Comcast is the corporation that holds Xfinity cable services, NBC/Universal and all other subsidiaries.

 

There are few times lately when true rebranding takes place. Most of the times it is dropping a less known name for the larger brand name that acquired it.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agreed Comcast is a bad example they didn't change their name just added a name. If Sprint changed their name they wouldn't go by both names. The Sprint name would be completed gone.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

It worked because AT&T was an established brand with a good reputation. Also, there was nothing wrong with either SBC or Cingular, AT&T just tested better. Not exactly the same circumstances in which Sprint would be executing a brand change.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Very true.

 

I didn't mean to compare AT&T to Sprint, but rather to show how AT&T's "reworking" was successful. Still, the circumstances were indeed different in many ways.

[RedSpark]

Agreed Comcast is a bad example they didn't change their name just added a name. If Sprint changed their name they wouldn't go by both names. The Sprint name would be completed gone.

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

The Sprint name will never be gone after a rebrand. Just like Xfinity is still called Comcast by many.

[Arysyn]

The Sprint name will never be gone after a rebrand. Just like Xfinity is still called Comcast by many.

Perhaps Sprint could change their name to Sprinfinity!????

[kct1975]

Perhaps Sprint could change their name to Sprinfinity!????

LOL!! [emoji12]

 

Sent from my NS-P16AT10 using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

The Sprint name will never be gone after a rebrand. Just like Xfinity is still called Comcast by many.

If Sprint changed their name why would they go by two names? That makes no since.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

If Sprint changed their name why would they go by two names? That makes no since.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

I remember several years ago there was talk about Sprint looking into bringing Nextel back and having it be the official name of Sprint's business division, while the Sprint name was to serve regular customers.

[RedSpark]

If Sprint changed their name why would they go by two names? That makes no since.

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Just because Sprint wouldn't go by two names doesn't mean that it wouldn't be called its old name by people after a "rebrand".

[Arysyn]

Just because Sprint wouldn't go by two names doesn't mean that it wouldn't be called its old name by people after a "rebrand".

One thing I do like about the Sprint name, is that the name is just Sprint, not Sprint Cellular, Sprint Mobile, Sprint Wireless, etc. Regardless of my views about Sprint rebranding, I'd much rather them keep the Sprint name than to change it with Cellular, Mobile, or Wireless as part of a new name.