Jump to content

ase500

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ase500 last won the day on September 2 2016

ase500 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About ase500

  • Rank
    Member Level: iDEN *chirp*
  • Birthday 09/30/1982

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Samsung Galaxy S5
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bemidji Minnesota
  • Here for...
    Sprint Fan Boy (or Girl)
  1. I would say so. I meant that Sprint sevice in the aforementioned States is still better than any provider even Verizon in much of northern Mn. Areas around Red Lake, Northome, Big fork have no service from any provider. The square miles of that are is larger than some of the states mentioned. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  2. What. That isn't even close to what I said. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  3. Many of the highest earner get cell service from their employers. I would also argue that Sprint service in those areas is still probably better than say Verizon's in say northern MN. There are areas larger than RI that have no service from any provider. Get out to day Northome MN and see what spotty service really is. It's an expectation game. You simply expect more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  4. Out of those four states only one can have a large ignored area as only one is a large enough to have a large area at all. You are also assuming that density of population has anything to do with profit. All of those four states are also have one thing in common. Higher than average per capita income. Most are not looking for a deal and are probably going to stick with the big two. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  5. I myself was told this by the retention rep I talked to. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  6. Extra butter? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  7. I don't think there many that want a subsidized phone any more. It really isn't a good deal anymore. What most want is a way to transition out of the contracts that doesn't penalize them for being a loyal customer. Once the wholesale cost of the phone is paid, sprint doesn't stand to lose anything by allowing the customer off contract. In fact they could allow the customer off and sell them on an upgrade at retail. There by turning it into a profit situation, rather than a loss. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  8. The name for that attitude is called bankrupt. I help operate a 120 million a year operation for one of the largest companies on earth. And that statement alone would have gotten you fired. Every customer counts. In a connected world one angry customer, no matter how small the profit can make huge dent in your bottom line as they lampoon you on facebook and Twitter. It is quite clear many of you here don't understand business. I really hope none of the people at Sprint share your view. If they share such an anticustomer view the company has earned its reputation for poor customer service and it will not make a full turn around. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  9. Banging head against wall. How can they lose money on if they passed the Break Even point. Bro Do you even business. The only loss they can have at that point is the loss of revenue from loss customer. I will restate this once more the devices subbed to put them in the hands of the customers so they could sell the service. They are not a retailer. Once the wholesale cost is paid, the profit comes from the sale of the service. Get it yet? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  10. It's like talking to a wall. Retention is the point. NOT ENTITLEMENT. No offense but I hope you don't run a business. With that logic you'd be bankrupt. Most customers wil just quietly leave and give someone else their money. Sprint is in business to make money. They can't make money without customers. It is quite clear either you don't understand P/L or are driven by a petty need to be right, either way, I am done trying to give you a tutorial in business models and the economics of said business models. Have a good night. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  11. OMG it just flies right over your head. RETENTION. They won't make any money on the phone or the plan if they don't RETAIN THE CUSTOMER. The contract plans are NOT SWEETHEART DEALS. Based on comparison they are hands down some of the most expensive. And you missed the math yet again. Based on 12.50 per month for 3 phones for BE point and a difference 45 dollars per month from current plans to mine, they already made GREATER THAN RETAIL price. Now factor that across 12 years. I am sure that it would be in the best interest to retain me as a customer. Hence the reason why they are calling me to try and retain me. HOWEVER, my original point was the inconsistentancy of how they go about it and how it would be better be proactive rather than reactive on RETENTION. As the cost of new customers is higher than RETENTION, of current ones. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  12. SMH. It isn't about the cost of the phone. Phones where subsidised back in the 1980s because the cost of the phone was to high for customers to pay. Granted a method that should have been gone a decade ago. Let me break it down in numbers for you. I have 3 subbed lines two S7s wholesale price at the time of purchase was 400 dollars each, my upfront cost was 250/ea leaving 150 dollars subed per phone. The third is an S6 which had a wholesale price of 250 dollars at the time, and was subject to black Friday manufacturer rebate of 150 dollars (Sprint recouped 150 of the cost) and I paid 150 upfront. That means my total subed cost would be 300 dollars across 2 years. A break even figure of 12.50/per month for my entire account. Based on the cost of my plan vs current plans, I paid for my phones and then some. And my wholesale figures come from DH wholesale, who buy a lot less phones than Sprint, I am sure Sprint paid less than what I can buy wholesale. So again I will say this again. It is about retention. The phones are paid for and their costs don't go down if they lose me as a customer. It's not like they shut down a tower if I leave. Furthermore the people on contracts are generally speaking the bread and butter. Like me most are upper middle income, excellent credit and buy top line phones. Retention, Retention, Retention. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  13. You are missing the fact that you pay a large part of the cost down on a subsidised phone vs a financed phone. I also know exactly what the wholesale on a phone is as well as the manufacturing cost. Kinda one of the areas I make my living. As I said before though that isn't even the point. The point is to retain customers. Verizon did what it did very strategically, it understood the flaw with Sprint's current billing structure and knew that it could exploit it. Sprint however, blew the response, which is what Verizon wanted. From a retention standpont sprint has two options to retain the contract customers, maintain the contracts and subsidised phones (bad idea) or forget the subsidised phones, waive the fees and covert the current accounts. With the second option they can upsell those customers on new phones and monetize them allowing more free cash flow. This all the while under cutting Verizon to its current customers. If they do not do this churn is going to go up massively. You will also be surprised at how once phone makers are forced to compete, how the prices will drop. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  14. Your comparison is a bit off. The difference is how things are being financed. With subsidised plans the provider would buy the phones direct at a massive discount compared to the full price. When cell service first came about the phones would be about 1500 in today's dollars and the customer would pay zero up front. Now a top of the line phone is 650-700 retail and wholesales for about half of that, with a customer paying 250 up front, that leaves about 50-100 in real cost to the provider. Now the cost of the phone is factored into the plan month by month, at a pretty hefty premium. Easy pay is a whole different ball of wax. The provider is selling you a phone at retail price and making money doing so. They then have the option to monetize that payment by selling it up as an account collectible. Similar to how banks sell mortgages as derivatives. At any rate it isn't about entitlement it is about retention. Walmart doesn't have to sell you big screen TVs at a loss either, but they do to get you to buy the much higher mark up accessories. That is the way business works, sometimes you take a loss on one thing to make a profit on another. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  15. The one I talked you refused to waive them. I have been with them for 12 years. The sheer lack of communications at sprint is just sad. I have had one tell me they can't do something then call back a few minutes later and have a lower level rep do whatever I wanted right away. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other is doing. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
×