Jump to content

Sprint Name Change Ideas (With Poll)


Arysyn
 Share

Sprint Name Poll  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think ought to happen with the Sprint company name?

    • Keep the name Sprint
    • Rename to Softbank
    • Rename to Spark Wireless
    • Rename to Spark Mobile
    • Something else (Please indicate in a post too)


Recommended Posts

I've been thinking of creating this thread for a while, though I decided to do so today since all the discussion about the latest WSJ article concerning Sprint's future and regarding the potential of a new company name once the company currently known as Sprint improves its reputation.

 

I'll start with my idea for it, to possibly be Ntermina, a short take on the word "interminable", which is another word for infinite and eternity. My spelling of the name Ntermina, is designed to appear as though to say, enter, then the full word's meaning. So basically, enter eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I wanted to get that last post entered here quickly, I'll make this one addressing the U.S. Cellular situation, but not just its name.

 

I realize Sprint doesn't have a good reputation, though it certainly seems a better idea for Sprint to work on fixing that reputation before considering a name change. As it will be Sprint doing that work, along with Softbank, it seems rather odd they'd want to change their name to a company's name already in use that has nothing to do with that. U.S. Cellular has done nothing in the history of Sprint that has bonded itself with Sprint.

 

This is totally unlike that of AT&T and SBC, where there is history there between the two companies, which made perfect sense for SBC to change its name to AT&T. Besides, AT&T is a nationwide organization that is known throughout the world. Essentially, SBC was moving their brand image drastically upwards by changing their name to AT&T after the acquisition.

 

Naming Sprint to U.S. Cellular does nothing for Sprint, except to give it a new name. It leaves behind alot of good in Sprint's history with a name that has no connection to that and it further separates its branding from Softbank. If Sprint is going to change its name to anything, it should be one that both Sprint and Softbank can identify with. So, creating something different, akin to Verizon, for instance, sounds most reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the areas US Cellular use to serve, such as Chicago, the name isn't so good. Besides, why should Sprint use a name that belongs to a regional carrier, when Sprint is a nationwide one. When SBC acquired AT&T, they chose the AT&T name because if its longstanding image and nationwide presence. US Cellular doesn't have that, nor that great of a reputation.

 

Changing the name to Softbank is a better idea. However, Sprint might also want to create a new name, which with a good new reputation behind it, could be used by Softbank as its mobile division brand name, the way Comcast uses Xfinity for their television/internet brand. If that happened, the name would need to be something without any country identification.

 

Softbank is an incredibly awful name, especially for a wireless carrier. The only reason it worked in Japan is because neither Soft nor Bank are Japanese words, so it's basically just a name without meaning for them. In my view, neither "soft" nor "bank" are positive qualities for a mobile carrier, and I would kind of balk at it as a consumer. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. Cellular has a pretty good reputation in locations it is in now. Sprint has a bad reputation it has not been able to shake off nationwide. A name change or an image change could be in order once major cities are densified.

Softbank doesn't even sound like a wireless carrier. It honestly sounds like a bank's name. They also aren't widely known in the states. Keeping the name Sprint around as a parent company and using a new name to brand the wireless service isn't a good idea. It hasn't worked for Comcast since people still know xfinity was just a crappy way of Comcast hiding their craptastic name. We all know its crappy Comcast at the end of the day. Only difference is that most people can't ditch Comcast for another cable company because there isn't another cable company to switch to. Wireless industry has 3 other national carriers, several regional carriers, and endless amounts of MVNOs.

 

Don't be so sure about people knowing xfinity is a way to hide the Comcast name. I know plenty of people, especially non-tech people, who don't realize that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Softbank is an incredibly awful name, especially for a wireless carrier. The only reason it worked in Japan is because neither Soft nor Bank are Japanese words, so it's basically just a name without meaning for them. In my view, neither "soft" nor "bank" are positive qualities for a mobile carrier, and I would kind of balk at it as a consumer.

I concede to not liking the Softbank name itself, but since that is the name of the parent company in use already in Japan, I think either that ought to be the new name of the company here in the U.S., which is Sprint. Or better yet as I've said, have a brand name both companies can use for their mobile division. If Sprint manages to improve its reputation, Sprint could keep its name and be used in Japan as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the Sprint experience improves in more major markets (LA/OC/SD as a HUGE example), a rebrand is useless.

 

You don't want a "new name, same crap" feeling.

 

 

But I do sort of like Spark Mobile.

 

 

Optimus Mobile? (referencing Optimus Prime and the TRANSFORMATION of the old Sprint)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the Sprint experience improves in more major markets (LA/OC/SD as a HUGE example), a rebrand is useless.

 

You don't want a "new name, same crap" feeling.

 

 

But I do sort of like Spark Mobile.

 

 

Optimus Mobile? (referencing Optimus Prime and the TRANSFORMATION of the old Sprint)

 

Let's combine them: Opterminoble Sparkticon.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not recycle the Virgin Mobile brand name?

 

- Trip

Two issues 1) I'm not sure what the licensing agreement is for Virgin, there could be financial implications there and 2) I don't know that the Virgin brands have a lot of value in the US.

U.S. Wireless?

 

Sent from my SM-N910T

Too close to US Cellular

I concede to not liking the Softbank name itself, but since that is the name of the parent company in use already in Japan, I think either that ought to be the new name of the company here in the U.S., which is Sprint. Or better yet as I've said, have a brand name both companies can use for their mobile division. If Sprint manages to improve its reputation, Sprint could keep its name and be used in Japan as well.

Given the separate operating nature of each company, there really isn't any synergistic benefit of having them named the same thing. Neither way makes sense. First, Softbank has no reason to change their name in Japan. None. Things are going well over there and they've built up brand equity.

 

And as others have pointed out naming a phone company "bank" in the United States or any English speaking country doesn't make sense from a branding stand point. Secondly, post 2008 banks dominate lists of the most hated companies in America.  And then as others have pointed out as well "soft" while not necessarily having a negative connotation per se, can symbolize weakness. It doesn't make sense either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Virgin name would tie Sprint to an external brand owner. Part of the trouble Deutsche Telekom has had getting rid of its stake in TMUS is that whoever buys it would probably have to rebrand.

 

Something based on Spark might work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree on Spark sounding good.

 

I'm thinking since the Softbank name is known well in Japan, possibly there it could be called, "Spark Mobile Japan, a Softbank company". In the U.S., where I agree with Thomas and Mr. Nuke about the "bank" name, perhaps it could be called "Spark Mobile U.S." and have the Softbank name more hidden in the background.

 

I do want there to be more of a connection with Softbank, because right now, its looking pretty iffy. I've been in agreement with most of what Fraydog has been writing about it, and I think anything to tie Softbank more together with Sprint/Spark is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that nTelos is being bought by Shentel I would like to see Sprint buy Shentel and adopt the Shentel name.

In case you didn't know, Shentel is short for Shenandoah Telecommunications. I think the local nature of the name sort of precludes it from being a national brand.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houstoncell.png

Bring back Houston Cellular!

 

 

 

But on a serious note, I don't think speculation of future or potential name changes is a good idea. T-Mobile used to have a terrible perception but managed to turn it around. I'm all in for a name change just to see stuff shaken up, but to count out "Sprint" as a failed brand right now is reachig too far.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of right now, the best Idea is SPARK MOBILE - by sprint... it would be a pure marketing scheme, and some people would be completely aware of what it was, but if it was only marketed once a city was densified with B41... it might work.  Also, they could set it up so that it was a different network on the testing sites, so that all the results showed the difference.  Once it gets launched nationwide, they can start the switch of all branding.  

 

Even if they were to purchase US Cellular, IDK if it would be any different. Their name actually might sound more like a national carriers name han a regional... but the branding process should be similar, pushing the name to areas that are what they envision as their final finished product. That way everyone associates the new name with the better service & they start distancing themselves from the problems of the past.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • At least a few sites in STL are now at 100 MHz.
    • 100 MHz n41 is live in Austin and...Bentonville, Arkansas. Guessing this went live on Tuesday or Wednesday in Austin; network was acting a bit wonky on Tuesday. Noticed it yesterday, as I'm still a little too far away at home to catch n41. Peak speed in Bentonville 1/3 mi from the site was 675-700 Mbps down, 80-90 Mbps up, with the upload speed only possible with a 20 MHz B66 anchor...which seems congested at times. They also have 5 MHz B2 here as an anchor, which predictably leads to slow uploads. n71 is 15x15 here. Sprint B25 is two 5x5 channels. Weirdly, seems like I'm being routed through Nashville, so latency is rather high, and tethering performance is somehow quite poor...maybe it's due to congestion on the PCC meaning that the difference between on-phone and tethered priority is the difference between a usable connection and...not. Also, VZW (with the old Alltel SID for CDMA) is what you end up using inside the Crystal Bridges museum, though the area has WiFi so not the end of the world.
    • The Sprint site at 520/202 was decommissioned a few weeks ago. Everything was pulled off the pole. 
    • It looks like N5 supports 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz channel widths. I wonder how long they'll wait before they make a change to be able to use more of that spectrum for N5. Possible options I see: Use 15x15 as B26/N5 using DSS (If thats an option, or would it have to match and be N26?) 5x5 as B5 LTE for older phones and that still leaves 5x5 for HSPA.  A more aggressive option would be to use 20x20 for N5 exclusively and 5x5 for HSPA. This still leaves 10x10 B12 and 10x10 B14 for older phones for low band. Hopefully they enable SA if they go this route. Since I believe you can't aggregate low band LTE with low band NR in most cases, phones using the N5 carrier would not be touching the B12 and B14 carriers. If they enable SA on the 20x20 N5 carrier it would also help free up their limited midband spectrum for older non-NR phones. That would also prevent falling back to LTE only inside a building just because the mid-band anchor band was too weak. In Daytona AT&T was broadcasting 5x5 B2, 10x10 B66, and 10x10 B30 and that was it for midband. 
    • I've found 2 decommissioned Sprint sites in Louisville, both were sites with both T-Mobile and Sprint. In both cases all Sprint tower equipment including the rack were removed. I haven't had time to dig through our permit site to see if I can find anything, but I'll be surprised if I do. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...