Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (
More info?)
In article <68a9acb2.0406170752.5cb16b7a@posting.google.com>,
plane@usa.com (plane) wrote:
> "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
> > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
> > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
> > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
> > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
Average customer. There's the sticking point.
> >
> > If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
> > etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
> >
> > Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
> > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
> > customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
> > some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
> > should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
> > plan---"
> >
> > That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
> > incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group
> > when
> > it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
> > deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
> > not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
> > company out there.
> >
> > Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
> > (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
> > offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
> > wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
> > customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
> > not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to
> > establish
> > that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
> > for him/her.
> >
> > Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
> > afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
> > Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
> >
> > Good points.
>
> thanks
> > plane wrote:
> > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> > > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
> > >> Frank Graves wrote:
> > >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
> > >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
> > >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
> > >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
> > >>> company.
> > >>
> > >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
> > >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
> > >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
> > >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
> > >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
> > >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
> > >>
> > >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
> > >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
> > >> restrictions.
> > >
> > > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
> > > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
> > > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
> > > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
> > > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
> > > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
> > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
> > > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
> > > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
> > > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
> > > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
> > >
> > > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
> > > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
> > > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
> > > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
> > > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
> > > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
> > > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
> > > is virtually nothing.
> > >
> > > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
> > > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
> > > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
> > > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
> > > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
> > > not be accurate to do.
> > >
> > > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
> > > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
> > > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
> > > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
> > > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
> > > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
> > > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
> > > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram