Trouble with Sprint reprsentatives

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:02Pvd.11465$0r.4207@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> As I have said before, I think that the only roll of a retention
> department, if there is a separate one, is to help a customer who is
> unhappy with his plan to find from the current list of plans posted on
> the web and printed in the brochures, the one that best meets his
> calling patterns and calling volume. In other words, there should be no
> unpublished or "made up on the fly" plans. And I don't mean just Sprint
> PCS. I mean all wireless companies.

Unless all wireless companies adopted this simultaneously (can you say
"collusion"), the non-adopters would have a big advantage. The
purpose of rewarding loyal customers with retention plans is to reduce
expensive churn.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <328hikF3jtu7eU1@individual.net>,
Tinmanmlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net says...
> I agree with you. To suggest someone "pay list price" is IMO a mistake.
> That's like telling someone to pay MSRP for a car, just to avoid
> negotiating to get a better deal.
>

That's not a valid analogy. It turns out I was wrong to
credit the point to Thomas. However, the point being made
was, if you don't want to hunt for non-standard deals, then
don't. If you don't want the "hassle", then don't aim for
it.

If you don't want the hassle of negotiating, pay MSRP.
That's not a demand, but a conditional offer of advice.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
**A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.**
-Thomas Paine. The Rights of Man. 1792-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Reducing churn is a good goal. One method is coming out with more
economical plans, but not selectively. The more economical plans should
be available to everybody, listed on the web site and printed in the
brochures. In My Humble Evidently Not Held By Sprintpcs Opinion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_AVxd.6544$RH4.1383@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Reducing churn is a good goal. One method is coming out with more
> economical plans, but not selectively. The more economical plans should
> be available to everybody, listed on the web site and printed in the
> brochures. In My Humble Evidently Not Held By Sprintpcs Opinion.

You would think so, but the industry numbers don't back that up. The
companies with the lowest churn (Nextel and Verzion) are the most expensive.
It would appear that services and customer service are more important.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Excuse me. I said "One method", not the only method. And don't tell
me that when people are looking to change carriers, that some of them
don't look for a carrier with a lower rate plan. Getting a lower rate
plan is part of the reason that some are "retained". My point is that
it is not fair and equal. People who call to cancel are no more special
or deserving than the rest of us.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:co-dnejwG_tKTVXcRVn-1w@adelphia.com...
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:_AVxd.6544$RH4.1383@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Reducing churn is a good goal. One method is coming out with more
>> economical plans, but not selectively. The more economical plans should
>> be available to everybody, listed on the web site and printed in the
>> brochures. In My Humble Evidently Not Held By Sprintpcs Opinion.
>
> You would think so, but the industry numbers don't back that up. The
> companies with the lowest churn (Nextel and Verzion) are the most expensive.
> It would appear that services and customer service are more important.

In my opinion, Nextel and Verizon attract the type of customer who is
not very cost conscious, which is one big reason why their churn is low.

Why should Sprint, T-Mobile, or Cingular offer even lower cost plans
than they do now? Their current low dollar offerings are already at or
below carrier cost, and are meant as an inducement for the customer to
upgrade in subsequent years. There is no point in cut-throat type of
competition, which would only attract financially unstable customers.
What makes more sense is for the carriers to reward long-time loyal
customers with inducements to stay with that carrier, thereby reducing
churn.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <GNfyd.6703$9j5.6615@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
jeromez1@earthlink.net says...
> My point is that
> it is not fair and equal. People who call to cancel are no more special
> or deserving than the rest of us.
>
>

No, but there's enough experience to know who is more likely to benefit
the carrier.

I've said before that I don't want to be dismissive. But there are,
quite bluntly, certain types of customers for whom such concessions
result in better business down the road.

The more history a customer develops with a carrier, the better that
carrier can determine a customer's likelihood of staying. That and the
profitability of a customer (as compared to the cost of acquiring
another such customer) yield a value rating. There is actually a
mathematically reliable means of determining this, although my
description above is a horribly simplified explanation of it.

You're right. It's not equal. It's probably not fair. But it's
profitable.

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
-Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792-