Bigger sales hit than expected

>From Forbes "People To Watch
The Week Ahead: Feb. 13-17"

"For Radio Shack's new Chief Executive David Edmondson, the task is
tough but simple: Get more people into the stores buying wireless
phones. The company has taken a bigger sales hit than expected from its
decision to dump Verizon Wireless last year in favor of Cingular as its
main provider of wireless service, a big profit driver."

http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...letowatch.html

---

› See More: Bigger sales hit than expected

"GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From Forbes "People To Watch
> The Week Ahead: Feb. 13-17"
>
> "For Radio Shack's new Chief Executive David Edmondson, the task is
> tough but simple: Get more people into the stores buying wireless
> phones. The company has taken a bigger sales hit than expected from its
> decision to dump Verizon Wireless last year in favor of Cingular as its
> main provider of wireless service, a big profit driver."
>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...letowatch.html
>

Wow- that would appear to be credible evidence and also brings credibility
to the same types of experience related to this group a couple of weeks ago.
John Navas said that this was not the case.

Gee, John- another case of you having your head in the sand. But don't
worry- you're bound to get something right eventually. I hope I live ling
enough to see it.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:12:59 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >From Forbes "People To Watch
>> The Week Ahead: Feb. 13-17"
>>
>> "For Radio Shack's new Chief Executive David Edmondson, the task is
>> tough but simple: Get more people into the stores buying wireless
>> phones. The company has taken a bigger sales hit than expected from its
>> decision to dump Verizon Wireless last year in favor of Cingular as its
>> main provider of wireless service, a big profit driver."
>> http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...letowatch.html

Old news from December and January.

>Wow- that would appear to be credible evidence and also brings credibility
>to the same types of experience related to this group a couple of weeks ago.
>John Navas said that this was not the case.

What I actually said is that's not surprising, and that it's a bit early to
pass judgment.

>Gee, John- another case of you having your head in the sand. But don't
>worry- you're bound to get something right eventually. I hope I live ling
>enough to see it.

Actually just another case of you misstating the record in a feeble attempt to
attack me.

Have a nice day.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> What I actually said is that's not surprising, and that it's a bit early
> to
> pass judgment.
>

So, Radio Shack is wrong? You know better than the experts?

>>Gee, John- another case of you having your head in the sand. But don't
>>worry- you're bound to get something right eventually. I hope I live ling
>>enough to see it.
>
> Actually just another case of you misstating the record in a feeble
> attempt to
> attack me.

I never misstate- you may lie and make things up, but I never misstate.

>
> Have a nice day.

Always do.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:13:46 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> What I actually said is that's not surprising, and that it's a bit early
>> to
>> pass judgment.
>
>So, Radio Shack is wrong?

Signed a 10-year deal with Cingular. Apparently you think that was a good
idea.

>You know better than the experts?

Radio Shack are cellular experts? Then why are they doing so poorly?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From Forbes "People To Watch
> The Week Ahead: Feb. 13-17"
>
> "For Radio Shack's new Chief Executive David Edmondson, the task is
> tough but simple: Get more people into the stores buying wireless
> phones. The company has taken a bigger sales hit than expected from its
> decision to dump Verizon Wireless last year in favor of Cingular as its
> main provider of wireless service, a big profit driver."
>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...letowatch.html
>

As a former Radio Shack store manager, in a previous life, I understood well
that the company had a reputation for selling cheap knockoff merchandise
(especially stereo components) at prices that were almost the same as for
the good stuff.

In the 1970s they were selling "illegal" telephone equipment, designed to be
used in violation of then-in-effect prohibitions against connecting "foreign
attachments" to the Bell System network. Later that decade, they did a big
business in CB Radios ("Breaker, breaker, good buddy!") but their equipment
was not up to the standards of manufacturers like Johnson Radio. In the
eighties they got into the computer business, with their "TRS-80" computer,
that used a cassette recorder as a precursor to the hard drive. They even
opened computer stores across America that specialized in selling only
products from their computer line. The stores failed, and they were closed
when Americans began to buy mainstream brand computer gear, at lower prices,
from retailers such as COMP-USA and Egghead.

In the late 80s, Radio Shack tried to get into the telephone business,
selling key systems to small businesses, right after divestiture. At the
same time, a large number of smaller retail stores began offering
less-expensive solutions and AT&T was aggressively marketing bigger PBXes to
larger businesses. Even Sears & Roebuck had a telephone mini-catalog,
featuring AT&T phones! So, as always, Radio Shack was squeezed on both
ends--they couldn't compete pricewise with the more agile small
dealer-installers on the low end and they did not have the reputation or the
engineering/technical resources to offer larger businesses a viable
alternative to AT&T and GTE, who were marketing aggressively.

When I worked for Radio Shack, they still offered consumers in small towns a
place to go to buy electronic gear. But then Radio Shack began an exodus
from Main Street to the shopping malls--where they were blasted by
competition from AT&T Phone Stores, Audio dealers like Sam Goody (they sold
some excellent stereo equipment back then), and even software stores like
Babbages.

They are a good source when one needs a roll of telephone wire, or a can of
tuner cleaner (do they still make that? Are there any tuners that need
contact cleaner any more?), but they really have lost any reputation for
offering state-of-the-art merchandise. Many of their customers are more
sophisticated than their employees--and customers can get better stuff at
the big-box stores. Even Wal-Mart has more and better choices these days.

The times have changed. Radio Shack has become irrelevant. Competitors
like Lafayette Electronics closed their doors. Another competitor, Allied
Radio, merged with Radio Shack to become "Allied Radio Shack" circa 1970,
then the name and the famous Allied catalog disappeared. Radio Shack was,
at one time, the only game in town in many small towns across America, but
today's consumers can get their electronics from all sorts of retailers, not
to mention online. Radio Shack can't make it selling small electronic
parts, like capacitors and telephone jacks, while paying today's shopping
mall rents.

And just HOW does the new CEO of Radio Shack plan on getting customers to
come in and sign up for all those Cingular phones? Here is what the article
says:

"He just signed off on a plan to pump up wireless sales, which calls for
people signing up at Radio Shack to receive free AMBER alerts on their
wireless handsets."

Another bright idea! Sell a million phones, by enticing people to come in
for "free AMBER alerts!" Oh yeah! That'll bring 'em in by the truckload!

Someone at Verizon once told me that the Radio Shack accounts were the most
troublesome of all. Poor payment records, lots of complaints that store
personnel made false sales claims, etc. The question is, might it have been
that Verizon dumped Radio Shack, and not the other way around?

Cingular and Radio Shack--now THERE'S a combination guaranteed to "raise the
bar!"

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <xOuJf.67$0z.66@trnddc01> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:32:13 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[SNIP]

Please, please give it a rest.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>>So, Radio Shack is wrong?
>
> Signed a 10-year deal with Cingular. Apparently you think that was a good
> idea.

Where did I say that? You are a fool- an unintelligent fool.

>
>>You know better than the experts?
>
> Radio Shack are cellular experts? Then why are they doing so poorly?
>

Certainly more expert than you. They are doing poorly because they replaced
a popular seller with a poor seller.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>>>You know better than the experts?
>>
>> Radio Shack are cellular experts? Then why are they doing so poorly?
>
>Certainly more expert than you. They are doing poorly because they replaced
>a popular seller with a poor seller.

Try again. They switched to Cingular because they were doing so poorly with
Verizon.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Try again. They switched to Cingular because they were doing so poorly
> with
> Verizon.
>

Thanks for proving that you didn't read the article. Sales are DOWN from
the Verizon days.

Only someone without knowledge of the situation would make the statement you
did.

BTW- any credible eveidence to support your claim?

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:utednUgMqs1zFmveRVn->

> They are doing poorly because they replaced a popular seller with a poor
> seller.

The truth may never be revealed, but I continue to suspect that it was
Verizon that gave the boot to Radio Shack.

Radio Shack's sales people really do not exhibit the product knowledge or
expertise that reflect well on Verizon. Radio Shack salespeople are given a
smattering of knowledge across broad product lines, not specialized training
in matters related to the wireless industry. I don't think that Verizon was
pleased with the image that Radio Shack was projecting.

Radio Shack's focus on "just make the damned sale" fits Cingular's corporate
philosophy much more closely . . . :-)

GomJabbar wrote:
>>From Forbes "People To Watch
> The Week Ahead: Feb. 13-17"
>
> "For Radio Shack's new Chief Executive David Edmondson, the task is
> tough but simple: Get more people into the stores buying wireless
> phones. The company has taken a bigger sales hit than expected from its
> decision to dump Verizon Wireless last year in favor of Cingular as its
> main provider of wireless service, a big profit driver."
>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...letowatch.html

Yes, just talk to a Radio Shack franchisee and you'll get an earful of
their decline in sales after Verizon was dropped in favor of Cingular.
Verizon was very popular and drove a lot of sales to Radio Shack, but
Radio Shack was pretty demanding in terms of what they wanted from the
carriers whose products they sold. Verizon was not upset that Radio
Shack switched to Cingular. Verizon has picked up much better resellers
such as Costco and Circuit City.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Radio Shack are cellular experts? Then why are they doing so poorly?
>
>Certainly more expert than you. They are doing poorly because they replaced
>a popular seller with a poor seller.

Sounds like they got a MBA at the University of Scott.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:58:40
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, just talk to a Radio Shack franchisee and you'll get an earful of
>their decline in sales after Verizon was dropped in favor of Cingular.

So you say. Any proof? Or just the usual hot air?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006
20:03:17 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Try again. They switched to Cingular because they were doing so poorly
>> with Verizon.
>
>Thanks for proving that you didn't read the article. Sales are DOWN from
>the Verizon days.
>
>Only someone without knowledge of the situation would make the statement you
>did.
>
>BTW- any credible eveidence to support your claim?

<http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060217:MTFH99436_2006-02-17_23-47-33_N17378119&symbol=RSH.N>

LIFTING THE LID: RadioShack under pressure after CEO admission
Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:48 PM ET

NEW YORK, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The code of conduct at RadioShack
Corp.(RSH.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is quite explicit. On its Web
site and under the name of its CEO David Edmondson the electronics
retailer says staff should "do the right thing, even when no one is
watching."

But after several days of negative news, much of it centered on
Edmondson's behavior and admission that he lied on his resume,
corporate governance experts are asking whether RadioShack and
Edmondson will stick to their own mantra.

"I don't know how you can characterize the tone at the top at this
company as encouraging accountability and doing the right thing when
nobody's looking if Mr. Edmondson continues as CEO, and there appears
to be no consequences for what he's done," said Beth Young, research
associate at The Corporate Library, a corporate governance research
group.

Earlier this week, Edmondson admitted that he "clearly" misstated his
academic record and that his resume was wrong. While he originally
said he received a Bachelor of Science degree, he now says he
believes he received a ThG diploma, awarded for completing a
three-year degree in theology, but adds that he cannot document that.

Edmondson, who was RadioShack's president and chief operating
officer, became chief executive officer last May.

The disclosure prompted the consumer electronics retailer's board to
hire a lawyer to investigate the matter.

The management issues were minimized on Friday, however, when the
company posted a 62 percent drop in quarterly profits and outlined a
plan to try to get its business back on track.

...

Senior executives then launched a roughly 3-hour long presentation,
broadcast over the Internet, discussing the earnings results and
turnaround plan, which could cost up to $100 million and close up to
700 stores.

...

RadioShack shares touched $18.80 on Friday, their lowest level in 3
years. For the week, its shares were down 12 percent, compared with
rival Best Buy Co. Inc. (BBY.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which was
up 3.4 percent for the week and Circuit City Stores Inc. (CC.N:
Quote, Profile, Research), which gained more than 2 percent.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>