Results 31 to 45 of 54
- 04-04-2006, 09:53 AM #31John NavasGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:55:26
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jeremy wrote:
>
>> RS has backed themselves into a corner, and I cannot think of any way out.
>> Except for small parts and hobbyist customers, they've lost out to the big
>> box stores, and even the customers know it.
>
>They were surviving on wireless sales. Sign up a few new customers per
>day, and you've made more than selling a thousand bits and pieces of
>hardware. This is why losing Verizon, no matter who's decision it was
>(and of course it was a mutual parting of the ways after being unable to
>come to terms acceptable to both parties), has had such an effect.
The real start of the "effect" on Radio Shack was declining sales of *Verizon*
and the failure to see much uptick from adding Nextel (as a result of the
Sprint merger) in 2005.
>Verizon is the premium quality carrier, and has the most appeal to
>customers who finally have learned to look at more than just how many
>peak minutes you get for (which of course is why Verizon had no need to
>drop their pants on spiffs to Radio Shack).
How silly. The vast majority of customers don't see any one carrier as
"premium" -- they are simply looking for the best deal.
The real problem for Radio Shack has been the rise of small cellular kiosks in
places like malls, which have neutralized the distribution advantage that
Radio Shack used to have. This is why Radio Shack is trying the strategy of,
"If you can't beat them, join them." Whether or not that will work is of
course an open question.
>Circuit City decided to concentrate on two carriers, each with a
>different focus, Verizon for coverage and quality, T-Mobile for price
>and hipness. Radio Shack is muddling in the middle with no focus. Costco
>is going gangbusters in wireless now, with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
More silliness:
* Circuit City just did the best carrier deals it could get. Cingular wasn't
an option due to the Radio Shack deal.
* Radio Shack has two larger carriers, and is clearly better positioned than
Circuit City.
* Costco isn't a major factor in cellular.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
› See More: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular ascause for the downgrade.
- 04-04-2006, 11:03 AM #32SMSGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingularas cause for the downgrade.
Mike S. wrote:
> Not to mention Burstein-Applebee, Poly-Paks, Newark, and other bygones. The
> closest now is Digi-Key, I guess; but they don't have stores.
Newark is still around, as part of some other company.
Jameco is more hobbyist oriented than Digikey, which has become more
like what Newark and Allied used to be, as a supplier to industrial
customers.
For hobbyist stuff, the best place I've found is All Electronics
(http://allelectronics.com/). JDR is still around doing mail-order,
though they closed their retail store. It's very hard to do retail on
components. Fry's still has some components, but nothing like when they
first started, and they rarely restock anything--I'm sure that soon
they'll find a better use of their floor space.
It's too bad about Radio Shack. Wireless sales have subsidized the rest
of the store, and now there are just better channels for the carriers
than having to pay the big bucks to Radio Shack. The second tier
carriers may continue at Radio Shack for a while, but eventually they'll
get tired of giving away the store as well.
- 04-04-2006, 11:15 AM #33SMSGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingularas cause for the downgrade.
Jeremy wrote:
> "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:e0tmri$hn3
>
>
>> For me, the demise of the Radio Shack
>> catalog was the final blow, as it signalled the beginning of the end.
>>
>
> I didn't know that they discontinued the catalog!!!
>
> When did that happen??
A few years ago. First they started charging for the catalogs, and of
course few people bought them. Then they figured no one wanted catalogs
so they discontinued them. The catalog was a great marketing tool. But I
guess they felt that the cost of producing it was too high.
Part of the appeal of the catalog was being able to find the exact item
you needed, and going to the store and telling the salesperson the
number, so they could find it. Trying to explain what the item is often
doesn't work.
- 04-04-2006, 11:32 AM #34John NavasGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:03:55
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's too bad about Radio Shack. Wireless sales have subsidized the rest
>of the store, and now there are just better channels for the carriers
>than having to pay the big bucks to Radio Shack. The second tier
>carriers may continue at Radio Shack for a while, but eventually they'll
>get tired of giving away the store as well.
What "second tier" carriers? Radio Shack carries Cingular and Sprint-Nextel,
which are both first tier carriers (by any reasonable definition).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-04-2006, 11:33 AM #35John NavasGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:15:58
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Part of the appeal of the catalog was being able to find the exact item
>you needed, and going to the store and telling the salesperson the
>number, so they could find it. Trying to explain what the item is often
>doesn't work.
Now easily done online, faster and more efficiently as well.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-04-2006, 12:49 PM #36SMSGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingularas cause for the downgrade.
Mike S. wrote:
> The amount of shelf space devoted to such things is dwindling to nothing;
> further, it seems they do not re-stock when things run out. I have almost
> no reason to visit the stores anymore.
They have experimented with various ways of reducing the shelf space for
such items. They use divided drawers similar to what Home Depot uses for
the more esoteric hardware items, and they use the vertical panels that
stick out from the wall on hinges, and they use those sliding panels to
be able to have multiple levels of hooks. It costs a lot to have so many
SKUs of small items.
It's too bad to see them faltering like they are. I don't know that
there's anything they could do to turn the chain around. Subsidizing
component sales with revenue from wireless sales is not a business plan.
- 04-04-2006, 04:28 PM #37cliftoGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
SMS wrote:
> The real question is who remembers Olson Electronics and Lafayette Radio
> Electronics? Olson gave away free pearls for every $10 you spent.
Olson in Chicago was right across the street from Allied Radio. When
I went down to Allied for anything I made it a point to visit Olson.
Later Olson opened at least one store in the 'burbs.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
- 04-04-2006, 04:28 PM #38SMSGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingularas cause for the downgrade.
GomJabbar wrote:
> What I mean to say is that the statement that 'Radio Shack dumped
> Verizon' is simplistic. That statement by itself does not give any
> details. What did actually happen to cause the split-up? Will we ever
> actually know the DETAILS?
I think that we'll never know the actual terms that Radio Shack
demanded, or what Verizon offered. Suffice it to say, that they couldn't
come to an agreement on terms, and the result is that Radio Shack no
longer sells Verizon service.
We do know that Radio Shack is suffering because they no longer sell
Verizon on the same terms they did up until the end of 2005.
"Sluggish sales in high-profit categories such as wireless products and
losses resulting from the termination of a sales agreement with Verizon
Wireless contributed to the decline."
("http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-retailer-closing-9-area-locations-moves-part-radio-/2006/03/29/1516601.htm")
Maybe Verizon's offer to Radio Shack was so poor that even if Radio
Shack had continued on Verizon's terms, that their results would still
have been bad.
- 04-04-2006, 04:30 PM #39cliftoGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
John Navas wrote:
> "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>What I mean to say is that the statement that 'Radio Shack dumped
>>Verizon' is simplistic. That statement by itself does not give any
>>details. What did actually happen to cause the split-up? Will we ever
>>actually know the DETAILS?
>
> Taking all of the press releases, analyst reports, and press accounts as a
> whole, I think it's pretty clear that Radio Shack switched from Verizon to
> Cingular as part of its turnaround plan from disappointing results in 2005.
If you ran Radio Shack and Verizon dumped you, which of the following
would you publish?
1. Verizon dumped us, so we now sell Cingular.
2. We switched from Verizon to Cingular as part of our enhanced
sales plan for 2006.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
- 04-04-2006, 04:44 PM #40SMSGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingularas cause for the downgrade.
clifto wrote:
> If you ran Radio Shack and Verizon dumped you, which of the following
> would you publish?
>
> 1. Verizon dumped us, so we now sell Cingular.
> 2. We switched from Verizon to Cingular as part of our enhanced
> sales plan for 2006.
Clearly Radio Shack underestimated the strength of Verizon. They must
have known from all the surveys by Consumer Reports, JD Power, and
Consumer Checkbook, exactly what consumers thought of their wireless
carriers, but they believed that Radio Shack customers could be
persuaded to switch carriers.
Radio Shack also saw a benefit in changing because they make more money
if they persuade someone to switch, rather than just putting them back
under contract for another two years. All they had to do was to convince
all their Verizon customers to switch to Cingular.
What they failed to realize is that wireless customers have become much
more savvy over the past five years or so. Customers no longer go just
by who gives them the most minutes per dollar, or which phone has the
most dumb features. This works in Verizon's favor since they have the
best network, even though their handset selection is not very good.
- 04-04-2006, 06:44 PM #41ScottGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:13:25
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>GomJabbar wrote:
>>
>>> "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, this is true. Radio Shack admitted that the move to Cingular wasn't
>>going well back in February. But now, with the first quarter over, the
>>analysts apparently have more data on how bad it's going.
>>
>>It's also not accurate to say that Radio Shack dumped Verizon. In fact,
>>Verizon simply wouldn't give Radio Shack the terms that Radio Shack
>>demanded. In reality, it was Verizon that decided to end the
>>relationship by not acceding to Radio Shack's demands.
>
> Pure fantasy.
>
No it's not- Verizon chose to eliminate that sales channel. Spin it any
way you want- the truth is that Radio Shack got dumped.
- 04-04-2006, 06:45 PM #42John NavasGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:30:27 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>What I mean to say is that the statement that 'Radio Shack dumped
>>>Verizon' is simplistic. That statement by itself does not give any
>>>details. What did actually happen to cause the split-up? Will we ever
>>>actually know the DETAILS?
>>
>> Taking all of the press releases, analyst reports, and press accounts as a
>> whole, I think it's pretty clear that Radio Shack switched from Verizon to
>> Cingular as part of its turnaround plan from disappointing results in 2005.
>
>If you ran Radio Shack and Verizon dumped you, which of the following
>would you publish?
>
>1. Verizon dumped us, so we now sell Cingular.
>2. We switched from Verizon to Cingular as part of our enhanced
>sales plan for 2006.
No need to speculate -- here are the facts, which make it clear that Radio
Shack dumped Verizon based on poor performance and financials, not the other
way around:
February 17, 2005
Radio Shack projects 2005 sales growth of 9% to 11% and earnings per
share growth from $2.34 to $2.40.
March 18, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that its first
quarter 2005 earnings per share estimate will not meet its previously
stated forecast of $0.39 to $0.41. The company believes first quarter
earnings per share are more likely to be $0.30 to $0.34.
In addition, the company said it is unlikely to achieve its
previously stated 2005 full year earnings per share guidance of $2.34
to $2.40. RadioShack expects to update its full year earnings
guidance at its regularly scheduled first quarter earnings release
date, April 19.
"Business trends have underperformed our expectations," said David
Edmondson, president and chief executive officer - elect. "This has
been driven by a recent deceleration in wireless sales in our core
stores and, to a smaller extent, underperformance in our battery
business."
April 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of $55
million or $0.34 per diluted share for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 versus net income of $68 million or $0.41 per diluted share for
the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
Total sales in the first quarter of 2005 were up 3% to $1,123
million, compared to total sales of $1,093 million for the previous
year. First quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"We are disappointed that our business did not perform as we
originally expected during the first quarter. Our profits were lower
due primarily to underperformance in the wireless business within our
core RadioShack stores," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer-elect. "Our non- wireless businesses improved in
first quarter 2005, compared with first quarter 2004. RadioShack
remains a very profitable business overall, but our focus clearly
must be on turning our wireless business around, while continuing to
improve our non-wireless businesses."
RadioShack established fiscal year 2005 diluted earnings per share
guidance of $1.80 to $1.90.
July 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of
$52.3 million or $0.33 per diluted share for the quarter ended June
30, 2005 versus net income of $68.3 million or $0.42 per diluted
share for the quarter ended June 30, 2004.
Total sales in the second quarter of 2005 were up 4% to $1,092.2
million, compared to total sales of $1,053.8 million for the previous
year. Second quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"Our profit decline in the second quarter was driven by lower comp
store sales and more specifically by weakness in our core store
wireless business," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer. ...
Total wireless sales were up 2% due to growth in RadioShack’s kiosk
channel offset by a decline in sales of wireless in its company
stores.
July 31, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that it has
entered into 10-year and 11-year agreements, respectively, with
Cingular Wireless and Sprint PCS to be the company’s long-term
wireless providers in RadioShack stores nationwide. Cingular and
Sprint have also committed to support RadioShack Corporation’s
strategy of expanding retail distribution outside of the core
RadioShack stores.
RadioShack’s new agreement terms with Cingular and Sprint are
projected to be more financially favorable over the life of the
agreements relative to the financial model under which RadioShack
operates today. The new agreements are expected to provide RadioShack
with more profits in the short- and long-term and significant future
growth opportunities due to entrance into the GSM market, addition of
Nextel products and services (pending their merger with Sprint), and
opportunities for expanded distribution.
October 21, 2005
"We made important progress during the third quarter to better
position ourselves for the holiday selling season and the long term,"
said David Edmondson, president and chief executive officer. "We made
aggressive moves on inventory and finished deploying operating
procedures which will improve the customer experience in our stores.
We also finalized long-term wireless agreements and returned value to
shareholders through an overnight share repurchase transaction which
better positions us as a corporation."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-04-2006, 06:46 PM #43ScottGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 4 Apr 2006
> 04:13:10 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What I mean to say is that the statement that 'Radio Shack dumped
>>Verizon' is simplistic. That statement by itself does not give any
>>details. What did actually happen to cause the split-up? Will we ever
>>actually know the DETAILS?
>
> Taking all of the press releases, analyst reports, and press accounts as a
> whole, I think it's pretty clear that Radio Shack switched from Verizon to
> Cingular as part of its turnaround plan from disappointing results in
> 2005.
>
>
Please don't think, John- we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
And you are far from educated enough on the subject for your "thoughts" to
have any usable meaning.
- 04-04-2006, 06:47 PM #44ScottGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 3 Apr 2006
> 21:01:16 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> Actually just another made up fantasy of yours.
>>-
>>>> There was a report in February
>>>> that said pretty much the same thing,
>>-
>>> Nope.
>>-
>>>> but now, with three months of
>>>> sales, the evidence is more concrete.
>>-
>>> Wrong on that too. The actual evidence is that Radio Shack dumped
>>> Verizon in
>>> favor of Cingular due to poor results in 2005.
>>-
>>SMS wrote:
>>> The reason I posted this is because, at least in my area (San Francisco
>>> Bay Area), the Radio Shack managers and franchisees have been livid over
>>> the lost revenue in wireless sales since Radio Shack stopped selling
>>> Verizon, and started selling Cingular. There was a report in February
>>> that said pretty much the same thing, but now, with three months of
>>> sales, the evidence is more concrete.
>>
>>SMS said in the above quote that Radio Shack stopped selling Verizon,
>>not that Verizon dumped Radio Shack.
>
> Not really. What he's actually written is:
>
> They need "the next big thing." Cellular, with its huge bonuses for new
> customers, just couldn't have continued forever. Verizon just got tired
> of paying those spiffs to Radio Shack, when there were so many more
> economical ways to distribute their products.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/c2d8269828e81dfd?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> It's also not accurate to say that Radio Shack dumped Verizon. In fact,
> Verizon simply wouldn't give Radio Shack the terms that Radio Shack
> demanded. In reality, it was Verizon that decided to end the
> relationship by not acceding to Radio Shack's demands.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/07b3fd987f1043b7?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
And your point?
- 04-04-2006, 06:50 PM #45ScottGuest
Re: RadioShack shares hit low on downgrade, analyst cites Cingular as cause for the downgrade.
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The real start of the "effect" on Radio Shack was declining sales of
> *Verizon*
> and the failure to see much uptick from adding Nextel (as a result of the
> Sprint merger) in 2005.
Any figures to back that up, or is this more opinion?
>
>>Verizon is the premium quality carrier, and has the most appeal to
>>customers who finally have learned to look at more than just how many
>>peak minutes you get for (which of course is why Verizon had no need to
>>drop their pants on spiffs to Radio Shack).
>
> How silly. The vast majority of customers don't see any one carrier as
> "premium" -- they are simply looking for the best deal.
And you are now the voice of the people? You need to live in reality to be
qualified for that job.
>
> The real problem for Radio Shack has been the rise of small cellular
> kiosks in
> places like malls, which have neutralized the distribution advantage that
> Radio Shack used to have. This is why Radio Shack is trying the strategy
> of,
> "If you can't beat them, join them." Whether or not that will work is of
> course an open question.
More opinion?
>
>>Circuit City decided to concentrate on two carriers, each with a
>>different focus, Verizon for coverage and quality, T-Mobile for price
>>and hipness. Radio Shack is muddling in the middle with no focus. Costco
>>is going gangbusters in wireless now, with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
>
> More silliness:
>
> * Circuit City just did the best carrier deals it could get. Cingular
> wasn't
> an option due to the Radio Shack deal.
Rubbish- the Radio Shack deal is not exclusive.
>
> * Radio Shack has two larger carriers, and is clearly better positioned
> than
> Circuit City.
Verizon is larger than Sprint- try again.
>
> * Costco isn't a major factor in cellular.
>
According to who? You??
Similar Threads
- uk.telecom.mobile
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung