"RadioShack net drops as wireless sales falter"

See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.

---

› See More: "RadioShack net drops as wireless sales falter"

Tinman wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:37 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
>> both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.
>
> Hey Steve, if yer gonna post a link to a site that requires
> registration, at *least* include some of the article.

Sorry, when I went to that site the first time, the article came right
up with no registration required. But I went back a second time, and it
is asking for registration.

Tinman wrote:

<snip>

> and the company will beef up its inventory of
> batteries, high-definition radios

Huh?

Tinman wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:18:27 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tinman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:37 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
>>>> both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.
>>> Hey Steve, if yer gonna post a link to a site that requires
>>> registration, at *least* include some of the article.
>> Sorry, when I went to that site the first time, the article came right
>> up with no registration required. But I went back a second time, and it
>> is asking for registration.
>
> No biggie. Wanna bet which comments JN chooses in his inevitable
> rebuttal? <g>

Maybe not. The earlier reports were from analysts and Radio Shack
managers, while this one is straight from the corporation. Navas may be
less likely to lie in this case.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:37
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
>both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.

What it actually confirms is that Radio Shack is still struggling with
disappointing wireless sales that date back to Verizon last year, and that
Cingular isn't the cause of problems at Radio Shack.

--
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 Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:04:02
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Maybe not. The earlier reports were from analysts and Radio Shack
>managers, while this one is straight from the corporation. Navas may be
>less likely to lie in this case.

To you a "lie" is any fact that's inconsistent with your personal vendetta
against Cingular and GSM.

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

Tinman wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:37 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
>> both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.
>
> Hey Steve, if yer gonna post a link to a site that requires
> registration, at *least* include some of the article. Thanks to
> bugmenot,

BugMeNot.com is very cool! I hadn't heard of it until now.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:04:02
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Maybe not. The earlier reports were from analysts and Radio Shack
>>managers, while this one is straight from the corporation. Navas may be
>>less likely to lie in this case.
>
> To you a "lie" is any fact that's inconsistent with your personal vendetta
> against Cingular and GSM.
>

Your definition would mean that you would have to post facts to be called a
liar. That would clear you from ever having to worry about it.

I was waiting to see if you would weigh in on this thread. As expected, you
avoid the fact that Radio Shack now admits that the choice of Cingular was a
mistake. Feel free to spin away on this- you'll NEVER admit the facts in
this case. After all, why should this be any different than any other
problem with your beloved carrier?

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:37
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>See: "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" This confirms all the earlier reports,
>>both by analysts and Radio Shack store managers and franchisee's.
>
> What it actually confirms is that Radio Shack is still struggling with
> disappointing wireless sales that date back to Verizon last year, and that
> Cingular isn't the cause of problems at Radio Shack.
>
Wrong again, Skippy.

"In a conference call with analysts, Ms. Babrowski said RadioShack's
disappointment was with Cingular sales, not its Sprint Nextel Corp.
products."

Where does the word Verizon appear? And you should also notice that this
quote also directly contradicts your previous position that sales of
SprintNextel were weak and the real cause for cellular woes at RS. So, once
again, YOU WERE WRONG. This also validates EVERY claim made that RS is
having problems with the Cingular product line- claims that you tried to
summarily dismiss as being false. It would appear that you grow more
clueless by the second and should simply go away. You have no value here
any longer.

I love it when the experts prove you to be the putz we all know and
tolerate.

Scott wrote:

> Where does the word Verizon appear? And you should also notice that this
> quote also directly contradicts your previous position that sales of
> SprintNextel were weak and the real cause for cellular woes at RS. So, once
> again, YOU WERE WRONG. This also validates EVERY claim made that RS is
> having problems with the Cingular product line- claims that you tried to
> summarily dismiss as being false.

I have to admit, I thought that when the Radio Shack statement came out
that Navas would gracefully apologize for his past mis-statements on the
subject, since as you state, every claim made by analysts and Radio
Shack managers has now been confirmed by the corporation. I don't see
what upside there is for him to continue lying.

> I love it when the experts prove you to be the putz we all know and
> tolerate.

I think that most of us have long since stopped loving it, and we merely
shake our heads in disbelief that Navas doesn't simply know when to
admit that he was wrong. No one would think any less of him if he simply
admitted his errors.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:25:46
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Where does the word Verizon appear? And you should also notice that this
>> quote also directly contradicts your previous position that sales of
>> SprintNextel were weak and the real cause for cellular woes at RS. So, once
>> again, YOU WERE WRONG. This also validates EVERY claim made that RS is
>> having problems with the Cingular product line- claims that you tried to
>> summarily dismiss as being false.
>
>I have to admit, I thought that when the Radio Shack statement came out
>that Navas would gracefully apologize for his past mis-statements on the
>subject, since as you state, every claim made by analysts and Radio
>Shack managers has now been confirmed by the corporation. I don't see
>what upside there is for him to continue lying.

More of your usual nonsense. What the report actually shows is that Radio
Shack is the cause of its own problems, as measured by poor sales of Verizon
last year and poor sales of Cingular this year. "It's a poor workman who
blames his tools."

>> I love it when the experts prove you to be the putz we all know and
>> tolerate.
>
>I think that most of us have long since stopped loving it, and we merely
>shake our heads in disbelief that Navas doesn't simply know when to
>admit that he was wrong. No one would think any less of him if he simply
>admitted his errors.

Just you and your little band Cingular GSM haters.

--
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]...

>
> More of your usual nonsense. What the report actually shows is that Radio
> Shack is the cause of its own problems, as measured by poor sales of
> Verizon
> last year and poor sales of Cingular this year.

The report says no such thing. As usual, you are making things up to
justify your uneducated claims.

> "It's a poor workman who
> blames his tools."

You lost your tools years ago- hence the out of touch posts you are known
for.

>
>>> I love it when the experts prove you to be the putz we all know and
>>> tolerate.
>>
>>I think that most of us have long since stopped loving it, and we merely
>>shake our heads in disbelief that Navas doesn't simply know when to
>>admit that he was wrong. No one would think any less of him if he simply
>>admitted his errors.
>
> Just you and your little band Cingular GSM haters.
>

Who said they hated Cingular? I won't speak for Steve, but the only thing I
dislike around here is your inability to recognize your own cluelessness.

Scott wrote:

> Who said they hated Cingular? I won't speak for Steve, but the only thing I
> dislike around here is your inability to recognize your own cluelessness.

I don't love or hate any company. I just state the facts about the
different carriers. I can give you five reasons why I like or dislike
any of the carriers. None of this changes the facts as stated by Radio
Shack regarding Cingular.

Tinman wrote:

> Cingular's chief operating officer, Ralph de la Vega, told analysts then
> that its RadioShack business "has met all of our expectations."

This is quite amusing, I guess Cingular didn't have high expectations!

When I saw Cingular's poor results for the first quarter, and the
falling number of net additions, despite much lower churn, I knew that
it was bad news for Radio Shack. With 5000 new sales outlets, net
additions should have been up over 4Q2005, but net additions fell by
100,000. ARPU was also way down.

It'll be interesting to see Verizon's net additions for 1Q2006, since
they lost 5000 sales outlets.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:27:51
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>> Cingular's chief operating officer, Ralph de la Vega, told analysts then
>> that its RadioShack business "has met all of our expectations."
>
>This is quite amusing, I guess Cingular didn't have high expectations!

It had realistic expectations (unlike troubled Radio Shack), probably in light
of Radio Shack's troubles with Verizon last year, and an expectation that
Radio Shack wouldn't be able to manage a fast transition.

>When I saw Cingular's poor results for the first quarter,

Actually quite good.

>and the
>falling number of net additions, despite much lower churn,

Which actually means a higher quality subscriber base.

>I knew that
>it was bad news for Radio Shack.

The bad news for Radio Shack has been its own mismanagement, evidenced by
problems last year that have continued into this year. It's notably still
operating with only an acting CEO (that had been with the company less than a
year) following the resignation in disgrace of its last regular CEO. The
search for a permanent replacement continues. Here's the real story (devoid
of your spin) <http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060421/3/4089d.html>:

But the transition turned out to be rocky, with RADIOSHACK RUNNING
INTO PROBLEMS KEEPING HOT CINGULAR PRODUCTS IN STOCK AND TRAINING ITS
STAFF TO SELL THE NEW ITEMS. [emphasis added]

Babrowski told the analysts call that the retailer has a "high level
of urgency" in improving its wireless business. RadioShack has given
its staff more training, is running new Cingular promotions to make
shoppers aware that it sells the phones, and is replenishing
fast-moving products overnight.

It is also working to ensure its stores are fully stocked with all of
the items it features in promotions.

Babrowski, who was named acting CEO after Edmondson's sudden
resignation in February, said the first-quarter results "do nothing
to change our belief in the turnaround plan announced early this
year."

The retailer has announced plans to close 480 underperforming stores.
It has already closed 40 stores this year. It is starting to
liquidate its slow-moving inventory, and Babrowski said the goal is
to have the liquidation completed by the end of August.

Chief Financial Officer David Barnes said the retailer expects its
cost for closing stores to be at the lower end of its estimated range
of $50 million to $90 million.

As for progress in the search for a permanent CEO, Babrowski said the
board is dealing with that issue and she is concentrating on turning
around the company.

>With 5000 new sales outlets, net
>additions should have been up over 4Q2005, but net additions fell by
>100,000.

It actually takes time to make such a transition.

>ARPU was also way down.

Actually fell slightly.

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