Trouble with Sprint reprsentatives

In article <1102961128.537651.78440
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Don=20
[email protected] says...
> for my "spouting of old problems, as if they were current problems, and
> which no longer apply now," in Bob Smith's words.=20
>=20

The cases you cited *don't* apply. As I recall, one of=20
them wasn't even about wireless.

--=20
R=D8=DF
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-

---

› See More: Trouble with Sprint reprsentatives

"O/Siris" <0sīrīs@sprīntpcs.cōm> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
In article <***vd.32150$Rf1.18210
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, John Richardsjr70
@blackhole.invalid says...
> So give up on attempting to get any Retention plan?
> The real solution is for Sprint's retention specialists to have
> standardized offers, and to repeat their verbal offer in an email
> to the customer. The haphazard way it is done now is a disgrace.
>

> That isn't what Thomas said. What is so confusing to
people to about "if"? If (see that if? It's conditional,
not blanket) you don't want the confusion of non-standard
plans, don't seek them out. There's a set of base plans
available for those who'd rather not. <

I was suggesting an alternative (ultimate) solution to the same
problem to which Thomas offered a solution. Those who take
Thomas' solution give up the advantage of getting a retention
plan. The current confusion of non-standard retention plans
can be solved if they're standardized and made in writing.

--
John Richards

John Richards wrote:
> "O/Siris" <0sīrīs@sprīntpcs.cōm> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]... In article
> <***vd.32150$Rf1.18210 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, John Richardsjr70
> @blackhole.invalid says...
>> So give up on attempting to get any Retention plan?
>> The real solution is for Sprint's retention specialists to have
>> standardized offers, and to repeat their verbal offer in an email
>> to the customer. The haphazard way it is done now is a disgrace.
>>
>
>> That isn't what Thomas said. What is so confusing to
> people to about "if"? If (see that if? It's conditional,
> not blanket) you don't want the confusion of non-standard
> plans, don't seek them out. There's a set of base plans
> available for those who'd rather not. <
>
> I was suggesting an alternative (ultimate) solution to the same
> problem to which Thomas offered a solution. Those who take
> Thomas' solution give up the advantage of getting a retention
> plan. The current confusion of non-standard retention plans
> can be solved if they're standardized and made in writing.

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.

I, for one, would certainly not agree to a contract extension if offered
"rack rates." And if offered a typical retention deal I'd probably
cancel on the spot, at worst, or be insulted, at best, if I was told
that if I wanted the specifics in writing I'd need to pay the standard
rates.

We should not have to play roulette, verify changes fourteen times,
record the call, etc., when modifying plans. It wastes everyone's time,
including Sprint's, and (somewhat) negates the benefit of getting a
retention deal in the first place. I'd feel a heck of a lot better if I
received a quick email outlining the deal, before agreeing to an
extension.

Ironically, I just went through this a few months ago. My contract was
up, and I wanted to also buy a few new phones. Since the phones were all
over 18 months, a CSR noted the account so I could receive instant
rebates at a SPCS store. But the local store refuse to honor it, and
were selling phones way above the normal prices anyway.

A second CSR offered me a plethora of incentives if I agreed to another
two years. Part of this was an instant $300 credit to my bill, to avoid
having to go through a rebate--without resetting the "clock" on rebates
(i.e., I could turn around and buy a couple of new phones immediately,
and get the rebate). All the changes were to enhance my plan, not take
anything away (no charge for Vision for all phones, etc.). I spent a
good 40-minutes on the phone with this CSR.

To make a long story short, the only thing that actually occurred was
the $300 credit. None of the extra minutes, etc., were on my plan. My
contract was not extended either. Since I never went over my minute
allotment anyway, I figured I'd just let it go. I really didn't want to
risk calling again, not knowing what the heck might happen during round
three.

So, as others have noted, the mistakes aren't always directly in
Sprint's favor, nor intentional. But they still happen, and a written
verification via email would at least provide some sort of corroborating
evidence as to what happened. It has to be better than hearing, "I'm
sorry, I don't see anything about that on your file..."


--
Mike

Notan wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote:
>
>><snip>
>
>
> "I'm in eastern North Carolina and Sprint's coverage is spotty
> and often non existent here..."
>
> While I completely understand your frustration, if coverage is
> as bad as you say, why even bother?


Exactly what I've been saying to trolls like this for years. They *****
about spotty reception and then call retention to see how many extra
minutes they can get. What good are extra minutes if you can't use them?


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Steve Smith wrote:
> "Notan" wrote:
>
>>... if coverage is as bad as you say, why
>>even bother? Why aren't you looking for
>>another carrier, regardless of what Retention can offer?
>
>
> Several times a year I travel to different parts of the county and in these areas Sprint's coverage is pretty good.

Irrelevant. Coverage from other carriers is "pretty good" too. It's
not as if Sprint isn't the only game in town and, if what you say is
true, then the impetus should be for you to find a carrier that covers
you well at home AND when you travel.

Clearly the motivation is not there. Or perhaps what you allege isn't
actually true?




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Richards wrote:
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> So give up on attempting to get any Retention plan?

If you object to how Retention works, yes, absolutely. Better yet, go
with a company that better suits you.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 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

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> I agree with you. To suggest someone "pay list price" is IMO a mistake.=
=20
> That's like telling someone to pay MSRP for a car, just to avoid=20
> negotiating to get a better deal.
>=20

That's not a valid analogy. It turns out I was wrong to=20
credit the point to Thomas. However, the point being made=20
was, if you don't want to hunt for non-standard deals, then=20
don't. If you don't want the "hassle", then don't aim for=20
it.

If you don't want the hassle of negotiating, pay MSRP. =20
That's not a demand, but a conditional offer of advice.

--=20
R=D8=DF
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-

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.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

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.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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.

--
RŲß
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-