"Cingular Wireless Announces Fourth-Quarter 2005 Results"

Scott wrote:

> But John claims otherwise and guesses at why this will work. How dare you
> use facts when the great John Novice says otherwise!!

Karl Rove has competition.

---

› See More: "Cingular Wireless Announces Fourth-Quarter 2005 Results"

Just my 2 cents, on this whole thing, I work PT for Home Depot and we
have Verizon Keosk's in all of the stores, there on a 6 month trial
basis, and there sales plan is really up there. So far there NOT
looking good and if they dont pick it up , there all done in another 3
months, I dont know about other area's I live in the Albany NY area.
As far as Radio Shack and Cingular, I dont know of anyone that has
bought through them.

Michael3977 wrote:
> Just my 2 cents, on this whole thing, I work PT for Home Depot and we
> have Verizon Keosk's in all of the stores, there on a 6 month trial
> basis, and there sales plan is really up there. So far there NOT
> looking good and if they dont pick it up , there all done in another 3
> months, I dont know about other area's I live in the Albany NY area.
> As far as Radio Shack and Cingular, I dont know of anyone that has
> bought through them.

I can't imagine anyone buying their cell phones at Home Depot, it
doesn't seem to fit, but who knows. Costco is doing well in cellular
phone sales, but they offer better deals than Sprint or Verizon stores
or online.

Michael3977 wrote:
> Just my 2 cents, on this whole thing, I work PT for Home Depot and we
> have Verizon Keosk's in all of the stores, there on a 6 month trial
> basis, and there sales plan is really up there. So far there NOT
> looking good and if they dont pick it up , there all done in another 3
> months, I dont know about other area's I live in the Albany NY area.
> As far as Radio Shack and Cingular, I dont know of anyone that has
> bought through them.

It's a big difference between what's happening at Home Depot and Radio
Shack. With Radio Shack, you had a good baseline of what to expect in
terms of new subscribers. Also, wireless sales generate a large portion
of the revenue generated in each store, unlike Home Depot.

While most Radio Shack stores are company-owned (about 1/3 are
franchises), there are enough franchises for anyone who is interested to
get the real story from the front line, though the news reports have
also explicitly stated that "it's suffering from lower-than-anticipated
sales and profits in its wireless division." Can't get much clearer than
that!

Home Depot does get the biggest discount for its employees from Verizon,
a whopping 25% off!

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:50:32 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It does just what I intended, which is to poke a bit of fun at his wild
>> and
>> unsupported claim. He almost certainly has no way of really knowing what
>> the
>> majority of Radio Shack dealers actually think, and is making this up in
>> "support" of his own anti-Cingular agenda, as reflected in all the time
>> and
>> energy he invests here even though he's a Verizon subscriber.
>
>So, you are calling Steve a liar?

What I wrote speaks for itself.

>Pretty bold statement from somebody
>frequently proven wrong in this forum.

Wrong on both counts.

>> That's supposed to be validation of "SMS"?
>
>Well, two of us have the same story ...

Color me unimpressed.

>> No real facts have been presented, just anecdotal claims.
>
>No- facts have been presented, unless you are calling us both liars.

I stand by what I wrote.

>> Problems at Radio Shack are well known and unrelated to Cingular.
>> Cellular
>> sales make up a big part of the business and were in trouble long before
>> the
>> Cingular deal, which is probably part of why the company switched to
>> Cingular.
>
>So you are guessing again and have no facts to support your claim. That is
>anecdotal.

In fact I'm the only one that's posted any supporting evidence.

>> That kind of cold turkey change inevitably results and did result in short
>> term issues (e.g., inventory, training, momentum, promotions), which are
>> likewise well known. All that said, it's way too early to judge the
>> success
>> of the switch. Let's see how things look at the end of at least a quarter
>> or
>> two.
>
>Its always easy to take the wait-and-see approach when the facts don't
>support your claims.

You're projecting.

--
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 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:41:11
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> So, you are calling Steve a liar? Pretty bold statement from somebody
>> frequently proven wrong in this forum.
>
>Like many business-people that own the same type of franchise, Radio
>Shack owners know what is going on in terms of sales volumes of key
>products at other franchise locations in the area, often down to the
>volumes that other stores sell.
>
>I did not claim that all Radio Shack stores across the country are
>unhappy with Cingular, I have no way of knowing that. It's a fact that
>in the SF Bay area, wireless sales volumes are way down since January 1.
>Cingular has a very poor reputation in this area, due to what happened
>originally with Pacific Bell Wireless around 2000-2002.
>
>The news story I quoted simply confirmed what the franchisees are saying.

In fact it contradicted what you are saying.

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

Scott wrote:

> But John claims otherwise and guesses at why this will work. How dare you
> use facts when the great John Novice says otherwise!!

I was in Costco in Mountain View today and was looking at the Verizon
phones that they offered since I'm up for my $100 off a new handset next
month. They had a poor selection of handsets, but they were promoting
the fact that they have an extra $50 rebate, as well as they include a
warranty for as long as you own the phone, AND that you can change
phones at any time, with no contract extension, by returning your old
phone for FULL refund. Pretty bizarre, but they insisted that this was true.

Anyway, the Verizon store, in the same shopping center with Costco,
didn't have the Motorola V325 I wanted on display. I asked about it, and
they said that they had it, but they didn't put it out. I wonder why
they don't want to encourage sales of this model? It's the only phone
that Verizon offers that meets my criteria.

The Verizon store was mobbed, and I couldn't get a salesperson after
waiting about 15 minutes. I asked at the repair area in the back about
the V325, and to find out the exact date that I can get a new phone, and
I mentioned about the store being so crowded. They said that since Radio
Shack dropped Verizon on January 1, the volume in the Verizon stores had
gone up significantly, and that they were trying to hire additional
sales people. So besides all the media reports about the impact on Radio
Shack of dropping Verizon, there is an opposite, positive effect, on the
Verizon stores.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 31 Jan 2006
20:51:28 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Scott wrote:

>> The news story I quoted simply confirmed what the franchisees are saying.
>
>But John claims otherwise and guesses at why this will work. How dare you
>use facts when the great John Novice says otherwise!!

The story itself says otherwise.

--
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 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:38:27
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> But John claims otherwise and guesses at why this will work. How dare you
>> use facts when the great John Novice says otherwise!!
>
>Karl Rove has competition.

Bucking for his job? Bottom fallen out of self-proclaimed cellular expertise?


--
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 Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:37:47
-0800, Verizon fanatic and Cingular basher <[email protected]> wrote:

>The Verizon store was mobbed, and I couldn't get a salesperson after
>waiting about 15 minutes. I asked at the repair area in the back about
>the V325, and to find out the exact date that I can get a new phone, and
>I mentioned about the store being so crowded. They said that since Radio
>Shack dropped Verizon on January 1, the volume in the Verizon stores had
>gone up significantly, and that they were trying to hire additional
>sales people. So besides all the media reports about the impact on Radio
>Shack of dropping Verizon, there is an opposite, positive effect, on the
>Verizon stores.

Based entirely on your one anecdotal unverifiable story.

--
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]...
Bottom fallen out of self-proclaimed cellular expertise?

Apparently not- you're still here.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 31 Jan 2006
> 19:50:32 -0700,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It does just what I intended, which is to poke a bit of fun at his wild
>>> and
>>> unsupported claim. He almost certainly has no way of really knowing
>>> what
>>> the
>>> majority of Radio Shack dealers actually think, and is making this up in
>>> "support" of his own anti-Cingular agenda, as reflected in all the time
>>> and
>>> energy he invests here even though he's a Verizon subscriber.
>>
>>So, you are calling Steve a liar?
>
> What I wrote speaks for itself.

Yes it does, but not as you would see it.

>
>>Pretty bold statement from somebody
>>frequently proven wrong in this forum.
>
> Wrong on both counts.

Are you kidding? You were proven wrong again in this very forum last night
and now have posted conflicting information to cover your tracks.

>
>>> That's supposed to be validation of "SMS"?
>>
>>Well, two of us have the same story ...
>
> Color me unimpressed.

Color you clueless.

>
>>> No real facts have been presented, just anecdotal claims.
>>
>>No- facts have been presented, unless you are calling us both liars.
>
> I stand by what I wrote.

Good thing you don't care about your credibility.

>
>>> Problems at Radio Shack are well known and unrelated to Cingular.
>>> Cellular
>>> sales make up a big part of the business and were in trouble long before
>>> the
>>> Cingular deal, which is probably part of why the company switched to
>>> Cingular.
>>
>>So you are guessing again and have no facts to support your claim. That
>>is
>>anecdotal.
>
> In fact I'm the only one that's posted any supporting evidence.

Not true.

>
>>> That kind of cold turkey change inevitably results and did result in
>>> short
>>> term issues (e.g., inventory, training, momentum, promotions), which are
>>> likewise well known. All that said, it's way too early to judge the
>>> success
>>> of the switch. Let's see how things look at the end of at least a
>>> quarter
>>> or
>>> two.
>>
>>Its always easy to take the wait-and-see approach when the facts don't
>>support your claims.
>
> You're projecting.
>

No- you were projecting. I was making an informed observation..

Scott wrote:

<snip>

See:

"http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/fe_columnists/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19842_4436951,00.html"


if you want to understand one reason Cingular's 4Q2005 results were so poor.

It's tough to increase your net additions with such high churn, but it
costs money to put the customer service infrastructure in place to keep
customers happy.

I guess that newspaper won't be getting much advertising revenue from
Cingular!

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:31:14
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>See:
>
>"http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/fe_columnists/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19842_4436951,00.html"
>
>
>if you want to understand one reason Cingular's 4Q2005 results were so poor.

Actually quite good, as noted in my earlier post here.

--
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]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:31:14
> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>See:
>>
>>"http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/fe_columnists/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19842_4436951,00.html"
>>
>>
>>if you want to understand one reason Cingular's 4Q2005 results were so
>>poor.
>
> Actually quite good, as noted in my earlier post here.

Good compared to which carriers?