Cingular cell phone service - Bigger sales hit than expected

Author

Bigger sales hit than expected

GomJabbar

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

>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/commo...
tch.html

Scott

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

John Navas

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

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

In <cNOdnbokTIgN-2veRVn-sw@adelphia.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:12:59 -0700,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1140217485.264039.7160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Old news from December and January.
[color=darkred]
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Scott

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:FbuJf.36184$id5.27991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> 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?

>
> 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.

John Navas

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

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

In <NLydnYG9A4RS6WveRVn-gg@adelphia.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:13:46 -0700,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:FbuJf.36184$id5.27991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Jeremy

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

"GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1140217485.264039.7160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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/commo...
tch.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!"

John Navas

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

[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"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>[SNIP]

Please, please give it a rest.

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

Scott

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:7CuJf.36251$id5.12547@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> 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.

>
>
> 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.

John Navas

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

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

In <utednUgMqs1zFmveRVn-sQ@adelphia.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:7CuJf.36251$id5.12547@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Scott

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:20wJf.36475$id5.8134@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> 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?

Jeremy

2006-02-17, 11:48 pm

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message news:utednUgMqs1zFmv
eRVn->

> 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 . . . :-)

SMS

2006-02-18, 2:48 am

GomJabbar wrote:
> 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/commo...
tch.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.

Anonymous

2006-02-18, 2:48 am

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:7CuJf.36251$id5.12547@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>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.

John Navas

2006-02-18, 5:48 am

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

In < 43f69b68$0$95948$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:58:40
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-02-18, 5:48 am

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

In < QoKdndfna47nE2venZ2d
nUVZ_tednZ2d@adelphi
a.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006
20:03:17 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:20wJf.36475$id5.8134@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>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/ Qu...19&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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-02-18, 5:48 am

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

In < QoKdndfna47nE2venZ2d
nUVZ_tednZ2d@adelphi
a.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006
20:03:17 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:20wJf.36475$id5.8134@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>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://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060217/earn...shack.html?.v=8>

AP
RadioShack 4Q Earnings Plunge 62 Percent
Friday February 17, 5:19 pm ET

RadioShack 4Q Earnings Plunge; Electronics Retailer Plans to Close Stores,
Distribution Centers

DALLAS (AP) -- Electronics retailer RadioShack Corp. on Friday said
fourth-quarter earnings dropped 62 percent and announced plans to
close 400 to 700 stores and two distribution centers as part of a
plan to improve its financial performance.

Its shares tumbled 8 percent, after sinking at midday to a three-year
low.

"We must close underperforming, low-volume stores that are draining
resources of the company," president and chief executive Dave
Edmondson, who along with the company's board spent most of the week
defending errors in his resume disclosed in a Fort Worth
Star-Telegram report.

...

"Our concerns for some time have been, in more recent years, the
execution of the business has been lousy," said Donald Trott, analyst
with Jefferies & Co. "There is some concern over Edmondson, but has
to do with how firmly he has his hands around the business."

The company's shares sank $1.57, or 8 percent, to close at $19.08 on
the New York Stock Exchange. Shares reached as low as $18.80 in
intraday trading, the lowest since Feb. 13, 2003.

Investors traded more than 10 million shares, nearly seven times the
average daily volume.

...

"Sales results were good in many low-margin, non-wireless categories;
however, we experienced lower sales in high-margin categories,"
Edmondson said in a statement. "In addition, wireless sales and
profits were below our expectations."

For the full year, the company earnings fell to $265.3 million, or
$1.78 per share, from $337.2 million, or $2.08 per share. Revenue
climbed to $5.08 billion from $4.84 billion.

...

That's the full year. QED.

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

John Navas

2006-02-18, 5:48 am

GomJabbar

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

The usual hot air.

Jeremy

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:43f69b68$0$9594
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> GomJabbar 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.
> 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.

I didn't know that Radio Shack still had franchisees! When I was with them,
the company was phasing them out, by refusing to renew their contracts as
they expired.

Circuit City they ain't!

Anonymous

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

On 18 Feb 2006 03:17:49 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>The usual hot air.

Navas provides three different independent sources URLs to back up his
claims, and the best you can come up with is the above?

People can clearly see you for the lobotimized troll that you are. :)

SMS

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:

> I didn't know that Radio Shack still had franchisees! When I was with them,
> the company was phasing them out, by refusing to renew their contracts as
> they expired.

About 1/3 of the stores are not company owned.

From about age 10 I was a loyal Radio Shack customer, as I was very
into building electronics projects and they used to carry a lot of
components. Bought my first cell phone at Radio Shack.

It's sad to see mismanagement causing such a decline in the company. The
Cingular fiasco is just one more mis-step.

You can't get much clearer than "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."

I wonder if there is an exclusivity clause or an escape clause in the
deal between the two companies. Radio Shack is going to have to at least
add Verizon, even if they are obligated to carry Cingular for ten years,
but now Verizon will play hardball on the terms.

Scott

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:KZzJf.37092$id5.15573@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < QoKdndfna47nE2venZ2d
nUVZ_tednZ2d@adelphi
a.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006
> 20:03:17 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> <http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/060112/113708679513.html?.v=1>
>
> It's been a tough year for the Shack. Almost a year ago to the day,
> the company said it was confident that it would see 20% earnings
> growth over 2004's results, but the euphoria was short-lived. Just
> two months later, the company's sales fell; it realized that it would
> miss its first-quarter forecasts, and possibly its full-year
> predictions. It's been dialing down expectations all year long.
> profits.
>
> Your turn. :)
>

Sorry- none apply. Just because they have the words 'Radio Shack' in them
does not make them applicable. I notice that NONE of them mention cellular
at all, and certainly don't mention Verizon or Cingular.

Nice try, Trollboy. Next time try to stick to the subject at hand.

GomJabbar

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

Anonymous wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Navas provides three different independent sources URLs to back up his
> claims, and the best you can come up with is the above?

> People can clearly see you for the lobotimized troll that you are. :)

Sorry, I'm not such a windbag as Navas. I suppose I am trolling the
Quintessential Troll. You will notice I am not alone. He just seems
to bring out the troll in many of us. It must be his comportment. LOL

The more recent report from Forbes stands on it's own. Navas is
spinning old news.

Scott

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"Anonymous" <anonymous@example.net> wrote in message
news:45fdv1p3j843p80
m68r5rdocspstdd7ft4@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like they got a MBA at the University of Scott.

I'll put mine up against your Hamburger University diploma anytime. Oh
wait- you never made it out of high school, did you? Now, we can go back
and forthe like this, or you could TRY to contribute something useful. I'm
pretty sure I know which way you'll go.

Your turn, Skippy.

Scott

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:KZzJf.37092$id5.15573@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> <http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/060112/113708679513.html?.v=1>
>

And John? One more thing- when trying to tout a great business decision
made by a company, it is probably not the best approach to post articles
questioning their ability to do so. It makes every decision they make look
suspect. But that's fine- thanks for helping prove my point.

Moron.

cledus

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

GomJabbar wrote:
> 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/commo...
tch.html
>

I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services
through the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until
the first of the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is
saying that Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked off
promoting Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products. Or is
he commenting on the first 6 weeks of the new year? Or maybe he is
fishing for a way to excuse his poor results from last year??

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

In-Reply-To: < bqhev156im9cnaipdl43
j3g2lh89qkeok4@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <nMJJf.21972$_S7.16150@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.172.29.12
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com 1140287635 ST000 166.172.29.12 (Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:33:55 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:33:55 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: SCSYQNONTRVABS\YORHD
]_\@VR]^@B@MCPWZKB]M
PXHDUWYAKVUOPCW& #91;ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBM
SFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW& #91;X\THOPXZRVOCJTUT
PC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVM
ZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXI
NH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E& #91;A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPL
DFNVUQ_VM
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:33:55 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:62404

Anonymous wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2006 03:17:49 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Navas provides three different independent sources URLs to back up his
> claims, and the best you can come up with is the above?

So much for "credible sources" (one of his favorite stock replies).

Ans as Scott noted, those articles were about the CEO's resume issues
and nothing about cellular sales.

Jeri

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:NLydnYG9A4RS6Wv
eRVn-gg@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:FbuJf.36184$id5.27991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> So, Radio Shack is wrong? You know better than the experts?
>
>
> I never misstate- you may lie and make things up, but I never misstate.
>
>
> Always do.
>
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in today's issue (Sat) reported that Radio
Shack is closing 700 stores - the problems previously mentioned in this
thread about the bogus degrees, education of this Edmonson guy are part of
the problem and he hasn't helped with turning this company around but he
also has an arrest for DWI this past year that he has to go to court on next
month, he also has two other arrests in previous years for the same offense
but they were dismissed for a technicality and he was given deferred
adjudication for one - - editorials in the paper the past week are calling
for his immediate resigning or firing - take this for what is is worth but
I live here and there is mucho stuff not yet reported and divulged on this
matter - plus he is undergoing a very nasty divorce from his soon to be
ex-wife which is being said will do further harm to his character etc..
You can google the Star-Telegram paper for the link - haven't had my coffee
yet and I am lazy on this Saturday, icy morning in Tarrant County Texas.( 85
degrees Thursday 17 and ice today) Also, articles the entire week in the
ST-will led substance to what I am writing here.

Jeremy

2006-02-18, 5:48 pm

"cledus" <cledus@noemail.net> wrote in message
news:mNIJf.32216$Jd.24962@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> GomJabbar wrote:
>
>
> I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services through
> the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until the first of
> the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is saying that
> Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked off promoting
> Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products. Or is he commenting
> on the first 6 weeks of the new year? Or maybe he is fishing for a way to
> excuse his poor results from last year??

I wasn't even aware that Verizon (or any other wireless service provider,
for that matter) was so powerful a profit center for Radio Shack. Here in
Philadelphia I can buy wireless directly from company-owned stores. Every
carrier has them. Not to mention kiosks at every shopping mall. Also at
Wal-Mart, BJ's Wholesale Club, Best Buy, Circuit City and any number of
independent wireless agents. I frankly didn't even realize that Radio Shack
was a Verizon agent.

If Radio Shack's revenue is riding upon its being able to sell wireless
service for another company, they are, indeed, in deep do-do. And, when I
was a store manager, it was well-known that most RS customers were males. I
just can't see how a sales campaign focusing on AMBER Alerts is going to
motivate Joe Sixpack to dash off and buy a cell phone from his local Radio
Shack . . .

I am still inclined to believe that Verizon dumped Radio Shack, because
there were more effective alternative dales channels available. Radio Shack
customers are typically motivated to walk into the store because they need
some electronic component and if they end up buying wireless service, it is
as an afterthought. The customers that are serious (i.e., "big-ticket")
buyers are not going to be shopping at Radio Shack--they're going to be
found at Best Buy, Circuit City or even Wal-Mart, where they will find a
broader selection, better-known manufacturers and lower prices.

Why would Verizon want their name and reputation associated with a
second-tier retail chain like Radio Shack's?

SMS

2006-02-19, 5:48 am

Jeremy wrote:

> 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.

The Allied catalog is back. Just ordered some components from them. Too
bad about Lafayette, I used to go to their store. Also Olson Electronics
was a great hobbyist store and catalog.

Tropical Haven

2006-02-19, 5:48 pm

cledus wrote:

> GomJabbar wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services
> through the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until
> the first of the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is
> saying that Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked
> off promoting Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products.
> Or is he commenting on the first 6 weeks of the new year? Or maybe he
> is fishing for a way to excuse his poor results from last year??

Their 2005 fiscal year doesn't necessarily end on December 31.

Chris Sweeney

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

RadioShack was not doing poorly with Cingular, they switched because the
5 year deal with Verizon was over and Verizon dind't want to pay any
longer for RadioShack to sell their service. They currently feel that
it is better for them to make the pie and eat it too. They are building
new Verizon Stores like crazy. RadioShack and Verizon had a very
successfull 5 years and nothing would have been better then for
RadioShack and Verizon to renew for 10 more years but they went where
the money was and Cingular had the money.

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <utednUgMqs1zFmveRVn-sQ@adelphia.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:52:25 -0700,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>
> Try again. They switched to Cingular because they were doing so poorly with
> Verizon.
>

Chris Sweeney

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

OK so RadioShack only had a 5% sales growth and lower then expected
profit from selling things with no profit like iPod. So what does this
have to do with not selling Verizon??

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < QoKdndfna47nE2venZ2d
nUVZ_tednZ2d@adelphi
a.com> on Fri, 17 Feb 2006
> 20:03:17 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> <http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/060112/113708679513.html?.v=1>
>
> It's been a tough year for the Shack. Almost a year ago to the day,
> the company said it was confident that it would see 20% earnings
> growth over 2004's results, but the euphoria was short-lived. Just
> two months later, the company's sales fell; it realized that it would
> miss its first-quarter forecasts, and possibly its full-year
> predictions. It's been dialing down expectations all year long.
> profits.
>
> Your turn. :)
>

Chris Sweeney

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

Even though the stores were still carrying Verizon until Dec 31 they
still had to cut down on inventory to they were not stuck with it come
Jan 1. On top of that once consumers found out they were not going to
get service from RadioShack after Jan1 they didn't want to buy phones
from there in December either. Would you buy a phone from someone you
knew was closing shop next month?

cledus wrote:
> GomJabbar wrote:
>
>
> I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services
> through the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until
> the first of the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is
> saying that Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked off
> promoting Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products. Or is
> he commenting on the first 6 weeks of the new year? Or maybe he is
> fishing for a way to excuse his poor results from last year??

Chris Sweeney

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> I am still inclined to believe that Verizon dumped Radio Shack, because
> there were more effective alternative dales channels available. Radio Shack
> customers are typically motivated to walk into the store because they need
> some electronic component and if they end up buying wireless service, it is
> as an afterthought. The customers that are serious (i.e., "big-ticket")
> buyers are not going to be shopping at Radio Shack--they're going to be
> found at Best Buy, Circuit City or even Wal-Mart, where they will find a
> broader selection, better-known manufacturers and lower prices.
>
> Why would Verizon want their name and reputation associated with a
> second-tier retail chain like Radio Shack's?
>
>

First off RadioShack is the largest wireless retailer in the US and 2nd
in the world. RadioShack has a very fine selection of wireless phones
and often the BEST prices of anyone including Verizon Stores. They get
much better prices moving so many. Just because you didn't shop there
does not mean that serious price shoppers didn't. If you were serious
in pricing, then you would have often found better deals at RadioShack
on the phone.

SMS

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:

> I am still inclined to believe that Verizon dumped Radio Shack, because
> there were more effective alternative dales channels available.

Verizon would have been happy to keep Radio Shack, but not on the terms
Radio Shack demanded. As someone else mentioned, Radio Shack thought
that they could get Verizon to buckle under by threatening to go to
Cingular, but Verizon didn't really need Radio Shack as much as Radio
Shack thought they did.

I'd never buy a phone at Radio Shack. The prices are sometimes lower
than Verizon stores, but higher than other independent resellers. Radio
Shack was kind of like those mall kiosks where they are trying to get
people to switch providers are renew contracts for a new phone, but few
customers walked in there expecting to buy a phone, unless it was some
stupendous promotion that was advertised in the newspaper.

Jeremy

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

"Chris Sweeney" <csweeney@chatcastle.com> wrote in message
news:PBjKf.161341$PY6.102843@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> First off RadioShack is the largest wireless retailer in the US and 2nd
> in the world.

What is your source for this information?

Jeremy

2006-02-20, 5:48 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:43f9ca97$0$5808
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> Verizon would have been happy to keep Radio Shack, but not on the terms
> Radio Shack demanded. As someone else mentioned, Radio Shack thought that
> they could get Verizon to buckle under by threatening to go to Cingular,
> but Verizon didn't really need Radio Shack as much as Radio Shack thought
> they did.
>
> I'd never buy a phone at Radio Shack. The prices are sometimes lower than
> Verizon stores, but higher than other independent resellers. Radio Shack
> was kind of like those mall kiosks where they are trying to get people to
> switch providers are renew contracts for a new phone, but few customers
> walked in there expecting to buy a phone, unless it was some stupendous
> promotion that was advertised in the newspaper.

When wireless was in its infancy, Radio Shack might have been an important
sales channel, because they had the real estate in Small Town America. But
today, when wireless has already passed the critical mass point and anyone
can get a wireless phone from numerous sources, including online, Radio
Shack's impact on new wireless sign-ups no longer has the impact.

It is the same with all those independent sales agents that proliferated in
the early days of analog cellular. Where are they now? When AT&T Wireless
first initiated service in Philadelphia, we had tons of those guys, and now
many of them are gone. Same with the "A" carrier here (Metrophone, later
Cellular One, later Cingular). The independent shops that were peppered
across every highway have slowly disappeared, replaced by the kiosks that
are in every shopping center, and big box retailers like Best Buy and even
Wal Mart.

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

Read it with a bit more care.

In <ksjKf.161338$PY6.73154@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006
13:26:40 GMT, Chris Sweeney <csweeney@chatcastle.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>OK so RadioShack only had a 5% sales growth and lower then expected
>profit from selling things with no profit like iPod. So what does this
>have to do with not selling Verizon??
>
>John Navas wrote:

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

In fact 2005 was a bad year for Radio Shack in large part because of poor
wireless sales with Verizon, as my citations make clear, which was undoubtedly
a factor in the switch to Cingular that is part of the turnaround plan.

In <oqjKf.161335$PY6.46891@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006
13:24:36 GMT, Chris Sweeney <csweeney@chatcastle.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>RadioShack was not doing poorly with Cingular, they switched because the
>5 year deal with Verizon was over and Verizon dind't want to pay any
>longer for RadioShack to sell their service. They currently feel that
>it is better for them to make the pie and eat it too. They are building
>new Verizon Stores like crazy. RadioShack and Verizon had a very
>successfull 5 years and nothing would have been better then for
>RadioShack and Verizon to renew for 10 more years but they went where
>the money was and Cingular had the money.
>
>John Navas wrote:

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In < 43f74b2c$0$95958$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:28:29
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Jeremy wrote:
>
>
>About 1/3 of the stores are not company owned.

Actually 1/4.

>It's sad to see mismanagement causing such a decline in the company. The
> Cingular fiasco is just one more mis-step.

Because it ran counter to your personal agenda.

>You can't get much clearer than "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."

Radio Shack actually switched from Verizon to Cingular because of bad Verizon
sales in 2005.

>I wonder if there is an exclusivity clause or an escape clause in the
>deal between the two companies. Radio Shack is going to have to at least
>add Verizon, even if they are obligated to carry Cingular for ten years,
>but now Verizon will play hardball on the terms.

I'm not holding my breath.

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In <mNIJf.32216$Jd.24962@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006
17:26:42 GMT, cledus <cledus@noemail.net> wrote:

>GomJabbar wrote:
>
>
>I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services
>through the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until
>the first of the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is
>saying that Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked off
>promoting Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products. ...

Yep.

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In <gBKJf.1055$p13.852@trnddc08> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:30:20 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>I wasn't even aware that Verizon (or any other wireless service provider,
>for that matter) was so powerful a profit center for Radio Shack. ...

It is.

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In <nXkKf.5185$HU.2616@trnddc04> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:08:03 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>What is your source for this information?

Published research reports.

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In <w1lKf.5186$HU.4078@trnddc04> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:14:36 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>When wireless was in its infancy, Radio Shack might have been an important
>sales channel, because they had the real estate in Small Town America. But
>today, when wireless has already passed the critical mass point and anyone
>can get a wireless phone from numerous sources, including online, Radio
>Shack's impact on new wireless sign-ups no longer has the impact.

That's dead wrong, as published research reports make clear.

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

John Navas

2006-02-21, 5:48 pm

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

In <nZ%Jf.5836$Tf3.5692@dukeread09> on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:16:36 -0500,
Tropical Haven <email@example.net> wrote:

>cledus wrote:
>
>
>Their 2005 fiscal year doesn't necessarily end on December 31.

It did.

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

SMS

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

cledus wrote:

> I don't understand this. I thought that RS sold Verizon services
> through the end of last year. The Cingular deal didn't pick up until
> the first of the year as far as I understood. So maybe Edmondson is
> saying that Cingular impacted their 4Q05 earnings because RS slacked off
> promoting Verizon in anticipation of getting Cingular products. Or is
> he commenting on the first 6 weeks of the new year? Or maybe he is
> fishing for a way to excuse his poor results from last year??

No, the earnings that are being impacted are the current earnings for 1Q
CY2006.

They were actively selling Verizon up until the end of 2005. Radio Shack
was doing well selling Verizon, at least in terms of wireless sales.

Radio Shack managers and franchisees are livid over the dropping of Verizon.

Scott

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:O5IKf.48201$id5.11109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> In fact 2005 was a bad year for Radio Shack in large part because of poor
> wireless sales with Verizon, as my citations make clear, which was
> undoubtedly
> a factor in the switch to Cingular that is part of the turnaround plan.
>

In fact, it was Verizon, not Radio Shack, that decided to not renew the
agreement. Try again- if you guess enough times, you're bound to get the
answer right every once in a while.

Scott

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:7gIKf.439308$qk4.8019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> Radio Shack actually switched from Verizon to Cingular because of bad
> Verizon
> sales in 2005.
>

Rubbish.

Scott

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:XhIKf.439320$qk4.13225@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <nXkKf.5185$HU.2616@trnddc04> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:08:03 GMT,
> "Jeremy"
> <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Published research reports.
>

Sorry- none of the trade reports indicate this. Try again.

John Navas

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

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

In < 43fbb1f2$0$95973$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:36:09
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>cledus wrote:
>
>
>No, the earnings that are being impacted are the current earnings for 1Q
> CY2006.

Try 2005.

>They were actively selling Verizon up until the end of 2005. Radio Shack
>was doing well selling Verizon, at least in terms of wireless sales.

Just the opposite:

<http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/060112/113708679513.html?.v=1>
Motley Fool
RadioShack Losing Power

It's been a tough year for the Shack. Almost a year ago to the day,
the company said it was confident that it would see 20% earnings
growth over 2004's results, but the euphoria was short-lived. Just
two months later, the company's sales fell; it realized that it would
miss its first-quarter forecasts, and possibly its full-year
predictions. It's been dialing down expectations all year long.

Never let facts get in your way, right? ;)

>Radio Shack managers and franchisees are livid over the dropping of Verizon.

So you (and only you) say, with nothing to back it up.

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

Jeri

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

>>
>
> Yep.

Edmonson resigned today (under fire) so Radio Shack will be looking for a
new CEO - source is Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Your Name Here

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

He's being hired by Cingular

Jeri wrote:
>
>
> Edmonson resigned today (under fire) so Radio Shack will be looking for a
> new CEO - source is Fort Worth Star Telegram.
>
>

SMS

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:O5IKf.48201$id5.11109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
> In fact, it was Verizon, not Radio Shack, that decided to not renew the
> agreement. Try again- if you guess enough times, you're bound to get the
> answer right every once in a while.

With the sacking of David Edmondson, following the scandal, maybe Radio
Shack will find a way to get Verizon back. Kind of what happened with
Pixar and Disney after Eisner left. Everyone agrees that the loss of
Verizon is having a big negative effect at Radio Shack. They did get
stuck with some Verizon inventory, but this was a one-time thing that
wouldn't have investors so jittery.

Unfortunately for Radio Shack, Verizon appears to want to cut way back
on sales by third parties.

Scott

2006-02-21, 11:48 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:90PKf.441085$qk4.127418@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> In < 43fbb1f2$0$95973$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:36:09
> -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>

>
> So you (and only you) say, with nothing to back it up.
>

Ummmm- did you even bother reading the article in the first post? Of course
not- that would require you admitting you were wrong.

It must suck to have such low self-esteem.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-02-22, 2:48 am

John Navas wrote:
> Published research reports.

Sorry, that alone is not credible evidence. Could you provide a link to
your information so that we can review it.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-02-22, 2:48 am

John Navas wrote:
> Never let facts get in your way, right? ;)

<SNICKER>

SMS

2006-02-22, 5:48 am

Scott wrote:

> Ummmm- did you even bother reading the article in the first post? Of course
> not- that would require you admitting you were wrong.
>
> It must suck to have such low self-esteem.

The funny thing is, the analysts believe that ultimately the switch by
Radio Shack will be a positive. This is because the low churn of Verizon
and Sprint resulted in lower repeat sales from customers changing
between carriers. The combination of higher margins on Cingular sales,
and higher churn, will increase earnings in the long term because these
will offset the lower number of new sign-ups.

John Navas

2006-02-22, 5:48 pm

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

In < 43fc11a3$0$95994$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:24:28
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>The funny thing is, the analysts believe that ultimately the switch by
>Radio Shack will be a positive. This is because the low churn of Verizon
>and Sprint resulted in lower repeat sales from customers changing
>between carriers. The combination of higher margins on Cingular sales,
>and higher churn, will increase earnings in the long term because these
>will offset the lower number of new sign-ups.

You're really reaching with this latest silly invention!

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

Thurman

2006-02-22, 5:48 pm

"DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
news:wXSKf.23868$_S7.8894@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, that alone is not credible evidence. Could you provide a link to
> your information so that we can review it.
>

CNet's unscientific poll included with their cellular newsletter this
morning polled readers on their service provider:
Verizon 27%
Cingular 27%
Sprint/Nextel 16%
T-Mobile 11%
Other 10%
Alltel 4%
Don't have a cell phone 4%
Metro PCS 0%

I'm surprised Verizon was even with Cingular. I only work with cellular
data. The four states surrounding TX have very poor data coverage by
Verizon.

Immediately this is biased because it's a real-time poll. I replied at 8am
TX time, so the West Coast was just waking up. It will be interesting to
compare at 6pm.

Jeremy

2006-02-22, 5:48 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:43fc11a3$0$9599
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> The combination of higher margins on Cingular sales, and higher churn,
> will increase earnings in the long term because these will offset the
> lower number of new sign-ups.

That might be thwarted if Cingular has a provision in their agreement with
Radio Shack that cuts back or even eliminates commissions on new customers
that do not stay with Cingular for a set minimum term, or who are credit
write-offs.

I wonder if those hated "activation fees" don't end up going to the sales
agent, in the form of commissions?

Regardless of the facts (most of which will remain confidential and won't be
openly disclosed), it is troubling that Radio Shack should be so reliant
upon commissions from the sale of wireless services. That suggests that
they are unable to stand on their own two feet by selling their own product
line. What does Radio Shack get, in the form of repeat business, from the
customers to whom they sold wireless services? Take the Verizon
arrangement, as an example. Will Radio Shack get recurring revenue when
those Verizon customers sign up for a new term agreement in two years?
Probably not. So Radio Shack expended their resources to derive a one-time
commission, and I don't see how that helped cement their relationship with
those customers to get them to come back.

If the wireless commissions were the frosting on the cake, I'd say that was
fine. But, judging from the published reports, it appears that Radio Shack
is dependent upon those commissions in order to achieve their revenue
projections. That does not bode well for them.

Eventually the wireless carriers will phase out their independent agents,
when virtually everyone has wireless service, and where will that leave
Radio Shack? One does not go to an independent sales agent to obtain
wireline phone service, or gas or electric service. With wireless, one can
set up an account over the phone and have the phones delivered overnight.
Major metropolitan areas will have stores owned by the carriers, where
transactions can be completed over-the-counter.

But, remember when AT&T had Phone Stores everywhere? They soon discovered
that the cost of renting all that real estate, paying employees and covering
overhead, just wiped out the profits they got from selling and renting
telephones. Once wireless goes from being a hot product to becoming a
mature product, the stores and the agents will go. It's just a matter of
time.

Radio Shack needs to determine if their product line--which was once
unique--still justifies the expense that all those little stores incur, as
opposed to the big-box concept that has been embraced by Circuit City and
Best Buy. I think that the business model of lots of small stores, each
with relatively low sales volume, is one that runs against the tide. Too
many employees, too many real estate leases, too many liability insurance
policies, too many utility accounts, too many products in inventory spread
out over lots of stores, too many local store managers, too many headaches.

The changing retail climate just may be killing off Radio Shack.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-02-22, 5:48 pm

Thurman wrote:
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
> news:wXSKf.23868$_S7.8894@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
[color=darkred]
> Immediately this is biased because it's a real-time poll. I replied at 8am
> TX time, so the West Coast was just waking up. It will be interesting to
> compare at 6pm.

Not sure if that would be considered a published report like Navas was
alluding, much less truly valid. Industry magazines are bit better than
some telephone poll.

SMS

2006-02-22, 11:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:43fc11a3$0$9599
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> That might be thwarted if Cingular has a provision in their agreement with
> Radio Shack that cuts back or even eliminates commissions on new customers
> that do not stay with Cingular for a set minimum term, or who are credit
> write-offs.

That's an issue that all carriers deal with. The termination fee
discourages people from leaving, if it's collectable, and people with
good credit are unlikely to risk a hit on their credit report.

> I wonder if those hated "activation fees" don't end up going to the sales
> agent, in the form of commissions?

I think they go to the carrier. Not all resellers charge activation
fees, i.e. Costco's deal with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, eliminates
them.

> Regardless of the facts (most of which will remain confidential and won't be
> openly disclosed), it is troubling that Radio Shack should be so reliant
> upon commissions from the sale of wireless services. That suggests that
> they are unable to stand on their own two feet by selling their own product
> line.

Yes, that's exactly what it says. They have a lot of high rent locations
that they can't support without a lot of wireless sales. Which is why
they are a closing so many stores.

LinkBot