| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:00:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c8020b$0$96227$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Lou@its.invalid wrote:
>
>
>Radio Shack became too dependent on wireless sales, and the large
>commission they received from the carriers.
That much is true.
>This sort of thing has
>happened in the past with Radio Shack, they got dependent on CB radios,
>they got dependent on the Trash-80, etc.
Also batteries.
>You can't build a business
>stumbling from one high margin business to the next, because eventually
>the high margins go away.
Yep.
>Even so, Radio Shack didn't count on the huge loss in wireless business
>that occurred when they switched from Verizon to Cingular.
What it actually didn't expect was the way it bungled the transition.
The loss actually started with Verizon.
>They are
>still trying to promote the idea that the reseller is the most important
>factor in choosing a wireless carrier, but few people are listening.
They are actually promoting their wide distribution, but are having a
hard time competing with small kiosks.
>When you lose the top-rated carrier in almost every geographic area, and
>switch to what is often the worst-rated carriers, you are insane to
>believe that you can maintain the same level of sales.
In fact Cingular was part of the turn-around plan after Verizon sales
dropped in 2005.
>We'll see what happens with Radio Shack and Cingular. There are escape
>clauses, but what's the point now? Verizon isn't going to go back into
>Radio Shack unless the terms are highly favorable, Radio Shack has no
>bargaining power anymore. I don't even think T-Mobile would be
>interested in Radio Shack, with all the stores that T-Mobile is opening.
>
>It was a dumb move by Radio Shack, that is putting the future of the
>company at risk.
Actually its only hope of survival. The Verizon deal wasn't working.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|