Sprint Cancels Difficult Customers' Contracts
Putting a wounded animal out of it's misery...
A question:
Why would you WANT to keep a phone service with a company that you had to call 25 times a month over an extended period of time? Wouldn't you just move to another service? Are people really that lonely?
Seems to me Sprint is doing these people a favor. Why prolong the needless suffering on the part of both parties?
Why would you WANT to keep a phone service with a company that you had to call 25 times a month over an extended period of time? Wouldn't you just move to another service? Are people really that lonely?
Seems to me Sprint is doing these people a favor. Why prolong the needless suffering on the part of both parties?
...
Seriously, and how do these people find the time to call in so much? It's blows me away.
...
No kidding. Now, because they are getting rid of these fools not only is it letting them out of a contract they probably regret being stuck in, it's freeing up customer service for when I call. I don't call more than maybe twice a year as I am fairly happy with sprint, but when i do I'd hate to be waiting everytime for 15-20 minutes because someone can't get out of their contract that they hate and they keep taking up everyone's time.
I can't imagine that those customers are doing much good with the topics they call about anyways. It has to be a recurring problem that isn't worth the company's time.
It's weird that any company would do that but I applaud them for it. At some point people need to grow up and stop expecting everyone ...
(continues)
I can't imagine that those customers are doing much good with the topics they call about anyways. It has to be a recurring problem that isn't worth the company's time.
It's weird that any company would do that but I applaud them for it. At some point people need to grow up and stop expecting everyone ...
(continues)
...
I totally agree! I always thought that Sprint was highly manipulated by it's customers... I mean if they complained long enough they got free activation fees and credits on their bills, and it's about time companys stop letting the customers take control of them, and start having better customer service!
I think not having contracts all together would solve a whole lot of problems... customer service would drastically increase because it would naturally have to or else people would leave, but also the number of problems would go down because people could leave if they wanted to... or maybe companys should only do 6 months or 1 yr. contracts...
I think not having contracts all together would solve a whole lot of problems... customer service would drastically increase because it would naturally have to or else people would leave, but also the number of problems would go down because people could leave if they wanted to... or maybe companys should only do 6 months or 1 yr. contracts...
...
I could see that because it would force someone to strongly consider which company is best for them instead of just diving into something without doing any research, but at the same time I think shorter term contracts could really help out customers in that the prices could always be dropping.
If you sign a 6 month contract and someone else has a better deal at the end of that contract you could move to that carrier and spend less money. If you signed a 2 year agreement at that same time you would miss out on that deal. It would cause the carriers to fight for your money and make better deals for everyone. If the company you sign with is still the best after that 6 month contract, why switch?
If you sign a 6 month contract and someone else has a better deal at the end of that contract you could move to that carrier and spend less money. If you signed a 2 year agreement at that same time you would miss out on that deal. It would cause the carriers to fight for your money and make better deals for everyone. If the company you sign with is still the best after that 6 month contract, why switch?
...
You're talking about what's best for the consumer though and not what's best for the company in question. That's why it'll never happen.
...
lancekalzas said:
You're talking about what's best for the consumer though and not what's best for the company in question. That's why it'll never happen.
but I think it would be best for both... there's nothing wrong with churn at all. Churn shows which companys are better at taking care of the customer... It's better to let the customer choose to stay then be forced everytime they wanna upgrade or change their plan or add a line... the customer should have the freedom to choose what's best for them, and if that means higher churn then so what.
all that means is that a bunch of people will leave one company and go another... that still leaves the same number of wireless customers... it just means on...
(continues)
...
Yeah, but how many companies provide a regulated, monthly service without at least providing incentives for their customers to sign contracts?
...
Just one of the things you aren't taking into account is that when A wireless company sells you a phone for an insanely low price sometimes even free they lose that money. So in order to provide service with no contract you will be paying $200 minimum for the worst phones available.
...
true. I don't think anybody said get rid of the option of a long term contract, I think, at least for me, it was more the idea of ading the option to have the shorter conract. If you want to spend the money on phones every 6 months, which some people do, you should have that option. I'm not one of those people but I am one of those people that like the idea that if I wanted to, the option is there.
Regardless of the price, if you find better service in places that you regularly go with a wireless phone through a carrier other than your own would it not be nice to switch carriers after 6 months rather than 24 months later? And if the carriers were so confident that you wouldn't find better service elsewhere they would let you go because...
(continues)
Regardless of the price, if you find better service in places that you regularly go with a wireless phone through a carrier other than your own would it not be nice to switch carriers after 6 months rather than 24 months later? And if the carriers were so confident that you wouldn't find better service elsewhere they would let you go because...
(continues)
...
I still agree with sprint on letting these customers go, just to make that clear.
...
rettererd01 said:
Just one of the things you aren't taking into account is that when A wireless company sells you a phone for an insanely low price sometimes even free they lose that money. So in order to provide service with no contract you will be paying $200 minimum for the worst phones available.
yes I know, I used to sell cellular service for 3 of the top carriers... however a lot of people would rather pay for service they want and need vs getting something free that they may not want a month or so from when they purchased it...
It's not fair that if I live somewhere where my service is awesome to all of sudden having to move somewhere else for whatever reason where my service is poor, that I cann...
(continues)
...
Shorter contracts would raise the price of handsets and monthly rates since these are set by the projected revenue over the term.
...
This forum is closed.
