Why couldn't the ETF be...?
Maybe this has been mentioned before, but why can't the ETF for Verizon (really all carriers) be:
- Retail cost minus subsidized cost you paid when signing the contract.
- ETF would decrease every month by a set percentage (not by a set amount). Let's say it decreased by roughly 8.3% every month on a 1 yr contract, and 4.16% on 2 yr contract. (This is about 1/12 and 1/24 respectively).
By the way, the retail cost and ETF proration rate should be clear and big enough on the contracts the customer signs, as well as viewable on MyAccount online.
To me, this would seem fair to the customer, and smart to the company as well. It would also create some leadway for store managers to discount phones for customers in special situations,...
(continues)
- Retail cost minus subsidized cost you paid when signing the contract.
- ETF would decrease every month by a set percentage (not by a set amount). Let's say it decreased by roughly 8.3% every month on a 1 yr contract, and 4.16% on 2 yr contract. (This is about 1/12 and 1/24 respectively).
By the way, the retail cost and ETF proration rate should be clear and big enough on the contracts the customer signs, as well as viewable on MyAccount online.
To me, this would seem fair to the customer, and smart to the company as well. It would also create some leadway for store managers to discount phones for customers in special situations,...
(continues)
...
It is pretty close to that now with a $350 term fee and $10 a month reduction.
The logistics of deploying your idea, while good, would be too difficult. Imagine the chaos of trying to explain the differences in ETF to a million different people with a million different amounts. Customer service has difficulty now with a consistent amount and set offers.
The logistics of deploying your idea, while good, would be too difficult. Imagine the chaos of trying to explain the differences in ETF to a million different people with a million different amounts. Customer service has difficulty now with a consistent amount and set offers.
...
The things about the $350 term fee and $10/ mo reduction that people dont like are:
-It's arbitrarily applied to certain phones, whatever the carrier feels like it should apply to
-$10/ mo reduction does not totally eliminate the ETF by the end of the term. But a percentage off (as mentioned before) per mo would.
I do see the potential difficulty explaining it to millions of customers. It would take a whole different mindset and approach. It definitely would change the way a sales rep would explain phone pricing. But if a carrier can communicate Annual Upgrade/ NE2/ upgrade dates to customers, even though it varies per customer, they could do the same about ETF fee. But it would need to be something the customers could visually see...
(continues)
-It's arbitrarily applied to certain phones, whatever the carrier feels like it should apply to
-$10/ mo reduction does not totally eliminate the ETF by the end of the term. But a percentage off (as mentioned before) per mo would.
I do see the potential difficulty explaining it to millions of customers. It would take a whole different mindset and approach. It definitely would change the way a sales rep would explain phone pricing. But if a carrier can communicate Annual Upgrade/ NE2/ upgrade dates to customers, even though it varies per customer, they could do the same about ETF fee. But it would need to be something the customers could visually see...
(continues)
...
Why not just make it $350 or you fulfill your contract? I know its a silly idea to expect people do what they say, but I'm just saying.
In other words I'm sick and tired of your sorry a$$ed chargebacks. Man up or stay out of the game.
In other words I'm sick and tired of your sorry a$$ed chargebacks. Man up or stay out of the game.
...
Well said.... some people don't want to honor the contract they have signed. They are looking for a way out or to get something cheaper than what is advertised.
...
But if the contracts are clearly meant to make up for subsidy on phones, then after a year or two, I dont want to be charged $350 for leaving.
With the old ETF, you could be in month 21 of 24 and get charged $175 to leave. I dont think thats fair personally.
With the old ETF, you could be in month 21 of 24 and get charged $175 to leave. I dont think thats fair personally.
...
That is why they are prorated now. Doesn't get any fairer than that........ or just by full retail.
...
An ETF is for customer retention the same as "new every two" or a discount with contract renewal, it's just a negative reinforcement form of customer retention where the other 2 are positive reinforcement forms of customer retention. If this were truly to make up for the cost of anything then it would go down in equal increments each month and would be 1/24th with one month to go, and are we to believe that the cost of each and every smart phone minus the discount price is $350.00? really the only reason that the carriers started pro-rating ETFs is because the FCC started snooping around and that was the carriers way of policing themselves. All carriers do it but simple math will show that this is not actually paying off anything specific i...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Speaking from when I was on AT&T, some people get tired of not having their cellular "provider" actually provide service, so they want out early. I finally got out of my AT&T contracts early because they failed to provide reasonable service in a major metropolitan area. It took a few letters to some high-up people, but we finally got out and are on Sprint and VZW. I have converted seven friends to VZW, four of whom got out early without an ETF due to the appalling "service" provided.
If one wants to bail just because one haas tired of the phone, well, that's just too dang bad. Pay the fee or shut up!
Gregg
If one wants to bail just because one haas tired of the phone, well, that's just too dang bad. Pay the fee or shut up!
Gregg
...
From a sales rep point of view, this type of ETF could be explained this way:
Let's just say a sales rep was selling a Casio GzOne Rock. And let's assume that the phone is 149.99 w/ 2 yr contract or 359.99 full retail. A sales rep could explain the pricing by saying something like:
"Mr Jones, the Casio Rock does cost 359.99, but if you sign a 2 yr contract, we can give to you as low as 149.99. That means you would be saving $210 by doing the 2 yr contract."
Later the rep can say, "Mr Jones, just be aware that you would have to pay back the $210 savings as an early termination fee, if you did cancel early. The nice part though, that each month you stay with Verizon, the fee decreases by around 4%"
This of course would be a dif...
(continues)
Let's just say a sales rep was selling a Casio GzOne Rock. And let's assume that the phone is 149.99 w/ 2 yr contract or 359.99 full retail. A sales rep could explain the pricing by saying something like:
"Mr Jones, the Casio Rock does cost 359.99, but if you sign a 2 yr contract, we can give to you as low as 149.99. That means you would be saving $210 by doing the 2 yr contract."
Later the rep can say, "Mr Jones, just be aware that you would have to pay back the $210 savings as an early termination fee, if you did cancel early. The nice part though, that each month you stay with Verizon, the fee decreases by around 4%"
This of course would be a dif...
(continues)
...
in this example the customer is better off now, the rock only has a 175 ETF with $5 off per month. i see your point and think they just averaged it out. ETF for rock= 210. droid= 336., pre plus= 390. lg 5500= 152.
...
You can do the same thing now except the term fee is typically LOWER than the discount.
I really think you are complicating something that doesnt need to be complicated.
If sales reps cant do a good job NOW of explaining that phones have the option of being purchased without an agreement (which is the main complaint I hear from those that complain) and if sales reps can't explain NOW that the reason there is a term fee is because of said subsidy HOW are they going to do something that is different with every phone instead of only two catagories?
Two catagories with average subsidies at or above the term fee. Seems pretty easy to me.
I really think you are complicating something that doesnt need to be complicated.
If sales reps cant do a good job NOW of explaining that phones have the option of being purchased without an agreement (which is the main complaint I hear from those that complain) and if sales reps can't explain NOW that the reason there is a term fee is because of said subsidy HOW are they going to do something that is different with every phone instead of only two catagories?
Two catagories with average subsidies at or above the term fee. Seems pretty easy to me.
...
...but it isn't fair. I don't mean necessarily to the consumer either. Verizon has this little receipt machine which spits out a contract copy to be signed by the customer which has the ETF on it. All the rep has to do is point to it. It will show the Full Retail Price of the handset, the subsidized price and the discounted amount. The receipt will show the discounted amount divided by 24 (usually) or 12 (if the customer was smarter than the norm) as the amount the ETF will be reduced by monthly. It's not rocket science. It is fair. Not every advanced device is discounted $350 and some (the BOGOs) are discounted more than $350.
...
I dont agree that it is arbitrary. Smartphones have it and they have an average subsidy well above $300. Non-smartphones don't have.
...
before all these high end devices where available the 175 etfs where explained BOTH handset subsidy AND the marketing cost that they "invested" into potential new customers. if this logic still flies they would still feel justified in charging you etfs higher than the remaining cost of the handset.
... and if you think the etf with veriozn is high dont imagine getting the nexus one...poor suckeres you get an etf from both tmobile and google 🤣 🤣 🤣
... and if you think the etf with veriozn is high dont imagine getting the nexus one...poor suckeres you get an etf from both tmobile and google 🤣 🤣 🤣
...
I cannot wait to see if Verizon charges their $350 ETF in addition to Google's $350 ERF. I don't care about the N1 at all, I just want to see that train wreck.
...
You make a good point about how the ETFs were designed to cover both subsidy and marketing cost. If this was still true, that would throw a wrench into the idea.
However, I have a feeling that they can easily cover the marketing cost in something else (if they dont already do), i.e. forcing people on data plans on 3G dumbphones. But I dont really know the answer to that; so I wont be dogmatic about it.
However, I have a feeling that they can easily cover the marketing cost in something else (if they dont already do), i.e. forcing people on data plans on 3G dumbphones. But I dont really know the answer to that; so I wont be dogmatic about it.
...
Honor the damn agreement if you're going to sign it.... This one idea may single handily be what's wrong with this country
...
I agree in principle about honoring contracts; however, there may need to be limits to ETFs at some point.
Here is a situation of how bad things could get without limits, and how not everyone who has to pay an ETF was just not trying to honor their contract:
Lets just say things get to where all carriers charge $1000 ETF. A person signs a contract with full intention to honor the contract. However, he loses his job and can not pay the bills. His phone gets cut off (or he voluntarily cancels-doesnt matter in this story) and he has to pay $1000 ETF.
This would put a huge extra burden on him. One would say, was it really necessary to charge $1000 ETF? Is it due to the company losing out that money or big business just being greed...
(continues)
Here is a situation of how bad things could get without limits, and how not everyone who has to pay an ETF was just not trying to honor their contract:
Lets just say things get to where all carriers charge $1000 ETF. A person signs a contract with full intention to honor the contract. However, he loses his job and can not pay the bills. His phone gets cut off (or he voluntarily cancels-doesnt matter in this story) and he has to pay $1000 ETF.
This would put a huge extra burden on him. One would say, was it really necessary to charge $1000 ETF? Is it due to the company losing out that money or big business just being greed...
(continues)
...
🙄
Nearly everyone is greedy. Do you think I am investing in a company which is NOT out to make money? *Groan* Just once can we all agree that it is logical for companies to want to profit? No one is forced into accepting the subsidy. Verizon offers Month-to-Month billing with equipment purchased at Full Retail price. I can't imagine a $1000 ETF without the phone costing $1500 (and if they get that high I won't have a cell phone any longer). I don't understand why an adult has to be protected from signing a contract. If you object to the $350 ETF or (or the $1000) then DO NOT sign the contract accepting the subsidy. It really is that simple.
Nearly everyone is greedy. Do you think I am investing in a company which is NOT out to make money? *Groan* Just once can we all agree that it is logical for companies to want to profit? No one is forced into accepting the subsidy. Verizon offers Month-to-Month billing with equipment purchased at Full Retail price. I can't imagine a $1000 ETF without the phone costing $1500 (and if they get that high I won't have a cell phone any longer). I don't understand why an adult has to be protected from signing a contract. If you object to the $350 ETF or (or the $1000) then DO NOT sign the contract accepting the subsidy. It really is that simple.
...
Well people need to be protected at some point when it comes to contracts...i.e. predatory lenders, credit card rates hiking unknowingly, because people get taken advantage of all the time. I am not comparing cell phones to these things, but just making a general point.
However, I find it interesting to see how people feel about things like this. I dont think one person is completely right or wrong. It is good sometimes to throw an idea out there, and see all the points of view people have on it.
However, I find it interesting to see how people feel about things like this. I dont think one person is completely right or wrong. It is good sometimes to throw an idea out there, and see all the points of view people have on it.
...
it just comes down to doing the right thing by people
customers- honor your commitments
companys- dont try to screw everyone out of money
customers- honor your commitments
companys- dont try to screw everyone out of money
...
"Well people need to be protected at some point when it comes to contracts...i.e. predatory lenders, credit card rates hiking unknowingly, because people get taken advantage of all the time. I am not comparing cell phones to these things, but just making a general point."
Uh...yes you are.
Uh...yes you are.
...
What I meant by that was that I am not comparing cell phones to those specific things of predatory lenders and credit cards rates hiking, because those things have added characteristics of things being hidden or undisclosed. (I think cell phones generally arent undisclosed unless you have a bad rep or something.) Remember, a point was stated that an adult doesnt need any protection at all in regards to contracts, and I was making a quick example of how that isnt true.
However, that there should be some protection for the consumer when it comes to contracts-even cell phones. Because if everything is unregulated, big business will eventually only look out for themselves and hurt consumers overall. (just look at past history). What shoul...
(continues)
However, that there should be some protection for the consumer when it comes to contracts-even cell phones. Because if everything is unregulated, big business will eventually only look out for themselves and hurt consumers overall. (just look at past history). What shoul...
(continues)
...
As long as the carriers control what equipment is allowed to be sold on their networks you will always have unsatisfied customers that blame the phone carrier. I will be interested to see if Google’s new phone strategy works. It would be interesting to se the equipment and network decoupled at least to some extent. Then you can call people all kinds of names for breaking a contract. The only time I have ever gotten out of a contract early and paid the ETF was because the phone I had was total garbage and it was actually cheaper to pay the ETF and go to a different carrier, not a lot cheaper but it made me feel better. Of course with higher ETF fees it would make me less likely to sign a contract with VZ just because of the situation I w...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Like Azeron said, there are other options. Just buy the phone at full retail price, there is no contract, or do a 1 yr contract. The options are there it is just that people want something for nothing. The Google strategy is not going so well, and may get worse. Customers should be happy to get subsidize phones, if they had to pay full retail for every phone, no one would buy phones.
...
