Psst – Sprint – I know why you’re failing and it’s not call quality or your customer service..
Posted on 07 August 2008, at 10:00 am, by Wayne Schulz
Yesterday Sprint reported a loss of $344 million. This was due to a number of factors, but losing 776,000 contract customers sure didn’t help matters. I’m really quite surprised that nobody has vocalized Sprint’s true problem. I don’t think that it’s bad customer service (read Joel’s article on Verizon – and see if you don’t think the cell phone companies all have challenges). Heck, I don’t even think that it’s the loss of the SERO plans in favor of more expensive options. There’s one huge glaring oversight that I have not seen a single person pick up on. Want to know what I think Sprint’s doing wrong?
The problem with Sprint is….
They have NO exciting phones that people are eager to purchase.
Think about it.
Of course, AT&T has the iPhone. They also have Pantech, Blackjack II, Tilt and many other newer, sexier models than Sprint.
How are customers supposed to flock to Sprint when the newest offerings are me-too models of the Palm Centro, RIM Curve, and HTC Touch (all “me too” models available on competing carriers).
Indeed, I submit that Sprint’s true problem is that they’ve let their phone selection go to hell. While trying to get a phone before the SERO $30 plans went away – I had an impossible time finding a single Sprint phone that I was excited about buying. Not one. The end result is that I did not buy a Sprint phone.
If you don’t think this is a problem, just take a look at the list of phones that Sprint displays when you search.
Sprint Razr? zzz
The newest (and most talked about phone) is the Samsung Instinct.
For only about $70 less – why would most people buy this phone instead of the iPhone? It’s highly unlikely there will EVER be a critical mass of applications developed for it, you’ll forever be stuck with some third party music player and the early reports on the browser quality are laughable.
Every single story about Sprint’s recurring losses (both money and subscribers) entirely misses the boat.
Sprint is bleeding subscribers partly because they have no compelling phones to attract them. Why should subscribers stay for another 2 year commitment only to select from phones that they can find on any carrier.
Sprint needs to wake up ASAP and get some phones (the HTC Diamond would be a good start) which are exclusive to their service.
They should either remove those old RAZR phones or immediately make them free with no need for rebates. Heck, Sprint should step forward and announce that all of their phones will no longer require rebates – which removes one of the big hassles subscribers face when they purchase new service.
While you’re at it Sprint – why not take a leadership role and offer your subscribers a new phone at the subsidized new customer price EVERY YEAR of their plan (not at the end of the two years).
The Sprint plans are right on target.
I think they’ve smartly created all in one plans that deliver voice plus unlimited messaging. Long term this is what people will want. The plans are attractive. Now just go get some phones that people aren’t embarrassed to use!
Related posts:
August 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
But stories like this from Engadget:
iPhone hacker says the device ‘calls home’ to Apple, allows apps to be remotely disabled, by Joshua Topolsky, posted Aug 7th 2008 at 10:07AM” don’t exactly make the iPhone attractive. When I was looking for a new phone a few months ago, I spent a lot of time looking. I already had Sprint, but as you point out, “boring” they are. The only thing that kept me was plan price. What I’d like to see is the elimination of specific phones tied to a provider… buy any phone compatible with your service and get a subsidy from the provider (equal to what you would get by purchasing one of “their” phones.) A little far-fetched, but I’d bet it would work. What do you think?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
It’s not just that Wayne…..Sprint USED to be the ONLY Cell provider that had EVDO cards and truly unlimited plans. Now, you can’t get that. Now there’s a 5 GB cap just like Verizon and AT&T. The problem is 5 GB is NOTHING! It’s SO easy to use all of this in ONE day. All I have to do is download ONE DVD iso of Linux (which is perfectly LEGAL too) and my bandwidth is about gone. I think Sprint probably started bleeding even more since they made this change. Eventually I see it being Verizon and AT&T. That’s it. Sprint will get bought by Verizon and that will all she wrote….we’ll have one provider for CDMA, and probably one provider for GSM although Tmobile seems, to me, to be a bit stronger than Sprint (except they don’t have much 3g yet).
August 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I basically agree even though Sprint actually does have some of the newer devices like the Palm Centro, but they were even late to that dance. Perhaps some of the announced upcoming deals will help with that.
I think that their smaller coverage map is actually more of a problem. Verizon has a better coverage map and ATT has a better coverage map.
Additionally, being a CDMA carrier also means that you make it more difficult to attract international business travelers who also need European coverage (unless they buy one of those feature-limited dual radio phones). Admittedly, I’m not a fan of CDMA due to it’s proprietary nature (as opposed to the standards-based GSM), but the device/service-locked nature of CDMA handsets also leads to a lack of appeal due to the fact that it’s not nearly as easy to change to a new device if the mood strikes you.
Sprint has kind of become the “Buick” of the industry – it appeals to older, conservative folk – nothing trendy here!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Personally I would like to pay full price for a phone and have no contract. I’m not that concerned about the subsidy since I switch phones on average about every 6 months.
In Connecticut Sprint has an excellent footprint and the service (except for Nextel) has been excellent.
My guess is a LOT of the pain and loss of subscribers has come from the Nextel side of things. The whole merger was BADLY botched and probably will come unraveled soon (I see people already calling for Sprint to sell off iDen).
What would have ever possessed Sprint to think that walkie talkie would be a service people would continue to demand in light of the widespread free mobile to mobile services. Sure construction crews are big on this – but truth be told they could just as easily use cellular m2m for a big portion of their convos.
Nevertheless the weirdest rumor I read is that Google may acquire Sprint. I see zero upside to Google now taking on the thankless job of running a cell company. If I were Google I’d let someone else manage that for me and no way would I ruin the “Google” brand by pasting it on a cell phone company.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I agree that Sprint doesn’t offer the flexibility of PDA devices that AT&T does being a GSM carrier but they do offer newer devices than their biggest competitor Verizon. In the last two years Sprint has had exclusives on the HTC Mogul, Touch, Treo 800w. They will also be first to get the Touch Diamond and Touch Pro. What they need is an exclusive for the Diamond or Touch Pro or some other high end unit that could possibly pull users away from Verizon. AT&T’s network is really only viable for customers around major metropolitan areas. When you live in the Midwest or South and are traveling off of major interstates AT&T does you no good and you must align with a CDMA carrier. Also Sprint doesn’t lock up the features on their PDA phones like Verizon. I have also been saying for years that eventually it will just be Verizon and AT&T and that will suck for long time Sprint users because of the higher data costs, locked features on phones and flexibility. I will ride the Sprint wave until it fizzles out but won’t ever be able to move to AT&T because of poor service coverage in the Midwest.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this one Wayne. Coming from the cell phone industry (I work for T-Mobile), we are not facing the same problems that Sprint does and we’re doing pretty well I must say in terms of growing. Before I joined the cell phone industry, I used to think that cool phones was all there is to a company’s success but that has been further from the truth. Price points, the atmosphere, plan offerings are just some of the factors that influence potential subscribers.
Even before I was with T-Mobile, I used their services over AT&T because I enjoyed the experiences I had with the folks there (and which made me wanted to be a part of their team too).Sprint not only has to look at the phones but they would have to look at everything including customer services as well if they are to improve.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@techgeek32 I have to disagree with you. What you say may be true for the midwest, but here on the Gulf Coast you are totally incorrect. The AT&T footprint here in in the Gulf south is much stronger than the foot prints held by Sprint and Verizon. CDMA coverage is generally less available off of the interstates than GSM coverage. To be fair, ALL carriers have poor coverage outside of the metros, but Sprint barely covers the interstates here and Verizon does a little better, but only AT&T hits the rural areas (although sometimes badly). Verizon has been making inroads, however, and I expect their coverage will continue to improve, but Sprint, sadly, has made little to no progress down here and forget anything resembling 3G coverage!
August 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
If a lack of cool phones is Sprint’s problem, then please explain Verizon Wireless’s success? They were later to the Centro, to pick one comment. They are also CDMA.
They also did not waste money on a merger with Nextel just as everyone grew tired of push to talk, of course.
I think that this is a management problem, not a handset problem.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Ok,all being well I’m moving to the US in December from the UK. As I’ve been checking out the carriers in the US the one thing I’ve noticed is that for most of them, regardless of phones, the main issues you have over there is that the carriers are at least 5 to 8 years behind us in the UK & Europe in term of plans & access to all areas of mobile comms.
The one area most should be looking at is the pre-pay (pay as you go) areas. This in the UK is big business especially in the teen/student market. All the operators in the UK have pre-pay plans & phones that are head & shoulders above the US carriers; the phones, 3G, internet, MMS, IM, are all a available to pre-pay customers (mind you at a higher price to those on contract) but the teen/student market is where it’s at.
So the US carriers need to look at their markets as a whole. The pre-pay market has actually driven the mobile comms over here giving the operators far more flexibility to expand their business to accommodate all, & boosted the contract end by having pre-pan subscribers move up to full time contracts thus enabling future growth.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I think it mostly comes down to coverage in the areas you frequent. I change phones frequently (every 3 months or so) and I keep trying the cooler phones at AT&T or the less resticted phones on Sprint. Even though those phones are cool, they don’t have near the network footprint that Verizon has so I keep coming back. Verizon has rolled out EVDO just about everywhere.
I was on vacation in the Boundry Waters near Canada on a fishing boat and was suprised to see that I had 3 bars and EVDO coverage. I never saw a tower, but I had a rock solid voice and data connection.
Every time I try Sprint or AT&T I love the phone, but I have to make too many sacrifices in coverage where I travel.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
@Christopher Gavula
I lived in New Orleans for 5 years and know what coverage is available in the coastal areas. What I forgot to articulate is the advantage with the CDMA carriers is that I can roam even if I am not in a Sprint area. That means I can access Verizon, Alltel or any other CDMA carriers towers to make a call. With AT&T you are SOL without their signal because the technology is different. I won’t ever go GSM for that very reason.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The New Orleans area has very different coverage than the MIssissippi, Alabama, or northern Florida Gulf Coast. New Orleans is covered as a major metro (probably due to the tourist traffic) despite its smaller population. It’s not representative of the upper Gulf Coast as a whole.
The thing that is interesting is that ALL the carriers are finally starting to fill in the Gulf Coast with towers and coverage. AT&T 3G service, for example is due in Mobile, AL by October. I’m not sure what’s driving this sudden growth. Probably the explosion of popularity of smart phones. There are still vast areas of the west and upper midwest with no coverage at all, though.
The big benefit of CDMA is really building penetration – much better generally than GSM, but AT&Ts 850 frequency gets pretty good penetration. Just hope you don’t have to leave the US – then you’re likely as not to need a totally different phone since CDMA support is non-existent in Europe and many other places.