Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c04c2628-9634-4100-b1e1-441ac09e6bc4@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> Good article from Information Week
>
> Verizon's $399 Price Tag Of The Palm 755p Is Out Of Touch With Reality
> Posted by Eric Zeman, Dec 17, 2007 01:10 PM
>
>
> Can they really get such money for crippled crap 'smartphone' phones
> when a buyer could get a real iPhone instead for the same price?
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/.../verizons_399_
> pr.html;jsessionid=VYDVRU52AEIR4QSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JV N
>
>

But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world)
that the iPhone does not?

GPS
Voice Dialing
3g
PUSH mail sync

Just to name a few.

CozmicDebris wrote:

> But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world)
> that the iPhone does not?
>
> GPS
> Voice Dialing
> 3g
> PUSH mail sync
>
> Just to name a few.

Yes, but the biggest reason Verizon can charge more, both for handsets
and for service, is because their network is so much better. Look at the
latest Consumer Reports, and look at _every_ other independent survey of
carriers, and look at the bogus "fewer dropped calls" advertising
campaign that Cingular got in trouble for.

Remember, Apple approached Verizon with the iPhone before they
approached Cingular, for a very good reason. Verizon wasn't willing to
do the revenue sharing arrangement that Apple wanted, but Cingular was
desperate enough to agree to it.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon
>> world) that the iPhone does not?
>>
>> GPS
>> Voice Dialing
>> 3g
>> PUSH mail sync
>>
>> Just to name a few.
>
> Yes, but the biggest reason Verizon can charge more, both for handsets
> and for service, is because their network is so much better. Look at
> the latest Consumer Reports, and look at _every_ other independent
> survey of carriers, and look at the bogus "fewer dropped calls"
> advertising campaign that Cingular got in trouble for.
>
> Remember, Apple approached Verizon with the iPhone before they
> approached Cingular, for a very good reason. Verizon wasn't willing to
> do the revenue sharing arrangement that Apple wanted, but Cingular was
> desperate enough to agree to it.
>
>
Very well put. Said another way, you get what you pay for.

Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing policy be
"out of touch with reality" if they're selling their product? Unfortunately,
what questions like these usually imply, imho, is that "I'd like to have
that more than the other but I'd rather pay less for it." In other words, I
want my cake and eat it too.

Carl wrote:

> Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing policy be
> "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their product?

Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your
product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be
charging too much and be losing customers that would raise profits by
virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your product by
getting into a price war with competitors that have a poorer product,
but you have to be careful to not charge so much for your superior
product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper
product.

What most businesses do is figure out ways to appeal both to the
price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about
paying more. I could pay much more for the Verizon service I have by
foregoing a corporate discount or adding worthless services such as "Get
It Now," or the g-d awful "Please Enjoy the Music While Your Party is
Reached" service where the music is always the same static-filled
classical piece. I could also probably pay less by switching to a
Verizon MVNO that charges as little as 5.3¢/minute, rather than paying
my current $32/month (which would buy me over 600 minutes per month at
5.3¢ each).

As to the iPhone, just think of how much better it would have sold were
it on Verizon's network, with its more widely deployed, and faster, 3G
service, not to mention its vastly superior voice network. Just look at
the latest Consumer Reports, as well as _every_ other independent
survey, then look at the bogus "fewest dropped calls" advertising
campaign that was based on data that even the company that did the
survey said did not support Cingular's conclusion.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
>> Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing
>> policy be "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their
>> product?
>
> Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling
> your product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you
> can be charging too much and be losing customers that would raise
> profits by virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your
> product by getting into a price war with competitors that have a
> poorer product, but you have to be careful to not charge so much for
> your superior product that customers decide to put up with your
> competitors cheaper product.
>
> What most businesses do is figure out ways to appeal both to the
> price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about
> paying more. I could pay much more for the Verizon service I have by
> foregoing a corporate discount or adding worthless services such as
> "Get It Now," or the g-d awful "Please Enjoy the Music While Your
> Party is Reached" service where the music is always the same
> static-filled classical piece. I could also probably pay less by
> switching to a Verizon MVNO that charges as little as 5.3¢/minute,
> rather than paying my current $32/month (which would buy me over 600
> minutes per month at 5.3¢ each).
>
> As to the iPhone, just think of how much better it would have sold
> were it on Verizon's network, with its more widely deployed, and
> faster, 3G service, not to mention its vastly superior voice network.
> Just look at the latest Consumer Reports, as well as _every_ other
> independent survey, then look at the bogus "fewest dropped calls"
> advertising campaign that was based on data that even the company
> that did the survey said did not support Cingular's conclusion.
>
You're right on every point, but I feel you're reading too much into the
OP's original question and into my response. Verizon appears to be, from my
point of view, doing well based on your criteria, so their pricing cannot be
out of touch with reality. They may be out of touch with HIS reality, which
is the way I chose to read it.

And I'll take issue with one thing: probably "most businesses" do "figure
out ways to appeal both to the
price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying
more", but that is not always the best business model. There are businesses
which cater to the high end only (and there are, of course, the reverse
model businesses). The high-end guys, because they have a smaller customer
base, make a larger profit margin with fewer employees, smaller facilities,
less overhead . They also usually excel at customer service. because they
have to. The opposites have to work their asses off to do volume. Customer
service almost always suffers. The ones in the middle have a taste of both,
but generally appreciate their higher end clients more. Given the choices,
I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?

At 20 Dec 2007 10:25:31 -0500 Carl wrote:

> Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing
> policy be "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their
> product? Unfortunately, what questions like these usually imply,
> imho, is that "I'd like to have that more than the other but I'd rather
pay less for it."
> In other words, I want my cake and eat it too.


Perhaps, but in this case it's out of line with other products in their own
lineup- Verizon sells more featured phones for less. My guess is that
they're trying to milk the last of the PalmOS diehards who have resisted
switching to Blackberries or WinMo devices.

At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:

> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?

How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)


There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes, you'll
eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat with the
classes."

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:476a9a01$0$84224$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your
> product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be
> charging too much and be losing customers that would raise profits by
> virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your product by
> getting into a price war with competitors that have a poorer product,
> but you have to be careful to not charge so much for your superior
> product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper
> product.
>
>

If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in
Economics on our student records......

Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!

Carl wrote:

> And I'll take issue with one thing: probably "most businesses" do "figure
> out ways to appeal both to the
> price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying
> more", but that is not always the best business model. There are businesses
> which cater to the high end only (and there are, of course, the reverse
> model businesses).

Yes, I was referring to businesses that sell a product that is
essentially unlimited in supply. These businesses find many creative
ways to sell the same product to different market segments at vastly
different prices. They may sell the product under a different brand
name, they may have all sorts of complicated discount schemes including
rebates, coupons, corporate discounts, friends and family discounts,
discounts for certain clubs and organizations etc., or they may just
engage in plain haggling.

A prime example is how Verizon allows MVNO's to resell their service at
substantially lower cost than Verizon itself charges. Clearly Verizon
views most of the MVNO business as pure upside, or they wouldn't resell
to MVNOs.

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> in news:476a9a01$0$84224$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your
>> product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be
>> charging too much and be losing customers that would raise profits by
>> virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your product by
>> getting into a price war with competitors that have a poorer product,
>> but you have to be careful to not charge so much for your superior
>> product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper
>> product.
>>
>>
>
> If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in
> Economics on our student records......

There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.

It's called entrepreneurial pricing. Apple tried that with the iPhone
and failed, being forced to lower their price. Verizon is able to engage
in entrepreneurial pricing to some extent because their network is so
much better than the AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile networks, and because the
consumers understand this and enough are willing to pay extra for far
superior coverage.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> superior coverage.
>

You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;



Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> superior coverage.
>>
>
> You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;

I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon
isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are,
they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed
because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than
the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply
unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area.

SMS ???? ? wrote:
> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.

Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was
the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it
was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12
or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop
like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up,
quintupling just before a generic became available.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:a9bt35-jjp.ln1
@remote.clifto.com:

> the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today.

http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/pr...price.asp?ndc=
55513019001&trx=1Z5006

This is the price of Neulasta, a 0.6ml plastic syringe to "help
REDUCE infections in chemo patients." It doesn't prevent them.

ONE syringe, .6ml costs $3,201.75 at drugstore.com DISCOUNTED!

I brought up some heavy computer hardware and did some arithmetic and
this crap is $US22,198,800 per gallon, making it FAR more valuable
than ANY OTHER LIQUID ON THE PLANET.

We should hang ALL the usurers, not just the lawyers and bankers.
Check out the webpage to get better discounts on Neulasta if you're a
multimillionaire and want more than one injection. It gives new
meaning to "one every four hours".

Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand
shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas,
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I
use!

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
>> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.
>
> Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was
> the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it
> was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12
> or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop
> like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up,
> quintupling just before a generic became available.

It's the opposite of what you're thinking. The head of Glaxo was being
pressured to price Zantac at a lower price than Tagamet, and instead he
decided to charge a premium, because Zantac was a better drug for the
same condition.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?
>
> How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)
>
>
> There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes,
> you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat
> with the classes."
>
There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also the Warren
Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I suppose I prefer the latter for
myself. Different strokes and all.

And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and then
treat them like shit."

Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.
:-)

Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal markup,
cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
people.

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
>> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.
>
> Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet
> was the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I
> remember it was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive
> prescription of $12 or thereabouts. I remember also that they
> promised the price would drop like a rock when R&D was paid off, but
> the price did nothing but go up, quintupling just before a generic
> became available.
>
Pharmaceuticals is not a good example to use in this debate. The market
forces of the drug industry are different than other consumer goods. Not to
say that he doesn't have an ax to grind or that a lot of what he has to say
is biased, but you should make a point of seeing Michael Moore's "Sicko".

At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:

> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.

I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company that
controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the antithesis
of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!

> I suppose I prefer the latter for
> myself. Different strokes and all.

So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
your hands dirty? ;-)


> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
then
> treat them like shit."

Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
companies are also good corporate citizens.
> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.

> :-)


Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?


> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
markup,
> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
> people.


Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.

Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to the
"high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
that I'm saying.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:fkilqb$v6o$1@aioe.org...
> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>
> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company
> that
> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
> antithesis
> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>
>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>
> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
> your hands dirty? ;-)
>
>
>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
>> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
> then
>> treat them like shit."
>
> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
> companies are also good corporate citizens.
>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
>> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like
>> that.
>
>> :-)
>
>
> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
> carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>
>
>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
> markup,
>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
>> people.
>
>
> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>
> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to
> the
> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
> that I'm saying.
>
>
When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? Macy's, to me, is closer to a
high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They carry mainly
designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices. They do NOT cater
to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT a
Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
standard. Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at crossing
over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store? No
way.

My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the stock,
which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a SHARE.
Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading? The secondary
point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at the
"holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing to
pay high prices. It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them. If
you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up down
there somewhere. My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on
you.

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in
news:476d1de7$0$31146$607ed4bc@cv.net:

>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:fkilqb$v6o$1@aioe.org...
>> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>>
>>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>>
>> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding
>> company that
>> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
>> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
>> antithesis
>> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>>
>>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>>
>> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not
>> get your hands dirty? ;-)
>>
>>
>>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to
>>> the masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those
>>> masses and
>> then
>>> treat them like shit."
>>
>> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of
>> mass-market companies are also good corporate citizens.
>>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky.
>>> So lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something
>>> like that.
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end
>> "luxury" carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>>
>>
>>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
>> markup,
>>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing
>>> for people.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
>> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
>> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>>
>> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater
>> to the
>> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's
>> all that I'm saying.
>>
>>
> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?


For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

At 22 Dec 2007 09:23:34 -0500 Carl wrote:

> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?

The last time I was in the closest shopping mall.

> Macy's, to me, is
> closer to a high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They
> carry mainly designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices.


Frankly, despite your opinion of them, any retailer that anchors a mall in
Independence, Missouri, is a mass market retailer! ;-)

Again, I used Walton as an extreme example. I could've as easily used Ray
Croc vs. Wolfgang Puck.


> They do NOT cater
> to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
> huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT
a
> Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
> standard.


"Standard?" I think you're confusing "mass market" with Dickens-era England.
Macy's is mass-market, but they're higher-end "snob appeal" mass market
like Apple Computers- sell a product for higher margin than your
competitors and use marketing and reputation to justify the markup- there's
nothing wrong with that.

If Macy's is what you mean by "high-end," then we're not having an
argument! ;-)

> Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
> but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at
crossing
> over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store?
No
> way.

Historically, no, but in the last 10 or so years (since the Federated/May
mergers) they've become a suburban gilt-edged Sears.


> My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the
stock,
> which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a
SHARE.

I'd never have thought of analogizing between a retailer and a stock price!
Market forces control the price of a stock, not a company's markup. B-H
is high because they've never split it, not because ir sells at a high
"profit margin."

> Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading?


No, it's concerned about ownership dilution! Look at the Baby Berk shares-
fractional shares of Berk with 1/5 the voting rights vs. dollar value.
Again, you don't buy stock at retail from the company itself, but at least
I kind of follow where you were going with it.


> The secondary
> point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at
the
> "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing
to
> pay high prices.

It's not like Sam Walton was still working the register either after
WalMart opened their 1000th store, either.

>It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
> doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them.
If
> you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up
down
> there somewhere.

Butler? Yacht designer? ;-)

> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

If you say so. I've just never pictured Walton and Buffet in the same
industry to draw an analogy between them... I guess I should've went with
Kroc and Puck...

At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:

> > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>
>
> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

In article <fkjp7r$qf1$3@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
> > > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
> >
> >
> > For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> > Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> > saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>
> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
> when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

And Target has quite a positive cachet these day. They've reinvented
themselves very well.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Carl wrote:
> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

Your analogy was asinine.

Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
commoditized as mobile phones. And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).


--
Mike

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>>
>>
>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>
> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

>
I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's charges
more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big bucks while
somehow managing to foster an image which retains clientele across the
socio-economic spectrum.

Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love usenet? :-)

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in
news:476f0ddd$0$13859$607ed4bc@cv.net:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>>>
>>>
>>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
>>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>>
>> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
>> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.
>
>>
> I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's
> charges more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big
> bucks while somehow managing to foster an image which retains
> clientele across the socio-economic spectrum.
>
> Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love
> usenet? :-)
>
>
>
>
>

One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.

My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
"classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
the products found in a Macy's store.

I hope that your position is not that somehow that product increases in
value or reliability because it is bought at Macy's, or that the extra
money is well spent because it is not spent at a Target or similar store.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-12-24, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
> point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
> something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.
>
> My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
> "classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
> that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
> focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
> the products found in a Macy's store.

Funny, I thought that department stores of all types were losing business
because people don't want to pay a premium for the privilege of shopping alone
and having only one person on each floor of the building. ;p


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
>
> Your analogy was asinine.
>
> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
> network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
> tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
> commoditized as mobile phones.

This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake
Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and
roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile
coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and
talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using
his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for
Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at
the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no
CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get
CDMA coverage.

> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
> advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
> well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).

In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.

See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47714362$0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tinman wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
>>
>> Your analogy was asinine.
>>
>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
>> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling
>> its network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If
>> they tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
>> commoditized as mobile phones.
>
> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the Verizon
> network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake Tahoe to
> Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and roaming onto
> Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage. I was
> stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and talking to someone
> who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using his friend's Sprint
> phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for Nevada, it's not some
> back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at the Mount Rose Ski
> Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no CDMA or GSM at the
> lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get CDMA coverage.
>
>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some assert
>> (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T by the end of
>> this year).
>
> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
> retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
> AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.
>
> See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"
>
So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-) And one point to you,
tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing part of your
point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more to Verizon because
their network is superior, not because of the phones they offer. All of my
posts have been about service over price and that too many people shop price
over service.

You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many,
including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it.
So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the
correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form,
admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot.

Carl wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
>> Tinman wrote:
>>>
>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
>>> phones.
>>
>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
>> Verizon network...
<snippola>

This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so
all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.

Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
handsets too.


>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
>>> by the end of this year).
>>
>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
>> subscribers. See
>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in
your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that
Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And for
the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net subscribers
than Verizon.)

Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more
so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And last
I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the largest
carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil)

Either way you were wrong in your prediction.


>>
> So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-)

It was asinine.


> And one point
> to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing
> part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more
> to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the
> phones they offer.

Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's
instead of Target?

Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally asserted.


> All of my posts have been about service over price
> and that too many people shop price over service.
>

Not quite. This is what you actually wrote:
"I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?"

Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end!

Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to watch
lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem
horrible.


> You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but
> many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the
> premium for it.

Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native
Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses
Sprint's now would we? <snerk>

I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and never once
did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed after hesitantly
switching to AT&T for my main phone this past summer I have been very
impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem for me whatsoever.

Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
one big-time.


--
Mike