1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Subscribers, Market Share, Additions, and Churn-Updated with 2Q T-Mobile results

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Steven Scharf, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. Now that T-Mobile has released their second quarter
    results I have updated the statistics page of my web
    sites with their data. I had originally extrapolated the
    same 1Q results for T-Mobile onto 2Q, but actually
    the added far less subcribers in the second quarter
    than in the first.

    "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm"

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
     



    › See More: Subscribers, Market Share, Additions, and Churn-Updated with 2Q T-Mobile results
  2. Phillipe

    Phillipe Guest

  3. "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:pfilm-477912.15172618082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <vk2c3ea54ea5ee@corp.supernews.com>,
    > CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >
    > > http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm

    >
    > An argument could be made that Churn rate is proportional to
    > Customer Service scaring customers away.
    > 3% per month = 36% per year / yikes


    When I first started compiling these statistics I just
    couldn't believe the yearly churn rates were as high
    as they really are. I thought that I must have been
    misinterpreting the statistics and that the rates were
    actually quarterly, but the 10Q reports did confirm that
    the reported rates are the average of monthly churn
    rates for the three months of the quarter, not a 3 month
    churn rate.

    Even at 1.4% (the retail churn rate for Verizon), that's
    16.8% a year, which is nothing to write home about since
    1/6 of your customers leave every year. At 3%
    (T-Mobile) it's 36% per year, which is incredibly high
    considering that new subscribers are locked into one
    or two year contracts.

    The real interesting statistics will be next year after LNP.
    There have been a lot a predictions made by analysts,
    and in fact Verizon's recent about-face on LNP was due
    to their realization that they have the most to gain from LNP
    and they better take advantage of it.
     
  4. gopi

    gopi Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<bzj0b.832$xD6.697@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Even at 1.4% (the retail churn rate for Verizon), that's
    > 16.8% a year, which is nothing to write home about since
    > 1/6 of your customers leave every year. At 3%
    > (T-Mobile) it's 36% per year, which is incredibly high
    > considering that new subscribers are locked into one
    > or two year contracts.


    Those are some impressive rates. I think that the great deals you get
    for switching are part of the picture here. A lot of providers seem
    happy to make their existing customers pay a lot more than their new
    customers. Regardless of the reasons for this - and I understand
    subsidies and such - its effect on the customer is to encourage churn.

    > The real interesting statistics will be next year after LNP.
    > There have been a lot a predictions made by analysts,
    > and in fact Verizon's recent about-face on LNP was due
    > to their realization that they have the most to gain from LNP
    > and they better take advantage of it.


    Really? I thought it was coincident with their loss of a court case,
    and the seeming inevitability of LNP. Once they realized that, yes, it
    really _was_ going to happen, they figured they might as well make it
    hurt less. I'm utterly unconvinced that they genuinely want it.
     
  5. Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in article
    <pfilm-F0670C.08540019082003@news05.west.earthlink.net>:
    > In article <5Up0b.12870$dk4.478636@typhoon.sonic.net>,
    > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Indeed. Steven is just so pro-Verizon that he'll try to spin just about
    > > anything.

    >
    > Why do you say that? I saw zero that gave me that impression.


    YOY comparisons/changes would be more beneficial IMO to determine
    trends. Sequential quarterly compaisons, while potentially useful, can
    be "explained away" by a number of things. If you look at YOY results
    (total churn, churn trend, total subs added, change in market share,
    etc.) you will really find out which carrier is "doing it right" as far
    as the marketplace, the cosumers, are concerned.

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
     
  6. [ a m z ]

    [ a m z ] Guest

    "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >
    > > http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm

    >
    > An argument could be made that Churn rate is proportional to
    > Customer Service scaring customers away.
    > 3% per month = 36% per year / yikes


    But remember Benjamin Disraeli's quote:
    "Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics"


    While "raw" churn is important, especially when compared to other carriers,
    it should be noted that there are numerous factors that can cause churn that
    are not related to customer service. For Example:

    Moving out of (service) area -- there is a lot of
    "churn" in people simply moving around the country

    Receiving a "company phone" from employer

    And so on...


    What I'd like to see are the LOSS / ADD numbers broken down by reason.
     
  7. Phillipe .

    Phillipe . Guest

    In article <bX87b.3956$PE6.2486@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote:

    > > CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm

    > >
    > > An argument could be made that Churn rate is proportional to
    > > Customer Service scaring customers away.
    > > 3% per month = 36% per year / yikes

    >
    > But remember Benjamin Disraeli's quote:
    > "Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics"


    Those that don't like the facts always look for ways to
    cast doubt upon the, Sprint has BAD churn rates, caused in large part
    by bad (JD POWER proved this) Customer Service.
     
  8. [ a m z ]

    [ a m z ] Guest

    "Phillipe ." <p8film@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > "[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote:
    > > > CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm
    > > >
    > > > An argument could be made that Churn rate is proportional to
    > > > Customer Service scaring customers away.
    > > > 3% per month = 36% per year / yikes

    > >
    > > But remember Benjamin Disraeli's quote:
    > > "Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics"

    >
    > Those that don't like the facts always look for ways to cast doubt
    > upon the, Sprint has BAD churn rates, caused in large part
    > by bad (JD POWER proved this) Customer Service.


    Before you get your undies in a bundle, let me say that I have no opinion
    whatsoever about Sprint's service. Now...

    Ask anyone in statistics or marketing. You can make numbers "say" anything
    you want just by the way you present them. There is a big difference
    between "causal relationship" and "coincidence."

    To illustrate, here is an example based on true experiences: I have a Brand
    X phone on Plan 123 with ABC Wireless. ABC decides to phase out part of the
    technology in Plan 123 despite earlier promises not to. Brand X no longer
    makes that model of phone, either. The phone is *basically* functional on
    ABC, but (now) incompatible in many other ways with ABC and other wireless
    carriers. It is also obsolete and due for a replacement anyway. CS at ABC
    Wireless is uninformed and unsympathetic -- babbling canned "trade up"
    speeches instead of offering help. The new plans they offer are worse (more
    expensive, fewer features) than the existing (albeit crippled) plan I had.
    Prior to this fiasco, I was fairly happy with the carrier (and their CS).

    If I had switched carriers, what was my ONE mark-it-on-the-survey reason?

    I only see a link to the churn rate stats. Where is the link to a relevant
    JD Power analysis? If someone wants to chart churn rate vs. CS ratings
    across comparable wireless companies AND control for variables, I'd love to
    see it.
     
  9. "[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote in article
    <%Om7b.5219$Yt.4302@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

    > I only see a link to the churn rate stats. Where is the link to a relevant
    > JD Power analysis? If someone wants to chart churn rate vs. CS ratings
    > across comparable wireless companies AND control for variables, I'd love to
    > see it.


    I think that it is a big mistake to try to attribute
    the relative churn rates to any one reason. The
    carriers obviously do not report the reasons for
    churn.

    However there was a study that looked at
    why customers change carriers (not for
    any particular carrier). I caution that even
    this study may be flawed because some of
    the reasons people give for leaving may actually
    be due to another reason, i.e. it is very likely
    that people are attributing coverage issues
    incorrectly to handset problems:

    Handset Problems 31%
    Cost of service (no replacement service) 28%
    Coverage 17%
    Competitors Rates & Plans 9%
    Other 8%
    Service 7%




    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  10. [ a m z ]

    [ a m z ] Guest

    "Cell Academician" <CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com> wrote:
    > "[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote in article
    >
    > > I only see a link to the churn rate stats. Where is the link to a

    relevant
    > > JD Power analysis? If someone wants to chart churn rate vs. CS ratings
    > > across comparable wireless companies AND control for variables, I'd love

    to
    > > see it.

    >
    > I think that it is a big mistake to try to attribute
    > the relative churn rates to any one reason. The
    > carriers obviously do not report the reasons for
    > churn.


    I was simply looking to see if anyone had somehow plotted CS ratings vs.
    churn rate. I wouldn't expect the carriers to disclose why they lose
    customers.


    > However there was a study that looked at
    > why customers change carriers (not for
    > any particular carrier). I caution that even
    > this study may be flawed because some of
    > the reasons people give for leaving may actually
    > be due to another reason, i.e. it is very likely
    > that people are attributing coverage issues
    > incorrectly to handset problems:
    >
    > Handset Problems 31%
    > Cost of service (no replacement service) 28%
    > Coverage 17%
    > Competitors Rates & Plans 9%
    > Other 8%
    > Service 7%


    That last entry is interesting in contrast to Phillipe's post. I also
    believe that people leave for MULTIPLE reasons. No one reason is enough.
    My guess is that the reason they cite as leaving is only the "straw that
    broke the camel's back," not whole picture. Maybe that last reason would
    not have been enough on its own, but as part of a series of episodes...
     
  11. P. Reality

    P. Reality Guest

    In article <%Om7b.5219$Yt.4302@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote:

    > I only see a link to the churn rate stats. Where is the link to a relevant
    > JD Power analysis? If someone wants to chart churn rate vs. CS ratings
    > across comparable wireless companies AND control for variables, I'd love to
    > see it.


    http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003074
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?