🚀 go-pugleaf

myermian00@hotmail.com (Michael Yermian) wrote in message news:<uursrrooahq91@corp.supernews.com>...
> Well no, see... National retailers are different... they are compensated
> for their loss on "Upgrades" (purchase without activation) ... that is
> why they sell the items for $25 without activation, so existing
> customers (NOT THEIVES) can purchase the phones without a huge charge...
> they don't make commission, but once the ESN goes into the system and
> backtracks to BB or Circuit City or whatever Nat Retailer they are
> compensated for their loss in profit, ... no commission, but no loss
> either...

Then they should simply advertise "ATTWS service required"- but they
apparently advertised "no activation required".  Upgraded phones are
still "activated"- you are describing what is generally advertised as
"no NEW activation required.

My Kansas city area BBs didn't run this promo and we're an ATTWS GSM
market as well.

Methinks this was either a mistake (unlikely though- I used to work
for a CE Chain- if it was a mistake, every store would have been
e-mailed/Fed-Exed a memo warning them to fix in-store signage
immediately and post signs explaining the ad was in error) or a test
marketing venture- sell a bunch of phones with no strings and see what
% activate.
 
> They do make a lot of commission though because $25 is an attractive
> price to NEW customers also...
> 
> The whole point of no activation required is not meant so that you can
> purchase it to flash it and committ fraud. It is meant to help existing
> customers purchase upgrades much more easily, and less expensively. What
> the BB or CC people should be doing is either activating or UPGRADING
> the account in store ... No activation simply means your allowed to
> UPGRADE (not steal)

Says who?  If this was 1989 I might agree, but both Best Buy and AT&T
have been around the block a few times in the wireless biz, and each
knows their way around a well-written legal disclaimer.  If they
hadn't intended these phones to be sold with strings attached they
wouldn't have been.

And realistically, what % of these phones will ever get flashed and
used off network? 1%? 5%?  The vast majority will likely get put under
a Christmas tree and get activated legitimately the morning of Dec.
26, and a goodly profit will have been had by all.  Christmas sales
was probably the whole idea behind this no-strings deal- it would make
sense.  Cell phones are a VERY hard gift to market for any company
that doesn't allow no-contract cash and carry.  Sprint does a great
Christmas business compared to say Verizon or Cingular because the
phone can be bought by someone other than the user and activated later
from home.  Maybe AT&T and BB were testing a similar scheme?  AT&T is
probably confident their phones are locked well enough to prevent the
majority from being used improperly.  An ESN "blacklist" with the
other US carriers would take care of most "fraud" situations.

> ... unfortunately BB and CC lose out on that
> compensation because the ESNs never reach the system since they are
> either flashed or burnt out or sent to another country for
> reprogramming...

Relax- the prices aren't THAT good that ATTWS is getting hurt-
although my area BBs didn't do this, they might as well have- all the
AT&T phones are priced high in the stores with generous in-store and
mail-in rebates for activation.  Even if they sold them "no activation
required", nobody would be buying a phone for $25- unless they
activated it in-store.  The bulk of the low price comes from $100
rebates from ATTWS- I doubt they intend to mail those rebate checks to
T-Mobile customers with unlocked AT&T phones! ;-)