Bigger =/= Better!
A smaller, leaner company is more aggressive in serving its customers because it needs to b...
(continues)
A smaller, leaner company is more aggressive in serving its customers because it needs to be, it can't afford to be complacent and ignore what the customers want because they take the attitude that "we're huge, so they'll like it or they'll lump it."Tmobile would trade its smaller customer base for 40 million subscribers in a New York minute. You can't rationalize that fact under the rug.
muchdrama said:A smaller, leaner company is more aggressive in serving its customers because it needs to be, it can't afford to be complacent and ignore what the customers want because they take the attitude that "we're huge, so they'll like it or they'll lump it."Tmobile would trade its smaller customer base for 40 million subscribers in a New York minute. You can't rationalize that fact under the rug.
But not at too high a price--ATT was for sale for anyone who wanted to take it on, and don't think that DT couldn't afford it! It's not a question of rationalization, it's a question of solid business practices. Mergers and acquisitions are quite frequently NOT the best way ...
(continues)
Aleq said:...muchdrama said:A smaller, leaner company is more aggressive in serving its customers because it needs to be, it can't afford to be complacent and ignore what the customers want because they take the attitude that "we're huge, so they'll like it or they'll lump it."Tmobile would trade its smaller customer base for 40 million subscribers in a New York minute. You can't rationalize that fact under the rug.
But not at too high a price--ATT was for sale for anyone who wanted to take it on, and don't think that DT couldn't afford it! It's not a question of rationalization, it's a question of solid business practices. Mergers and acquisitions are qui
(continues)
Along with the good you acquire comes the bad--in the case of ATT it was a staggering amount of debt and a really ticked off bunch of customers. I really prefer being part of a nice "boutique" company that's building its reputation and clientele from ground up by making customers happy, the karma is much better.P.S.--For all that staggering amount of bad karma, the new Cingular was certainly able to parlay it into a suprisingly strong 4th quarter. As for your boutique company...if they have continued success, Tmobile will eventually attain "non-boutique" status.
muchdrama said:Along with the good you acquire comes the bad--in the case of ATT it was a staggering amount of debt and a really ticked off bunch of customers. I really prefer being part of a nice "boutique" company that's building its reputation and clientele from ground up by making customers happy, the karma is much better.P.S.--For all that staggering amount of bad karma, the new Cingular was certainly able to parlay it into a suprisingly strong 4th quarter. As for your boutique company...if they have continued success, Tmobile will eventually attain "non-boutique" status.
And that's fine, too, because companies that started out smaller tend to keep the same ethos into being...
(continues)
izon66 said:
T-mobile is only small in the U.S. In Europe it's the monster. 😈
In all honesty, Vodafone is the monster. I don't know how we rank next to Orange, but they're very large, too. I think T-Mobile is #2 or #3 in size world wide...not 100% sure.
guitarman21 said:
Check this out:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2005/ ... »
🙂 😎
Any chance of a cut/paste for those of us trapped behind corporate firewalls? 😉
Aleq said:Essentially it's a report on a survey by Vocal Laboratories on carrier customer service ratings. Tmobile came out on top, closely followed by (it's a tie!) Verizon and Cingular. The report goes on to say how surprising Verizon's drop is. Uh oh.guitarman21 said:
Check this out:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2005/ ... »
🙂 😎
Any chance of a cut/paste for those of us trapped behind corporate firewalls? 😉
Aleq said:Shaun of the Dead was terribly quick witted. What a great flick. As for the zombie drone...it's been drilled into their brain by coporate. You just have to able to read between the lines to understand there are alternatives.
Coolness... Am I the only one who gets a tad irritated by the mindless lockstep zombie drone, "Beeeeessst neeetttwoorrrrkk, llleeeasst ddroopppedd callssss, mmoossst coovverragge, brrraaainns..." from the VZW crowd? It gets terribly "Shaun of the Dead" sometimes... 🤣
Aleq said:Garden State was my favorite movie of 2004. Period. Napoleon was stupid funny. Like Dude Where's My Car.
I loved that movie, right from the opening title sequence I was laughing hysterically and by the time it got to the end I had to take a breather, then watch it again to catch all the foreshadowing comments and movie references, classic! Watched "Garden State" the same day, and really liked it as well, but for some reason "Napoleon Dynamite" left me a bit cold. I don't take as much amusement from annoying losers as a lot of people seem to do... I have to admit, though, it was a bit better on second viewing, but I still wanted to slap everybody in it...
P.S.--The soundtrack to Garden State is ...
(continues)
Zach Braff has a lot of promise, I think he's going to make a name for himself. I love "Scrubs," and he did an amusing turn as an extravagantly queer boy in an indie movie whose title escapes me at the moment. And yeah, I have the soundtrack on copy request from a friend as we speak... 😉
Aleq said:Extravagantly queer. I just called a gay friend of mine and he loved it too. LOL.
Dunno, the guys in "Dude, Where's My Car" were baked and goofy, not stupid loser types, so I found it a LOT funnier.
Zach Braff has a lot of promise, I think he's going to make a name for himself. I love "Scrubs," and he did an amusing turn as an extravagantly queer boy in an indie movie whose title escapes me at the moment. And yeah, I have the soundtrack on copy request from a friend as we speak... 😉