Cricket reputation?

[jordanm]

Why does everybody think Cricket is only for poor people? I run my own computer repair business, and am a network administrator, and Cricket has been amazing! My service has been fantastic, I've had great customer service at my Cricket store, I can only say good things about it! I used to have Verizon, and the coverage was better, but it was very VERY expensive. My average bill was in the hundreRAB of dollars!! And now that Cricket recently got the MVNO agreement with Sprint, the coverage is even greater! So why do I only usually see lower income people in Cricket stores? I don't get it.

[Nahtasha]

Corabination of image and how they set up their business model in the beginning. Also, doesn't help when they open up Cricket Corp. stores in the ghetto area to operate. They are slowly moving out of the image and more of a serious nationwide competititor but like Chris Brown, it will take a while to get that stigma out of consumers mind.

[riks]

The Cricket store I went to was actually in a fairly nice location. Nowhere near the ghetto of my city. It's a small store, but quite functional. Maybe a name change is in order. I mean, Cricket? Doesn't sound like a wireless company.

[brother_razia]

;^) Heh. Neither does Verizon or Sprint, nor any other carrier, really. Except T-Mobile, which has Mobile in the name. The truth is, we associate the more well-known names with what they do only because they've advertised as us for so long. Similarly, Xerox is a character from mythology, but what to we think of instead? And why? That's the power of advertising, my friend....

[yeedon]

You've got a point there. haha! I'm just frustrated that I'm the only person out of many of my friend's and family who have Cricket. I have seen a couple clients of mine with Cricket, and these people were not low income. I don't know why Cricket isn't more popular. Especially since now they signed that MVNO agreement with Sprint. More coverage. Do people just like paying hundred dollar bills a month, and not being able to leave? It's strange...

[buckaboy16]

:^/ I think the biggest attraction is the subsidized upfront purchase price of the phone. My Treo 755p (Sprint), new, cost $585 without contract. Sprint would have let my buy it for $200, with a two year contract, then charged $100 per month for the same service Cricket sold for $50 per month.

The $385 savings up front would have been more than made up by Sprint on the eighth month of the contract, with sixteen months more to go. So, I went with Cricket, instead. Over the first two years, the $50 savings each month added up to $1,200, or over three times what Sprint would have covered. In the long run, Cricket was the wiser investment.

;^)°؛(Not to mentions a heck of a lot more fun....)

[Laugh It Off =)]

Definitely, I've saved a bunch of money. Plus, flashing old Razr's to Cricket and tinkering around with them is pretty fun!

[Krystal<3]

I agree... I'm self employed and used to have 2 blackberries on Verizon and paid 3x more than I do now. Once my contract ran out, I started reading about options and to me Cricket just made sense... Cricket definitely has a reputation for being only for lower income, but I believe with the newer phone options like the android and blackberry and stores in opening various markets things will change.

[Teyety Raetyaert]

Oh Definately. I love my service. Maybe Cricket and MetroPCS will join one day? Hopefully Cricket doesn't get bought out by anybody like Alltel did.

[Green beans are gross!]

I don't think that Cricket is for lower income people. I'm a transit driver and have numerous properties that I own and manage. Its really about being smart money wise. Why pay $130 for monthly service when you can spend $50. The reason I think lower income individuals have Cricket is because they aren't doing credit checks and don't want a huge down payment. All the other carriers are missing out when it comes to that. I love my Cricket service, never dropped calls, always crystal clear. Plus I save so much money.