More ganularity in the rates offered
Answered

I wonder how ting rounds up usage. Say if someone consumes 550 min of voice for a specific month. Will Ting round it to the lower tier or higher block tier?

Also is Ting contemplating finer granularity in their plans (which are awesome by the way), similar to what say ZACT is currently offering?

1

Comments

7 comments
  • Hi Amjad, we don't round, but bill based on the tier that you fall into. Using 550 minutes will place you in the L minute bucket since that's between 500-1000 minutes.  We don't have any plans to change our rates or add any tiers right now. Thanks for the questions and the feedback!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I too would vote for more Tier to be added if there is any voting option for this :)

    It hurts to see that bump to the 1000 price level if you only use 50 more than your current tier. In my case I average a little less then 200 minutes and is bumped into the 500 bucket.  

    Ting have great support and so far the alternatives is not as stable as Ting but I believe that once competition sets in then Ting will have to reconsider adding more tier. 

    Let us face it Ting customers as well as Republic, Zact as well as prepaid no contract phones are into these plans to save money and most only use these phone for important calls and backup for emergency and not to chat with friends for hours and hours.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Instead of more tiers I think we should be able to get 2 or more smaller buckets. After all technically the smaller buckets are at a higher price per minutes. Having to pay even more for an arbitrarily defined larger bucket with many minutes that are not used is  very similar to what the big phone companies do. Granted Ting is vastly cheaper so it's still worth gritting your teeth and taking it but I'm hoping for an improved billing system.

    That said, I was considering adding my parents to my account but It looks like it's better to keep the accounts separate and be able to have multiple smaller buckets. The same may be true for people with multiple devices on a single account.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Hi Siguie, we can assure you that the bucket tiers were not arbitrarily defined. A lot of thought and analysis went into defining them. Under our current rate structure, we're able to save a lot of people money. Moving it around may cause some people to save more, but others less. Pricing is something we're very sensitive to, so we hear you, we do. Changes to our model will be considered with a heavy, heavy hand. We really don't want to get into the business of modifying our prices because we can (like some other carriers we know of, ahem).

    Our customer base has really shaped who are. We really appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Heya Brennan, I apologize I didn't mean to offend anyone by implying no thought was given to choosing those tiers. I swear I'm really very Pro Ting and if you make no changes at all to your pricing structure I'm ok with it. I'm really just voicing my opinion and purely from a customers point of view.

     

    So that said The ting video "Ting Ask an Exec: Ting's pricing model" http://youtu.be/60aEyQ5ikvY was very helpful in understanding why Ting chose a bucket system. The analogy given by the behavioral economist Dan Ariely is that the most economical way to price a meal is by the bite BUT that so negatively impacts the enjoyment of the meal that it would be a very poor pricing structure for a company like Ting. Ok heavily paraphrased but that was the gist of it.

    SO from that perspective it's easy to see why Ting members emphasize overall value regardless of which bucket one falls in, which is true and a perfectly valid argument.

    My point is NOT to create more buckets, I think they are fine as is. What I would like to see is the option to get two appetizers instead of one main course OR a big bucket and a smaller one. This way people who go slightly into the next tier wont feel they are overpaying for minutes they will not be able to use. {e.g. using 590 minutes would be charged $9 + $3 =$12 instead of $18 for the large bucket saving the customer $6 and not feeling like you threw away over 400 minutes}

     

    I admit I don't know how this would effect your profits but it does not require adding more tiers and it would make those unhappy people much happier and to me it just makes more sense ... which is why I keep going on about it.

    Like I said before I really am happy with Ting and if/when I want to save a few bucks I can always switch calls to data, use multiple accounts for different devices or just use my Obi100 more. I just think tweaking the bucket system is a good idea.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Thanks for the input Siguie. No offense was taken, trust me. The more insight you provide from your perspective, the better.

    The addition of a second billing level would likely save people money, but it also adds complexity to the rate structure. Our ethos is to keep things simple. Part of that simplicity is having a rate structure that anyone can glance at and easily understand.

    An interesting article was written in the Wall Street Journal that found "complex plans make comparison shopping nearly impossible, a tool that discourages customers from jumping ship. The four major carriers offer a total of nearly 700 combinations of smartphone plans."

    We aim to keep mobile simple for anyone so that making the transition to Ting from a major carrier, is as smooth and painless as possible. Hope that helps!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • That is an excellent point, adding complexity would discourage new customers as well as go against what Ting is apparently striving for. So if you look at what I'm saying the only people who would be effected will be those that fall just inside the next sized bucket on their billing date.

    Presumably your bucket sizes were chosen by taking the data of a large number of cellphone customers looking at the peak zones and going a couple of standard deviations in either direction to bullseye where the majority of people will land. This majority would not be effected in anyway, there is no reason to change any of your webpages, not even your calculator.

    This secondary bucket would only effect those people who scooched a little too far into the next larger bucket. It's already clear that Ting understands that people hate that feeling of being penalized for going just a little over since they implemented grace amounts. So instead of saying there is some quasi-fixed grace percentage just charge for a secondary bucket if the cost is less than the bigger bucket.

    Those people deciding to switch to Ting do not need this information to make their decision and at worst will be pleasantly surprised. 

     

    Like I said before I'm good regardless! I just think that secondary buckets would make people happier overall and while some would certainly be paying less others will likely be less anxious about entering the next bucket level.

     

    On a side note if you did adopt a multibucket system I'd also ask to get rid of grace, it's nice and I appreciate it but I actually prefer to pay for what I use.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.