morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Any info on why?
said by MyDogHsFleas  :It seems strange that they would kill an established brand and infrastructure remember cingular? people liked that company.
remember sbc? although not liked to the same level, that name and corporate attitude was definitely liked more than at&t.
forget all the $ spent on branding and general marketing. let's just turn everything back into at&t.
add callvantage to the list. kill it. resurrect it in a more horrible form. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by morbo :said by MyDogHsFleas :It seems strange that they would kill an established brand and infrastructure remember cingular? people liked that company. agree -- but that really was just a rebranding. it was still cingular, just with a different name.
remember sbc? although not liked to the same level, that name and corporate attitude was definitely liked more than at&t.
Disagree -- SBC was hated, AT&T had a generally positive branding. Only here in dslreports.com does insane AT&T hatred fester. Check it out in the real world.
forget all the $ spent on branding and general marketing. let's just turn everything back into at&t.
add callvantage to the list. kill it. resurrect it in a more horrible form.
??? well that has not at all informative. I was looking for INFORMATION. That was pretty much just some random spew. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| rebranding is killing the established brand, especially when you aren't tweaking the brand but renaming it after old ma-bell.
who says at&t had a more positive branding than sbc? the reason they went to at&t was people were more aware of the name at&t over sbc. not it had a more positive view from the public. the public doesn't forget the old monopoly days. everyone does know who at&t is though.
in addition, the at&t wireless brand that was milked in its final months of all that was good (customer service, call quality, etc.) the at&t name was trashed for several months if not longer, while the corporate structure essentially sold out the consumers.
even if you disagree with the sbc comments, just look at how they took the cingular brand and threw a sack of crap on top of it, renaming it 'at&t wireless'. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Cingular wasn't renamed at&t wireless- the legal name of the wireless company was changed to "AT&T Mobility LLC", but the only brand they want you to use is at&t, without any descriptor- which probably works better in places like here where there's no landline at&t to deal with.
I always found it funny that Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless (which DID use that name), spent tons of money to say "AT&T Wireless is now Cingular", and then very shortly after had to spend tons of money to say "Cingular is now 'the new' at&t". |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| By changing the legal name of the company it they did rebrand it. How? They do NOT use the name Cingular anymore except on their wireless network when you search for GSM carriers for signal. That's it. Everything else says ATT. cingular.com goes to wireless.att.com thats is a rebrand. Their commericals say ATT Wireless. NOT Cingular.
They rebranded the company weather you want to agree or not. Rebranding is when you change the name of a company and no longer use the old one in marketing or any other form. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
AT&T did NOT have a good name with people.. in the real world it wasn't well liked. It only had one thing going; it had name recognition. As a company, AT&T was was not consumer friendly.. they violated law after law... and they didn't do much innovating for years. They purchased a good cable conglomerate and gutted and fillet it and left those customers to rot.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but AT&T was a horrible company.. even outside BBR. (And I don't agree with BBR very often) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to EPS
Great time to plug the great Steven Colbert piece on AT&T... 
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6nuwQmhrZ8 |
|
SolarPup
Cable Dawg
Premium
join:2002-03-07
The Pound
clubs: | That's friggin hilarious! |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :AT&T did NOT have a good name with people.. in the real world it wasn't well liked. It only had one thing going; it had name recognition. As a company, AT&T was was not consumer friendly.. they violated law after law... and they didn't do much innovating for years. They purchased a good cable conglomerate and gutted and fillet it and left those customers to rot. I'm sorry to disagree with you but AT&T was a horrible company.. even outside BBR. (And I don't agree with BBR very often) AT&T was so brilliant they invented the transistor and sold it to the Japanese for $50,000. The breakup of AT&T was a great thing. Before, you rented a POS phone. Now, you can buy your own.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to hottboiinnc
No commercials say "at&t Wireless", they just say "at&t". That was my point  |
|
Guy Waters
join:2001-12-04
San Francisco, CA
| reply to morbo
Just remember it's the SBC executives at the helm of the new AT&T. SBC only purchased AT&T for the nationwide name recognition and the nationwide network backbone. Other than that they had no other real intrerst in the company.
It was Cingular as a joint venture of SBC/BellSouth that purchased the original AT&T Wireless and merged it into the Cingular brand name. Then changed the name to AT&T Mobility after purchasing BellSouth.
SBC has been sucessful in highlighting the blame for bad service on the AT&T name. |
|
Guy Waters
join:2001-12-04
San Francisco, CA
| reply to EPS
It was politics. SBC couldn't purchase AT&T Wireless while they were in a joint venture with BellSouth in Cingular. Once SBC purchased BellSouth they could then resurect the AT&T name.
My personal opinion is SBC wanted 100% control of Cingular and it was less expensive to purchase all of BellSouth than to purchase BellSouth's 40% of Cingular. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Guy Waters :My personal opinion is SBC wanted 100% control of Cingular and it was less expensive to purchase all of BellSouth than to purchase BellSouth's 40% of Cingular. how do you figure? without cingular's profit for bellsouth, they could have watched as the company slowly withered away on the vine and then plucked it up a few years later. a la qwest. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Guy Waters
said by Guy Waters :SBC has been sucessful in highlighting the blame for bad service on the AT&T name. !!! no they haven't. |
|
