Unbound Edition - AT&T "Accelerates" Their Stupidity

Earlier this week, AT&T announced it will accelerate the death of the Cingular brand by removing its name from all in-store signage, marketing materials, etc. The main reason given for speeding up the process is an expected savings of $2.8 billion in what AT&T is calling “related synergies with an estimated net present value.” Um, what?

Cingular was – and still is, though perhaps not for long – synonymous with wireless. The brand was young, fresh and hip. AT&T, on the other hand, is big, old and uncool. Sort of like my uncle who thinks he’s trendy because he wears Crocs. (Sorry, Uncle Tom, it’s just not working for you.)

When asked about the decision, Wendy Clark, vice president of advertising at AT&T, said, “We came to understand that consumer customers and business customers alike are looking for a single provider. We heard it so consistently across the marketplace.”

First, I find it interesting that this statement came from the vice president of advertising. Where is the voice of the brand manager? Second, I see no problem with AT&T being a single provider of a number of products. That doesn’t mean they all have to be named AT&T. AT&T should be the umbrella brand, with a portfolio of products offered underneath it, including DSL, Cingular Wireless, AT&T local phone service and DISH satellite cable service. Finally, the Cingular brand is valued at $6 billion. Enough said.

I personally don’t understand why they would want to throw away such a valuable asset. People know and love Cingular. As far as I have seen, there has yet to be a shift in the way consumers talk about AT&T/Cingular/AT&T. My boyfriend and I still talk about how Cingular has the most dropped calls, in our experience, even though the ads tell you otherwise. People talk about the Cingular ad where the girl and mother talk in text. We ask family and friends if they have Cingular so that we can use our mobile-to-mobile minutes. My phone still has the little orange dude on the front of it.

Part of me hopes AT&T’s rebranding effort fails and they realize what a huge mistake it was to discard the Cingular brand. Then again, part of me just wants a cellular service provider with some consistency. After all, “the new Cingular brought to you by the old AT&T that was formerly Cingular” doesn’t have a great ring(tone) to it.

the truth!
written by Farting Jim, May 25, 2007 12:35 PM

this gal speaks it. hot damn. big foolish old company, tis true. no real brand approach, tis true. and don't forget that at t means "the phone company" to most people, and that is just dumb in an age of wireless and tv and broadband. i also find it really weird that they advertise "the fewest dropped calls". my experience with cingular is just like yours - shitty. i suspect they have the fewest dropped calls because they have the fewest CONNECTED calls to begin with! probably some shady marketing data like that behind the totally unbelievable claims.

Agreed.
written by Paul, May 25, 2007 01:47 PM

But my memories of Cingular will always be clouded by their 2002 Superbowl marketing campaign, "What's a Cingular?" (or something along those lines where they didn't tell you what they do). When I finally got through to their site which had crashed multiple times under heavy traffic and saw, hey, it's just a cell company, I was pretty disappointed. They haven't exactly done that much exciting since, with most of their growth seemingly coming though buyouts. I think that this is a clearly move to try to equal Verizon, which does the landline-dsl-cell-directv packaging. But yes, I agree that it's even harder to get excited about AT&T as a brand, even "the new" AT&T.

my understanding
written by Phillip C. Campbell, May 29, 2007 01:31 PM

"related synergies with an estimated net present value"

Im guessing they did math.
They are saying it costs 2.8 billion to maintain two identities.

My saying net present value, im guessing that they looked at the 2.8 billion they were spending to maintain the two identities and figure that consolidating the identities would indeed lose them customers, but less than 2.8 billions worth.

Therefore netting a higher percent in value.