NEWS: AT&T Prepares to ‘De-Brand’ the Cingular Wireless Name

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/technology/12phone.html>

One of the biggest "de-brandings" in advertising history is to begin
Monday when AT&T, now the sole owner of Cingular Wireless, starts
changing all Cingular marketing to adopt the AT&T name.

AT&T will not disclose the budget for the campaign, which will
continue for five or six months -- leading to the partnership with
Apple on the new iPhone, scheduled for midyear.

A campaign last year to promote AT&T as the new brand name of SBC
Communications cost an estimated $1 billion.

...

"We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision lightly,"
Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at AT&T in San
Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the name of
Cingular, the nation’s largest mobile carrier.

"What consumer and business customers want is a single provider of
services for the way they live and work today," Ms. Clark said, "and
if it’s one company, they want it under one name."

...

The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
AT&T globe. The AT&T slogan, "Your world delivered," replaces the
Cingular slogan, "Raising the bar."

AT&T will keep some familiar elements of Cingular ads, said Karen E.
Jennings, senior executive vice president for advertising and
corporate communications at AT&T. For example, the actor Stanley
Tucci, who serves as the announcer in Cingular commercials, will be
heard in AT&T commercials, she said. And the color orange will turn
up in ads for what AT&T will call "wireless service from AT&T"; THE
NAME AT&T WIRELESS WILL NOT BE REVIVED. [emphasis added]

Ms. Clark said that AT&T planned to continue working with the BBDO
Worldwide agency, which created ads for Cingular.


[MORE]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:18:57 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
> AT&T globe.


Also known as the AT&T Deathstar

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:18:57 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
>> AT&T globe.
>
>
> Also known as the AT&T Deathstar


I thought it was the at&t Deathstar.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ru1gq2l2tmk5v19td49ts3orhuluhapdtl@4ax.com:

><http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/technology/12phone.html>
>
> One of the biggest "de-brandings" in advertising history is to
> begin Monday when AT&T, now the sole owner of Cingular Wireless,
> starts changing all Cingular marketing to adopt the AT&T name.
>
> AT&T will not disclose the budget for the campaign, which will
> continue for five or six months -- leading to the partnership
> with Apple on the new iPhone, scheduled for midyear.
>
> A campaign last year to promote AT&T as the new brand name of SBC
> Communications cost an estimated $1 billion.
>
> ...
>
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> name of Cingular, the nation’s largest mobile carrier.


<snip>

So is this Cingular or AT&T service? When I renew my contract (maybe
I should say *IF*), will I need to pay an activation fee again for the
"new" service?

I was so fried when Cingular took over AT&T wireless - we had AT&T for
years and renewed with Cingular (since AT&T was now owned by them and
we had no other choice) and they charged an activation fee and I
didn't get a free phone upgrade as I always had with AT&T. Well, the
contract was done by the time we got the bill showing the activation
fee (funny, the manager forgot to mention that).

Our two years are up and we're wondering what to do now......


Sherry

At 12 Jan 2007 23:30:38 -0600 Sherry wrote:

> So is this Cingular or AT&T service?

It's a name change only. The new AT&T is the curent Cingular.

> When I renew my contract (maybe
> I should say *IF*), will I need to pay an activation fee again for the
> "new" service?

No. When you last renewed, you were moving from the old ATTWS to their
purchaser. Cingular bought ATTWS (which, ironically no longer had any
relation to the old AT&T, who was bought by Southwestern Bell, half-owner
of Cingular. SWB renamed itself AT&T, then merged with Bell South, who
owned the other half of Cingular. Now that "the new AT&T" owns all of
Cingular, renaming it AT&T as well makes sense)
>
> I was so fried when Cingular took over AT&T wireless - we had AT&T for
> years and renewed with Cingular (since AT&T was now owned by them and
> we had no other choice) and they charged an activation fee and I
> didn't get a free phone upgrade as I always had with AT&T.

What do you mean "you had no other choice?" You could've switched to a
different carrier if you wanted whenever you completed your AT&T Wireless
contract. (I'm not suggesting that you SHOULD have, only that you could
have.)

> Well, the
> contract was done by the time we got the bill showing the activation
> fee (funny, the manager forgot to mention that).
>
> Our two years are up and we're wondering what to do now......

If you're happy enough with the service, why not just continue month to
month until you have a reason to renew (like needing new phones, for
example.) In my ten years with Cingular (starting when they were
"Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems" in my area) I was under a contract
probably for only three or four of them. In my current six-plus years
with T-Mo, I'm finishing up my 3rd one-year contract this April. Unless
I want a substantial discount on a new phone, I don't need or want a
contract.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In <45a8677a$0$4846$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> writes:
[ snip ]
>If you're happy enough with the service, why not just continue month to
>month until you have a reason to renew (like needing new phones, for
>example.) In my ten years with Cingular (starting when they were
>"Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems" in my area) I was under a contract
>probably for only three or four of them. In my current six-plus years
>with T-Mo, I'm finishing up my 3rd one-year contract this April. Unless
>I want a substantial discount on a new phone, I don't need or want a
>contract.

It might be worth going for a contract anyway. When I
renewed and they (in my case, T-Mobile) offerred me
a phone, I said I was quite satisfied with the one
I had.

I wound up getting a month's "free" service instead.

(the sixth month of the one year contract had the
basic fees waived. The taxes and non tax taxes and
similar charges were still there... In short, though,
it saved me about $40).


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 13 Jan 2007 06:03:42 +0000 danny burstein wrote:

> It might be worth going for a contract anyway. When I
> renewed and they (in my case, T-Mobile) offerred me
> a phone, I said I was quite satisfied with the one
> I had.
>
> I wound up getting a month's "free" service instead.
>
> (the sixth month of the one year contract had the
> basic fees waived. The taxes and non tax taxes and
> similar charges were still there... In short, though,
> it saved me about $40).

The problem is, had your phone broken during the first few months of your
contract, you'd be inelligible for the best pricing on a replacement for
quite awhile.

To each his own- to me, the freedom to switch carriers or negotiate a
better deal (when I need one) is worth more than $40.

BTW, I don't know if they're blowing smoke or not, but some at Howard
Forums have claimed to hold out for two months free (the 6th and 12th,)
doing what you described .



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.

Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
obviously, was passed on to the consumer. I hated the thought of having that
stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.

In article <D%4qh.3$eB3.2@newsfe08.lga>, "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote:

> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> > lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> > AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> > name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
> obviously, was passed on to the consumer.

At that point in time the purchase agreement for AT&TWS only gave
Cingulkar 6 months of use of the ATT name. That was a year before SBC
bought AT&T and adopted the name.



> I hated the thought of having that
> stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
> terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
> work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
> getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
> Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.

Ric wrote:
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
>> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
>> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
>> name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place.

It was different. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, not AT&T which is a
totally different company. AT&T merged with SBC which owned the other
half of Cingular.

The most important change is "The nearly 15,000 employees in these
stores and kiosks will begin wearing AT&T-branded apparel in coming months."