AT&T is once again a major player in the competitive mix…at least in name. Last week, SBC said it will change its name to AT&T following the companies merger, expected later this year.
At close, the new company will unveil a fresh, new logo. After completion of the merger, the transition to the new brand will be heavily promoted with the largest multimedia advertising and marketing campaign in either company’s history, as well as through other promotional initiatives. At close, the company will also announce the stock market ticker symbol it intends to use.
With SBC preparing to roll out IPTV services on a large scale using relatively untested hardware and software, its adoption of the AT&T brand could revive the latter’s tattered reputation for cutting edge technology. But, if the IPTV rollout seriously falters, the AT&T brand could receive its final death blow, especially as the generational shift continues from Ma Bell-loving grannies to iPod toting digital multitaskers.
The history of the AT&T brand in the past two decades closely parallels the major milestones and competitive trends in the telecom industry. To quote the Grateful Dead, “what a long, strange trip its been.”
Roughly two decades ago, AT&T’s long-distance unit was split from its local operations, which were immediately dubbed the seven Baby Bells. A decade or so later, Congress passed the Telecom Act, which was designed to break down regulatory barriers between local and long distance, and between voice, video and data.
Though the Act’s policy goals have been partly achieved, the decade following its passage has been characterized by an endless cycle of FCC rulings and legal challenges that continue to this day. Though the ride has been bumpy for the Bells, it has been truly grueling for AT&T and other IXCs, and for the many CLECs that came and went as investors and regulators opened then closed various doors to competitive entry and opportunity.
Along the way, AT&T attempted to extend and revitalize its brand in the emerging broadband space by buying TCI, the nation’s largest cable operator. The TCI systems were generally in poor shape technically and were not managed especially well by AT&T, which was under mounting pressure from Wall Street to get its financial and competitive house in order. After failing to convince Wall Street its cable investment was smart one and to wow consumers with its broadband branding effort, AT&T finally sold its cable systems to Comcast.
The next phase of the AT&T brand saga will be rolled out amidst the recombining of Ma Bell’s remaining long-distance business with the largest single chunk of its former local network operation. It also comes amidst mounting competition between telco and cable “triple-play (or quadruple-play) bundles, both of which are increasingly under threat from IP-based services delivered by independent service providers via the open Internet. It also comes at a time when Congress is considering a major rewrite of the Telecom Act that will likely have major impacts on the competitive prospects of these three (and other) industry sectors.
It seems somehow fitting (or maybe ironic?) that the AT&T brand will remain part of the mix in today’s raging battle over regulatory models, competitive advantage and customer loyalty. SBC is hoping that a revitalized AT&T brand will help it and its customers build a bridge from the past to the future. It may be right. If its wrong, the venerable brand will likely seal its fate as a symbol of a carrier-controlled analog past that was ultimately replaced by a consumer-controlled digital future.
Mitch Shapiro at 3:33 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
