Rebranding ATT Wireless stores?

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

> Scott Stephenson wrote:
> > its kind of interesting to see the troll with nothing better
> > to complain about than a bunch of signs. No talk about secret recalls, his
> > frequent calls to ES, etc. He almost acts like all other bridges have been
> > burned, and this is his only option.


Yup, when you can't adequately answer the question at hand: i.e. is
Cingular doing a VERY poor job of rebranding AT&T Woreless stores,
instead lauinch into personal attacks.

How infantile.

---

› See More: Rebranding ATT Wireless stores?

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
> > it, Cingular didnt.
>
> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending money,
> troll.

They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
purchase was completed.

Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?, Launch into infantile personal insults
instead.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
>> > it, Cingular didnt.
>>
>> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending money,
>> troll.
>
>They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
>purchase was completed.

You obviously don't understand much about mergers. I was at Turner
Broadcasting years ago when the merger with Time Warner was announced.
While we were reading lots of reports about how this would affect the
company and speculation about plans, it took ages before anything
actually happened.

They first hired McKinsey & Co. to do a study about what to keep, who
to keep, etc., and then had to do the actual work. These things take
longer than you might think.

Whether or not they should have made smaller, temporary signage even
for stores that may be closed soon is a valid point. But, for one
reason or another, they've opted not to do it. The New York Times is
still featuring AT&T Wireless ads. Only on the bottom of the ad do you
find any mention of the company now being part of Cingular. Yes, ad
buys are made long in advance and can't easily be canceled, but one
could also argue they could have made new creative material for
national buys at this point.

For one reason or another, they're not choosing to do things like that
at this point. That probably integration plans and actions aren't
going as quickly as first anticipated.

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>>its kind of interesting to see the troll with nothing better
>>>to complain about than a bunch of signs. No talk about secret recalls, his
>>>frequent calls to ES, etc. He almost acts like all other bridges have been
>>>burned, and this is his only option.
>
>
>
> Yup, when you can't adequately answer the question at hand: i.e. is
> Cingular doing a VERY poor job of rebranding AT&T Woreless stores,
> instead lauinch into personal attacks.
>
> How infantile.

Hey Scott, maybe this IS him. He was crowing about leaving Sprint for Cingular
a couple months ago, but now he's found something to whine about at Cingular...

Posting through Earthlink, but I can't tell from where...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 Nov
2004 17:38:35 GMT, FUDMEISTER Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>> > its kind of interesting to see the troll with nothing better
>> > to complain about than a bunch of signs. No talk about secret recalls, his
>> > frequent calls to ES, etc. He almost acts like all other bridges have been
>> > burned, and this is his only option.
>
>Yup, when you can't adequately answer the question at hand: i.e. is

There is no real question, just meaningless FUD.

>How infantile.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 Nov
2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
>> > it, Cingular didnt.
>>
>> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending money,
>> troll.
>
>They had six months to get ready,

Nope (as we've explained to you several times).

>and by now its 4 weeks since the
>purchase was completed.

[yawn]

>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?,

There is no real question, just meaningless FUD. Pathetic FUD at that.

>Launch into infantile personal insults
>instead.

You've got that backwards.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:47:13
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>>
>>> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
>>> > it, Cingular didnt.
>>>
>>> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending money,
>>> troll.
>>
>>They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
>>purchase was completed.
>
>You obviously don't understand much about mergers. ...

Or anything else for that matter.

>... That probably integration plans and actions aren't
>going as quickly as first anticipated.

I'm personally impressed by how fast Cingular has been moving, much faster
than I expected.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Jack Zwick wrote:
> >>
> >> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
> >> > it, Cingular didnt.
> >>
> >> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending
> >> money,
> >> troll.
> >
> >They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
> >purchase was completed.
>
> You obviously don't understand much about mergers. I was at Turner
> Broadcasting years ago when the merger with Time Warner was announced.
> While we were reading lots of reports about how this would affect the
> company and speculation about plans, it took ages before anything
> actually happened.

Duh - INSTANTLY they were calling it CNN, a Time-Warner station.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:07:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jack Zwick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready. CVS did
>> >> > it, Cingular didnt.
>> >>
>> >> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without spending
>> >> money,
>> >> troll.
>> >
>> >They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
>> >purchase was completed.
>>
>> You obviously don't understand much about mergers. I was at Turner
>> Broadcasting years ago when the merger with Time Warner was announced.
>> While we were reading lots of reports about how this would affect the
>> company and speculation about plans, it took ages before anything
>> actually happened.
>
>Duh - INSTANTLY they were calling it CNN, a Time-Warner station.

But again you don't realize that movies were in theaters for months
identifying Castle Rock Entertainment, which became part of Time
Warner through its 1996 acquisition of Turner Broadcasting, as a
Turner company even after the deal had closed. They didn't recall all
those movie prints once the merger was approved by federal regulators.

Some things can be done easily, some can't. And there are some cases,
where a conscientious choice is made to delay what could be easy in an
effort to concentrate on more difficult tasks. Given reports that
still emerged today about difficulties of meshing the two networks,
I'd say there's no question where you'd see their efforts.
See:
http://news.com.com/Problems+dividin...l?tag=nefd.hed

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hey Scott, maybe this IS him. He was crowing about leaving Sprint for
Cingular
> a couple months ago, but now he's found something to whine about at
Cingular...

It's him- he even uses some of the lame, false figures and rants he posted
back in the day. Its kinda hard for him to hide- you can only polish a turd
so much, and at the end of the day its still a turd.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Contingency planning Steve. Dont spend the money, just be ready.
CVS did
> > >> > it, Cingular didnt.
> > >>
> > >> Be ready? They couldn't get all of the new signage up without
spending
> > >> money,
> > >> troll.
> > >
> > >They had six months to get ready, and by now its 4 weeks since the
> > >purchase was completed.
> >
> > You obviously don't understand much about mergers. I was at Turner
> > Broadcasting years ago when the merger with Time Warner was announced.
> > While we were reading lots of reports about how this would affect the
> > company and speculation about plans, it took ages before anything
> > actually happened.
>
> Duh - INSTANTLY they were calling it CNN, a Time-Warner station.

And the Cingular name is associated with everything ATTW- what's the
difference? But you have yet to explain the problem with a company selling
multiple brands of a product. Not that I expect one- you have shown an
amazing lack of business knowledge in every thread having to do with this
subject. It actually comes across like a six year old whining because his
Pokemon cards came in a green package and not the blue package.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
said in alt.cellular:

>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?

Rebranding the stores?

I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
- why should he have to accept a changed number?)

They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:38 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> >said in alt.cellular:
> >
> >>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
> >>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
> >
> >Rebranding the stores?
> >
> >I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
> >straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
> >port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
> >- why should he have to accept a changed number?)
>
> Exactly -- and given the problems that were reported Monday with
> former AT&T Wireless not being able to access legacy Cingular
> infrastructure and vice versa, I'd say they have bigger fish to fry
> right now than signage.
> >
> >They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.

The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
November 15, and after all John Navas said the back office software was
compatible and integration would be easy.

WHAT WENT WRONG ?

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
> on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
> November 15, and after all John Navas said the back office software was
> compatible and integration would be easy.

And in what alternate universe would these two things be related? They
don't relate to each other at all and one is not dependent on the other.

>
> WHAT WENT WRONG ?

They allowed you to sign up as a customer.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:38 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>> >said in alt.cellular:
>> >
>> >>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
>> >>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
>> >
>> >Rebranding the stores?
>> >
>> >I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
>> >straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
>> >port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
>> >- why should he have to accept a changed number?)
>>
>> Exactly -- and given the problems that were reported Monday with
>> former AT&T Wireless not being able to access legacy Cingular
>> infrastructure and vice versa, I'd say they have bigger fish to fry
>> right now than signage.
>> >
>> >They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.
>
>The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
>on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
>November 15, and after all John Navas said the back office software was
>compatible and integration would be easy.
>
>WHAT WENT WRONG ?

First off, do you honestly not realize the difference between "would
be" and "are now"? The wording in their release implies something that
will happen in the future, not happening now.

Think of it this way, how many times have you downloaded Microsoft
updates or some other program updates and had the installation go
smoothly 99.9999 percent of the time? But does that mean you don't get
frustration over the very small percentage when things go awry? No, it
doesn't, but it also doesn't mean you have a faulty system. Most
everything can be fixed without drastic measures as long as you take
the right procedure.