[comp.dcom.telecom] May AT&T Attack a Specific Carrier?

dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/18/90)

J. Eric Townsend wrote in volume 10, issue 651:

| In a propaganda class the other day, we were watching an episode of
| Nightline.  It was full of Sprint's "Lighten up, AT&T" series of
| adverts.

| My question is this: Could AT&T, if it wanted, decide to attack
| carrier X?  ie: "Carrier X says they give you better prices, but
| it's not true.  AT&T is much cheaper."  Or are they somehow legally
| required to say: "Some other carriers say they give you better prices,
| but it's not true."?

Law, schmaw; it's standard advertising practice.  The company [that is
or believes it is] in the #1 position *never* names the competition in
its commercials or ads; competitors, however, figure everyone has
heard of #1 anyway and that they must go directly after the leader's
customers, so they don't worry that mentioning #1's name will be free
publicity for #1.  But the leader will just reassert how wonderful it
is and give no reminder of competitors' names; at the most, #1 will
tell you that it is "best".

Royal Crown tells you their cola tastes better than Pepsi or Coke and
that people will go out of their way for it; Pepsi tells you people
prefer Pepsi to Coke but never mentions RC; Coke tells you that they
are an unassailable component of the American tradition and never even
hint that other colas, other soft drinks (even Coke's own products),
or any other beverages exist; the alternative to drinking Coca-Cola is
purportedly death by thirst.

The long-distance telephony industry is just as full of gas as
carbonated beverages are.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com