David Dodell <ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org> (01/05/90)
I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad
showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but
getting Fuji instead.
Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679, while Phoenix is
area code 602 ... on top of this you need to dial 011 to get
international access.
I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't
dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they
are using. The ad implies otherwise.
Oh well, advertising at its finest.
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15
Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.orgWilliam Degnan <wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org> (01/07/90)
In an article of <5 Jan 90 03:48:18 GMT>, ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org
(David Dodell) writes:
DD>AT&T ad...trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead.
DD>...ad is just plain stupid...
I wonder if this is a carefully targeted ad? I know _I_ feel insulted
by it, but are they looking to gain (or retain) the business of those
people who aren't bright enough to direct-dial a call to Phoenix?
I object to the "slice of fear" advertising that AT&T uses. I rarely
meet people who regard the LEC or AT&T as some kind of protector from
technical and financial adversity.
Would AT&T continue to run these ads if they didn't work? Would
reliance on fact-laden ads place them in a more favorable position? Is
it an outward sign that AT&T still thinks it is 1959?
Regards,
Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (01/09/90)
In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: |I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad |showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but |getting Fuji instead. |I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't |dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they |are using. The ad implies otherwise. Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give him instant credit. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
Joel B Levin <levin@bbn.com> (01/10/90)
In article <2708@accuvax.nwu.edu> 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: |In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) |writes: ||I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't ||dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they ||are using. The ad implies otherwise. |Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when |I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji |instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever |long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give |him instant credit. Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of which are perpetrated by AT&T. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."
Henry Mensch <henry@garp.mit.edu> (01/10/90)
Well, maybe the example is stupid, but it is indeed possible for an
unwary user to misdial the other way around (i.e., trying to get a
foreign destination and getting a domestic one instead).
My office phone in Australia was
+61 75 951431
and at least one person told me that the number they dialed got them a
disconnect message (in area code 617, 595-1431 "has been
disconnected.") They obviously didn't dial the "+" (011) first...
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au>kent@husc6.harvard.edu> (01/11/90)
In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 4 of 8 >I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad >showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but >getting Fuji instead. >Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679... Wow! I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code! I don't approve--maybe we should all start buying Kodak film in protest. Kent Borg lloyd!kent@husc6.harvard.edu or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent MacNet: kentborg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617)426-3577 "The wall has been opened. One of the most insurmountable borders in Europe has become a German dance floor." -Christoph Hein, NYT Magazine, 17 Dec 1989
dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) (01/11/90)
Joel Levin wrote in Telecom Digest, volume 10, issue 16: | Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the | ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling | Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, | that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that | the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is | only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of | which are perpetrated by AT&T. There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy has the carrier at fault. To top it off, horror of horrors, he has to call the carrier's customer service department for credit and look up (or, pain of pains, REMEMBER) a telephone number longer than "00". With AT&T, your *operator* can arrange credit. We couldn't live without that, could we? Thrust of the message: if you are (1) too stupid to follow calling card instructions; (2) dumb enough to think that AT&T's calling cards are easier to use than those of other carriers; (3) intimidated by dialing 1-800 plus seven more digits to reach your long-distance carrier's offices; and (4) closed-minded and angry at the notion of any change in your life, then American Telephone and Telegraph thinks you're important enough to have a special commercial targeted just to getting your business. David Tamkin P.O.Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570
DLV@cunyvms1.bitnet (01/11/90)
Brian L. Matthews said: >Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when >I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji >instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever >long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give >him instant credit. Huh! Last fall I called my father in Leningrad, USSR via AT&T. As discussed previously on Telecom, you have to go thru an AT&T operator to call there. The operator dialed the number incorrectly. I immediately called the operator back and they said they won't charge us for this. Imagine our surprise (well, not much, really) when I accidentally looked at the itemized AT&T bill and noticed $6+ for that call! Unfortunately, I don't have the habit of checking the phone bill in great detail, and this one has already been paid. We're trying to straighten it out now. Moral: If the AT&T operator says you got instant credit, it ain't necessarily so. Dimitri Vulis Department of Mathematics City University of New York Graduate Center
dileo@brl.mil (01/12/90)
In article <2737@accuvax.nwu.edu> Joel B Levin <levin@bbn.com> writes: >Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the >ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling >Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, >that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that >the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is >only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of >which are perpetrated by AT&T. If I am thinking about the same commercial, it seemed that his call was *MISROUTED* by the carrier, not misdialed by him. In fact, he dialed the number twice and received the same incorrect number both times. What AT&T was really doing was playing on two at once: that no other phone company is competent to handle long-distance service, and that no other company is as competent at handling complaints, billing, etc. I admit that the ad in question was quite melodramatic, but I don't think it was as stupid as previous posters have suggested. --John DiLeo dileo@brl.mil
David Tamkin <dattier@chinet.chi.il.us> (01/31/90)
I quoted Joel Levin in Volume 10, Issue 25: JL> Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the JL> ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling JL> Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, JL> that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that JL> the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. I responded, in part: DT> There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice DT> and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy DT> has the carrier at fault. There is a new version out, part of a longer commercial where everyone else complains that the other carriers didn't save them any money, so they switched back. In this one, Mr. Laurance (I think it's Matthew, but it might be Mitchell: they are twins after all) was hired back to redo his own voice-over. He dials only once and, in the new narration, admits to the listening audience that it was his own mistake. The claim has changed from "other carriers misroute you" to "other carriers give you dialing instructions that are too difficult for our pea-brained heads." Again, he gets p.o.'ed because he has to wait for his next bill to arrive before he can request credit instead of having it done immediately. Poor thing has to *read* his phone bill when it comes, or he'll forget about requesting the credit. If he can't ask for it while it is fresh in his mind, he'll end up paying. (More carriers are offering immediate credit now, from what I've heard in their commercials and read in their ads.) The actor looks like Mitchell but sounds like Matthew. The whole campaign looks, sounds, and smells like bullsoup. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570
KMP@s57.prime.com (02/06/90)
Place this under the heading of "Sprint Advertisement is Stupid".
Sprint began to run a new series of ads billing itself as the "most
reliable long-distance telephone company in the world", with the
standard asterisk pointing to "Based on no major outage". Two
questions:
1) Will MCI reconsider their decision not to kick AT&T while it was
down?
2) Has MCI had a major outage that would justify the tag on Sprint's
ads, e. g., is there any reason to think Sprint more reliable than
AT&T?
K. M. Peterson <KMP@VM370.Prime.COM> +1 508 879 2960 x3667 Prime Computer, Inc
(K. M. Peterson solely responsible for opinions expressed in this posting).robertg@oblio.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) (02/09/90)
KMP@s57.prime.com writes: > Place this under the heading of "Sprint Advertisement is Stupid". > 1) Will MCI reconsider their decision not to kick AT&T while it was > down? Well, not that they're suing the s$!t out of each other, I'm sure marketing has those ads waiting to be let loose. > 2) Has MCI had a major outage that would justify the tag on Sprint's > ads, e. g., is there any reason to think Sprint more reliable than > AT&T? Yep. About 1 year ago, in Illinois (no, *NOT* Hinsdale). Some tornado came down on a microwave repeater tower in a corn feild, and where once was a mighty tall tower was reduced to something resembling what a spider web looks like when you smash it with a fly swatter. Seems that's where MCI's upper region backbone came barrelling through, like 24 DS/3 channels. The lower U.S. 'backbone' (Ha! An uncompleted fiber right-of-way and about 6 DS/3 ckts.) had a hard time, and the blockage went up to 65 percent at one point (one swich made it to the 80 percent mark for a few minutes once). MCI has 5 levels of outages...1 through 4, and the 5th is called catostrophic. Well, this was officially the 5th level. Took them about 3 days to get a replacement tower put up. Not very pretty from where I was at (Western Network Management in Hayward, CA.). Anyway, that's why MCI hasn't pulled the 'No Major Outage' ads out. Robert Gutierrez/NASA Ames Research/NSI Project Network Operations. [Moderator's Note: Would you believe Hinsdale was nearly *two* years ago? Time flies. PT]