Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!telecom-request From: tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 91 15:49:56 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center Lines: 36 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 216, Message 10 of 10 John Higdon writes: > AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money > Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be [...] > If AT&T will not accept the real world of COCOTs and provide something > other than 10288 access, then it should at least save its advertising > money for a better campaign, no? Well, John, you certainly have a valid point there, but I think you're missing what I (and I suspect AT&T) see as the more likely scenario. Joe LD Caller walks up to COCOT. Dials 10288+0+xxx and bombs out. Tries again. Bombs again. Gets really pissed off. At who? NOT AT&T. At the COCOT. After all, 10288+ worked just fine at the (name your favorite telco) payphone at work, just yesterday. Rips COCOT off the wall (well, probably not). At least calls the COCOT's information number and gives them hell. Lots of folks do that, and (this is the improbable part) COCOT allows equal access, just to keep from hearing all them nasty cuss words. Just my opinion... tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I really think you are correct. I think AT&T's strategy will include keeping the public inflamed at the COCOT people; while employing legal tactics of their own to keep pressure on the COCOT owners; and hope that before long the situation will change as the private owners eventually cave in from the pressure. I really doubt they will let them off by getting an 800/950 number. That would be too easy on the private owners, who everyone loves to hate anyway. PAT]