TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to mobbo
Re: Door-to-door to convince technophobes; not redline
said by mobbo  : I don't blame Verizon FiOS or AT&T UVerse divisions for avoiding our neighborhood like the plague, it simply would not be profitable. ... but you're an idiot if you don't think AT&T is avoiding deployment/investment in our neck of the woods for the SOLE reason that we are not profitable (as this post suggests). I never said that AT&T wouldn't avoid unprofitable neighborhoods. I merely stated that the door-to-door campaign was not designed in order to redline as stated in the BBR story.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by TKJunkMail :I never said that AT&T wouldn't avoid unprofitable neighborhoods. I merely stated that the door-to-door campaign was not designed in order to redline as stated in the BBR story. Perhaps you should read the article again TKJunkMail and read what it actually says... It does NOT say that the door-to-door campaign is designed TO redline... It says it works better than mass advertising BECAUSE of redlining, which is true.
It reduces marketing to people who aren't/can't get a service and thereby reduces the amount of pissed off consumers who can't get a service.
Next time read what is there, not what you think is there.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Ah yes, because we know that the successful business model would be to deploy the services to areas that are least likely to afford and subscribe to it first. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by TKJunkMail :I never said that AT&T wouldn't avoid unprofitable neighborhoods. I merely stated that the door-to-door campaign was not designed in order to redline as stated in the BBR story. Perhaps you should read the article again TKJunkMail and read what it actually says... It does NOT say that the door-to-door campaign is designed TO redline... It says it works better than mass advertising BECAUSE of redlining, which is true. As another poster already pointed out, red lining is only one of the reasons: another reason is getting technophobes to subscribe to something through better marketing techniques, which in this case is in-person rather than direct mail or telephone calling.
Yes, there is a bit of reaching people who don't have USPS mail or telephone that they want to subscribe (yes many people like that exist), but that's only one other consideration.
The technique of in-person advertising, for what AT&T is trying to do, makes sense. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to cwh
said by cwh :Ah yes, because we know that the successful business model would be to deploy the services to areas that are least likely to afford and subscribe to it first. And you reply has exactly WHAT to do with my post ?
If you actually read what IS posted, you will see that nothing is said about the practice of red-lining at ALL. I'm not going to get into an argument with a U-Verse fanboi over a statement that was never made.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Ulmo
Re-read my post and please note that I did not say red-lining is that only reason that door-to-door sales are being used. I was merely pointing out the fact that the article did not state that "the door-to-door campaign was not designed in order to redline" as the user TKJunkMail has claimed it did...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to bmn
Just a remark about the alleged redlining that is occurring with this service. IF ATT stops deployment covering only the wealthy area, then yes this has occured. But as of right now, redlining does not appear to fit what is happening. |
|
CConverse
join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :It reduces marketing to people who aren't/can't get a service and thereby reduces the amount of pissed off consumers who can't get a service. As a rep for AT&T (please don't hate me, I have to pay the bills too :P) I know very well the frustration experienced by customers when they see billboards, tv ads, and marketing pamphlets for services that aren't even available to them (usually DSL or U-verse). Anything that can reduce this dissatisfaction is a good thing. And as far as the neighborhoods AT&T chooses to deploy in, it's their business. Would you try to offer a $150 entertainment bundles in an area where most people can barely afford to pay $20 a month for a basic landline?
--
UNLESS Someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to change...
It's not
-The Once-ler
From The Lorax by Dr. Seuss |
|
