| Someone needs to fire PR department Xfinity makes me think of the movie Toy Story, not a triple play bundle from a cable company.
Stupid people |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | The PR didn't do this, Comcast gave $20 million to a PR firm to come up with the name, and the PR firm was selected on the golf course by Mr Roberts. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Network Guy
Re: Someone needs to fire PR department Xfinity makes me think of one of 2 things:
1. Nissan Xterra crossed with an Inifinity Q45 (Xfinity?)
2. A stereo system for a drag strip car (Xplod anyone ?)
Comcast should keep its name, or at least come off with something better as a replacement. Uverse isn't exactly a name that I agree with either (Underverse from the necromongers of Chronicles of Riddick would have sounded better, IMHO) |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| reply to en102
Re: Someone needs to fire PR department said by en102:Xfinity makes me think of one of 2 things: 1. Nissan Xterra crossed with an Inifinity Q45 (Xfinity?) 2. A stereo system for a drag strip car (Xplod anyone ?) Comcast should keep its name, or at least come off with something better as a replacement. Uverse isn't exactly a name that I agree with either (Underverse from the necromongers of Chronicles of Riddick would have sounded better, IMHO) I thought of the Cross bar, on many tvs.
--
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy:Xfinity makes me think of the movie Toy Story, not a triple play bundle from a cable company. Stupid people So you would rather they do *nothing*?
I'm actually just hearing about the rebranding today, and it actually started internally *last year*; Xfinity was the internal name for the entire transition of which Project: Cavalry was a part (two other parts were the simplification of Comcast's product catalog at the CSR/CAE end and rollout of DOCSIS 3.0; like Cavalry, both are ongoing). Cablevision did the same thing with Optimum (did they come in for the same amount of scorn?) over a decade ago. Some of you remind me of so many ostriches (or worse, Luddites); you would much rather things not change (or worse, you'll actively resist a company's attempts AT change), even if it's nothing more than a rebranding.
I actually *like* the rebranding. |
|
| reply to PGHammer
Re: Someone needs to fire PR department Like, dislike... the word games are still fun either way. [:) |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to DaveDude
I can't count the number of marketers that think that any name with "X" in it is cool and will sell. Just look at radio station monikers. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy:Xfinity makes me think of the movie Toy Story, not a triple play bundle from a cable company. Stupid people I could care less WHAT it's called... when I turn on my TV, pick up my phone, of click something in my browser, those things still act the same way..
When I pay my bill, it still will say Comcast.
When I have a problem, I still call the same phone number.
When they change their name, it means nothing to me.. It means nothing to me when ANYONE changes the name of something.
If the name was changing becuase of a new owner, then I MAY care a little, but even then, what does it matter, there is still only the one coax line running to my house so that really wouldn't even matter as far as cable goes.
To be honest, I can't even believe this is a topic worth discussing here on BBR. Its funny that people even care about this to begin with.. all the way from the horses mouth (Comcast) to the analysts (don't they have anything better to do?) to the media (where it would have to be a slow news day) or to the customer (who still knows who owns the company)...
I will say this.. at least when at&t started U-Verse, it was a new product... at least when FiOS came out, it was VERIZON'S new project.. What Cablevision and now Comcast is doing is trying to slap excitement on a 10 day old piece of meat with a new name hoping someone will think the meat is new..
Seriously.. what's in a name? Just improve the product, tell people what it is you're selling and stop the gimmicks... and stop slamming everyone else's products (this goes to ALL communication companies) ... just put your best foot forward, be honest about what it is you're selling, price it fair, and the people will come to your door, ESPECIALLY when there are only a few choices.
It just amazes me at how much money these companies would $AVE if they would stop wasteful marketing tactics. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to SLD
I have a brilliant IDEA... and they could pay ME $20 Million for it...
Ready??? are you ready for this??? pay attention.. come on!!!
... here goes....
... COMCAST.
Wow!  |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Someone needs to fire PR department said by fiberguy:I could care less WHAT it's called... when I turn on my TV, pick up my phone, of click something in my browser, those things still act the same way.. When I think of my Internet connection, I also just think of the telephone company that debits my checking account monthly for network access.
I don't feel any warm and fuzzier to know that Verizon likes to call their DSL product "High speed Internet" with popup blockers and a pretty little news portal.
What I do give a shit about is that my latency averages 10 ms or less to the DSLAM port, that I get the bandwidth I pay for most of the time, and that it doesn't disconnect much if at all.
My point is, companies find that selling a brand is more vital to push up the price of a product instead of actually adding value to the marked-up product. So one would figure more thought would go into the brand than a stupid name like that. |
|
|
|
 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | reply to fiberguy
Amen, brother. You can polish a turd all you want, but it's still a turd. When product names are changed it's usually due to negative perceptions of the product. Why would a company waste consumer goodwill? In this case there isn't any to waste. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
And And you could like use the name in other words like.... Comcastic!
That'll be $10 million please. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | .... dream big!!! |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to PGHammer
I'm personally indifferent to the name change, but I doubt readers here are the target audience for the name change effect. The name change by itself will do nothing but cost a lot of money, so I hope there is a lot more than just a name change in the works. The ironic part is my view of Comcast at the moment is rather positive for the most part, with my impression being the HSI and CDV are good products - the anchor in my opinion is the antiquated cable TV model still in use.
Without even changing their name, in my opinion, they could help their TV business compete by doing the following:
1) Simplify the TV pricing model nationwide. The customer service representatives get confused by it at times and most of the customers get blurry eyed trying to understand it.
2) Nationwide uniformity in billing practices and non-programming costs. Programming costs differ per market, but other costs such as receivers and when/if/how outlet fees are charged should be uniform across all markets. A receiver in South Florida costs absolutely no different than one for Kansas. If it does, you have a bigger problem.
3) Lower the receiver cost to be competitive with other providers - yes, I'm sure it looks good on the books, but you really want subscribers to have real receivers. If an executive does not understand this or why it is important, fire them.
4) Kill the triple/quad/duo plays. Take the lesson learned, people want more price competitive services and create a model that is sustainable. Right now, you acquire that triple play customer and you have just started the clock as to when the customer is going to be unhappy, perhaps extremely unhappy, when you have to decline to extend that offer for another year.
5) This isn't really going to help business a lot probably, but a personal pieve - what is so darn hard about maintaining a consistent national channel lineup? Every market may not have the same stations, I understand that, but they really need to have different channel numbers too?
6) This is a reoccurring theme, but you're a national company, to the customer - present yourself that way regardless of any internal organizational layers. I don't go to Google and type in Comcast of South Florida (or probably Palm Beach in my case), I type in "Comcast".
7) I haven't seen it personally, but based on my experience with service calls you really need to re-do the backend system that is used to manage trouble calls. The piece of paper I sign from the technician includes a SMS sized portion to describe the problem and where's the history? Yes, it will list the last couple of visits - the date of the visit - what about what was done, why, readings, etc, etc, etc... Maybe the techs have a real trouble ticket sheet I just never see and this could be ignored.
To get ahead of the game...
1) Break the mega tiers up, what is going to drive me to cancel the TV portion is I am quite simply tired of paying for crap I never watch or care about. Give a base package (locals, plus a sampling of others) at a reasonable rate and let me add groups of channels with similar interests at a decent rate. If a content provider wants in that base package, then they ought to price it accordingly. Keep the base package price consistent as you have with HSI and for the most part CDV even if that means moving a channel to a tier or dropping a greedy provider when necessary.
2) Standardize the set-top boxes used to a small number or even possibly consider a single standard design driven by Comcast. This can be looked at as an extreme expense or as a possible opportunity to both save costs long-term and also present more interactive services. Yes, people get content off the Internet and even will watch content on laptop screens if the price is right (read free or low cost) but what they really want is still to watch TV on that TV they purchased.
I could write more, but I've already rambled more than I intended, so I'll shut up now...  |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to 56403739
.. uh huh.. and this is one case where I REALLLLLLLLY believe that Comcast is missing the point here.. AND could put that re-branding money, marketing money, etc. to better use...
... like system upgrades, etc. |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | reply to en102
now when you call for help they can legitimately tell you you'll have to wait for Xfinity 
What a hoot
--
---Barney |
|
