To be “T” or not to be “T”…. that is the question of the day. While I cannot disagree with King Ed’s decision to go with the AT&T brand name for his wireline and now wireless company, one does have to wonder why his minions wasted money on the logo and the typeface, which in the words of Russell Beattie is just simply terrible. Think of it as change for the sake of change or perhaps the Texas crew showing those pesky Northerners who is incharge.
By the way, the purging of the old AT&T ranks continues. As reported earlier here, AT&T chief technology officer Hossein Eslambolchi is leaving the company along with others like Kathleen Flaherty, John McCanuel and John Polumbo. (You get a 404 error on a page where HE’s bio used to be) Light Reading says some of the departing executives will make between $4-to-$6.5 million for getting out of town. Hossein, was the man who orchestrated the IP makeover of AT&T, the real reason the company has started to grow in the corporate business.
Okay maybe it is just me, but didn’t SBC struggle in the corporate business, and decided that the best was to move forward was to buy AT&T, and the replaced the very same executives who helped T become a player in the corporate side of the business. Just wondering…
SBC has trouble being taken seriously by the phone industry’s most lucrative customers: big corporations who spend millions of dollars on phone and data services. SBC has a relatively small sales force. More importantly, it lacks a global network of its own to carry exploding amounts of data around the world. Many businesses demand that, because they want to operate the same technology at branch offices in Singapore or Cincinnati. (WSJ)