T-Mobile Is Go

VoiceStream Wireless Corp. has finally made its name change to T-Mobile U.S. official, bringing the operator in line with the rest of Deutsche Telekom AG's (NYSE: DT) mobile subsidiaries.

T-Mobile U.S. unveiled the change as part of its launch in Nevada and California. As part of the rebranding, filmstar Catherine Zeta Jones has signed on as the new "face" of T-Mobile.

We at Unstrung wonder if re-branding at this time is such a good idea. DT has steadily renamed all of its wireless units as T-Mobile, because of its grand strategy to become the only worldwide GSM/GPRS operator. But are closer links with the parent company such a good thing for VoiceStream at the moment?

After all, the mercurial ex-CEO of Deutsche Telekom, Ron Sommer, was responsible for the worldwide mobile strategy and the purchase of VoiceStream, building up €67 billion ($67 billion) in debt in the process. Sommer stepped down last week, under pressure from the German government (see Bonn Says Ron's Gone), and the suggestion is that VoiceStream could be sold for far less than the $31 billion that DT paid for it in 1999 (see AT&T/VoiceStream Rumors Rife).

Surely, less -- not more -- association with DT is what's needed at the moment?

— Dan Jones, Senior Editor, Unstrung
dougjohnson7 12/4/2012 | 10:03:28 PM
re: T-Mobile Is Go The re-brand seems to suggest that T-Mobile is not really looking to merge. Why spend money building a brand if you are just going to merge with another provider?

On a personal note: instead of focusing on the branding, I just wish they would build a few more towers.
spc_rayella 12/4/2012 | 10:03:23 PM
re: T-Mobile Is Go I think there are two things here.
1) The re-branding has been planned for a while and a large part of the cost is already out the door I would imagine, so to hold back on an exercise intended to attract more customers would not have made financial sense at this stage.
2) To stop a large rebranding process because the company 'might' merge would be a bit daft. They could end up doing nothing about anything - ever - if that was a reason to hold their horses. And it would terribly defensive and needy if they halted any plans during 'talks'.

What will be interesting is how long this brand survives anyway, and how effective it is in the U.S. market. I would say that, for many reasons, it would not survive any sort of merger or partnership. It's a boring name, after all.

Whatever happened to daft names for brands, huh? I know we've got '3' coming on board courtesy of Hutchison's 3G adventures, but when was the last time (OK, Orange!) you heard about a mobile brand and then thought about it for more than 0.5 seconds? Let's see some beer-induced creativity out there!! Get thyselves down to the local dispenser of alcoholic beverages and come up with some new brands, why dontcha!!

What about 'Blurt', aimed at excitable teenagers? "We'll give you 100 minutes a month *free* to blurt at your posse. Be part of the pack. Be a Blurter!"

A few more towers would help too, sure.......
joset01 12/4/2012 | 10:03:21 PM
re: T-Mobile Is Go Hey Ray

You'll be giving Virgin Mobile USA ideas!

my suggestions:

Chatty Cathies - unlimited evening mins and SMS, for talkative teenage girls
Rad! - bucket of minutes and a free pair of Vans, for the SoCal stake contingent, dude
Barn Raiser - for that elusive Amish wireless market

Factoid Alert!

In fact, we've heard that the Amish do use cell phones, they just have to charge them at a non-Amish friend's house. We haven't been able to verify this yet.

Sign In