They are: “Amp By AT&T TV,” “Liquid By AT&T TV,” “Optiv by AT&T TV” and “Pulse by AT&T TV.”
AT&T Files Trademarks, But Not for WarnerMedia SVOD
AT&T Files Trademarks, But Not for WarnerMedia SVOD
AT&T Filing More AT&T TV Trademarks
- Thread starter CSM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 2K
- Status
Hmmm. Sometimes companies trademark brand names that never get used, and that could end up being the case here. But given that the AT&T TV branding -- which by itself was first trademarked last year, I think -- is now showing up again as part of four more trademarks, maybe we'll see a full-scale rebranding this year, with the DirecTV name replaced by AT&T TV. If that's in the cards, I would look for it to happen at the same time that the new streaming version of DTV rolls out, which could also involve a shake-up of DTV channel packages and pricing.
If they are going to try to move toward the streaming version of DTV being the main, default version of the service, then it does make some sense to ditch the DTV brand name, since it will always be primarily associated in peoples' minds with satellite dishes.
If they are going to try to move toward the streaming version of DTV being the main, default version of the service, then it does make some sense to ditch the DTV brand name, since it will always be primarily associated in peoples' minds with satellite dishes.
I believe they have to actually USE the name to keep it, after some period of time.
I understand tobacco companies long ago TM’d names like “Acapulco Gold.” And in some obscure tobacco outlet somewhere, you can buy cigarettes by that name. One day they’ll go nationwide and simply substitute the tobacco for .....
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I understand tobacco companies long ago TM’d names like “Acapulco Gold.” And in some obscure tobacco outlet somewhere, you can buy cigarettes by that name. One day they’ll go nationwide and simply substitute the tobacco for .....
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
IF D* goes to Streaming ... technically it should Change its name ...
DirecTV, is TV Directly from the Sat to your dish ... no one else involved ...
D* Streaming, is no longer Direct as it relies on others to provide it, ala your ISP .
Without your internet, you have no Streaming Directv.
DirecTV, is TV Directly from the Sat to your dish ... no one else involved ...
D* Streaming, is no longer Direct as it relies on others to provide it, ala your ISP .
Without your internet, you have no Streaming Directv.
Yup, give it a few more more years. Pretty soon the Directv name will be gone. They already transitioned away from the cyclone logo.
Look at what happened. They first started with putting the AT&T logo next to the Directv logo, then slowly got rid of the Directv logo.
The only problem is Directv is a strong name brand name
I’d think they could redefine it by saying “TV Direct to your home.”
But then, that’s what everybody does.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
But then, that’s what everybody does.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
The DirecTV brand cuts both ways, as I see it. On the one hand, it's associated (at least with those middle-aged and up) with a very high-quality cable TV service. DTV has been described as the Cadillac of cable TV because of its superior HD picture quality, channel selection, STBs, and exclusive access to NFL Sunday Ticket. DTV has always cost a little more than Dish (and maybe your local cable company) but it could charge more because it was positioned as a premium brand.
On the other hand, despite the rollout of DirecTV Now (which most Americans still haven't heard of or understand), the DirecTV brand is still strongly associated with satellite-delivered TV that requires a dish, which increasingly looks like outdated technology that skews toward older, non-urban dwellers. For AT&T, a company that wants to be associated with the cutting edge of technology, that's not a good look. And trying to repurpose the DirecTV brand for internet-delivered TV service seems, to me, like a bit of an uphill battle because it requires a big public education effort: "Hey, DirecTV doesn't just mean satellite TV any more, it can almost mean a couple of different similar services that are delivered over the internet, without a rooftop dish, to either a box we supply or to your own streaming device."
If AT&T is going to begin offering the full DTV service over the internet, that seems like an opportune moment to rebrand the whole thing from DirecTV to AT&T TV, if it's ever going to happen. We'll soon see...
As for the specific trademarks mentioned in the OP of this thread -- Amp by AT&T TV, Liquid by AT&T TV, Optiv by AT&T TV, and Pulse by AT&T TV -- could those possibly be the new names for the various DirecTV channel packages?
I'm sure that when the IP D* does become a real thing, as in, actually having it available ... they will push the fact that there is No Dish involved any longer.
Yes, I'm sure they will. And one of the ways that might communicate that is by advertising that "DirecTV is now AT&T TV." I'm not predicting that they will do that, I'm just saying that IF they plan to at some point phase out the DirecTV brand in favor of AT&T TV, then that would seem like the most obvious time to do it, when they make the big shift to distributing their flagship TV service over the internet in addition to over satellite.
Another thought that crossed my mind with regard to those four new AT&T TV trademarks listed above: perhaps they are all new brand names that AT&T is considering for a rebranding of DTV Now. Perhaps regular DTV gets rebranded as AT&T TV and DTV Now get rebranded as Optiv by AT&T TV. Or, again, it's possible that none of those trademarks ever actually get used...
They could phase it in, gradually, although AT&T has never really did anything ‘gradually,’ but they could to DIRECTV by AT&T TV for a while, something like that.
Although, that being said, the ‘DIRECTV’ brand name does have a lot of goodwill attached and I would think is still quite valuable.
Although, that being said, the ‘DIRECTV’ brand name does have a lot of goodwill attached and I would think is still quite valuable.
IMHO, the name "DIRECTV" has value. Spending money to change it (forgetting that there will be millions of pieces of equipment with the word on it for as long as the service exists) is good money wasted. I think most people know what DIRECTV is. I hear people say "lets go to this bar, they have DIRECTV" when discussing sports all the time. AT&T? Most people think its a phone company.
And, companies do trademark "nonsense words" all the time.
Lastly, remember DIRECTV has been sold, what, 6 times. Which was fine. They didn't have to change the name from Hughes TV to News Corp TV and so on. But what does AT&T do if it wants to sell.
And, companies do trademark "nonsense words" all the time.
Lastly, remember DIRECTV has been sold, what, 6 times. Which was fine. They didn't have to change the name from Hughes TV to News Corp TV and so on. But what does AT&T do if it wants to sell.
I remember there was a lot of worry about AT&T changing Directv's name right off the bat, because of a few trademark filings and announcements about reorgs within AT&T. Didn't happen then, won't happen now. The Directv name is well known and has a good reputation (at least about as good as any TV provider's reputation can be) the only hit on it is that it makes most people think "satellite". That's easily fixed by advertising that Directv is now available without a dish. Trying to sell people "AT&T TV" instead, let alone something really goofy like "AT&T Optiv", would require a lot bigger advertising spend, and for what?
If 'Directv' was an impaired brand with a bad consumer reputation, then I could see wanting to toss it, but that's not the case. Part of that $50 billion AT&T spent buying Directv was for the brand name and reputation (i.e. "goodwill" in accounting) That's true anytime one company buys another that has a well known brand. Dumping the brand would be throwing away billions of dollars.
If 'Directv' was an impaired brand with a bad consumer reputation, then I could see wanting to toss it, but that's not the case. Part of that $50 billion AT&T spent buying Directv was for the brand name and reputation (i.e. "goodwill" in accounting) That's true anytime one company buys another that has a well known brand. Dumping the brand would be throwing away billions of dollars.
Not sure I agree with any of those assertions.
The most sensible thing for them to do, maybe, is just keep the DirecTV brand on their satellite product ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it") and use the AT&T TV brand on the upcoming flagship streaming service, which would be the default (or only) option for bundling with AT&T broadband going forward. They could offer the same (or very similar) channel packages (and pricing?) between the two services but still use different brand names to easily communicate, without confusion, whether a service is satellite-based or internet-based.
As for rebranding DirecTV Now to something with AT&T TV in the name (e.g. Optiv by AT&T TV), that would make sense to me IF the flagship streaming service is named AT&T TV, as there would be some branding continuity between the two. The most bizarre scenario to me would be if the satellite service keeps the DirecTV brand, the flagship streaming service is named AT&T TV, but the skinny streaming service retains the name DirecTV Now.
Also, let's face it, the DirecTV Now brand doesn't enjoy a lot of goodwill relative to other vMVPDs -- look at comments all around the internet. Rebranding it might be an effort to shed the negative brand connotation. But if they were to rebrand it, doing so in conjunction with the completely revamped channel packages and pricing scheme would make sense. (Rebranding doesn't always coincide with a meaningful change in the product or service but it makes more sense to happen at that time so that the new brand can be used to signal a real underlying change.) Perhaps at that same time, we would see their cloud DVR finally come out of beta.
I think a lot people do associate DTV with SatelliteTV. Using AT&T TV would be a new opportunity for AT&T to launch a new TV service and say you don't need a dish with this. They could say introducing AT&T this is not your father's DTV. This is a whole new way to do TV. Unless that would alienate older subscribers? I think NashGuy did bring up a good point that these names AT&T just trademarked are for AT&T TV's channel package names. Maybe another reason its taking long to launch this is that they need to get all the streaming right for all the channels that DTV has for AT&T TV? Check out the name on the left at the 9:50 mark in this video.
Maybe you should rely on actual information, rather than "what I hear around the internet". Axios/Harris just did a new poll yesterday about "corporate reputation" of various brands, here's where the telecoms rank (they don't break out Directv specifically here, but it was always near the top of MVPDs below only FIOS TV)
#63 T-Mobile 71.8
#64 Verizon 71.6
#74 AT&T 69.5
#87 Charter 64.1
#91 Comcast 61.4
#95 Dish 56.9
The Axios Harris Poll 100
#63 T-Mobile 71.8
#64 Verizon 71.6
#74 AT&T 69.5
#87 Charter 64.1
#91 Comcast 61.4
#95 Dish 56.9
The Axios Harris Poll 100
Hmm. Nice catch. So "AT&T TV" turns up in the legalese on the C71 box that will be used with the upcoming service.
Is that "what I hear around the internet" comment directed at me? Because if you go back and read what I actually wrote above, about a brand having a bad reputation, I was referring specifically to DirecTV Now, not the original satellite-based DirecTV brand. I read a ton of comments from cord-cutters and I see certain themes recur: DirecTV Now is flaky/less reliable than other options, it has a worse cloud DVR than other options, it has a worse UI than other options, it has better picture quality than other options, and it offers a better selection of channels for the money than other options. Over and over, I've seen that last opinion cited as DTV Now's saving grace. But of course, when the new packages come in, priced at $50 and up, but with far fewer channels, that will no longer be the case.
- Status
