Do Koodo ads cross line?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 | 03:26 PM ET
by Paul Jay, CBCNews.ca
When Telus Corp introduced its Koodo brand earlier this year, wireless bloggers and analysts wondered aloud about the branding strategy, which seemed focused on dissing practices, such as the charging of System Access Fees, that the parent company itself still engaged in.
It was perplexing, but it was also undeniably successful, as I wrote earlier this year. It also had enough of an impact on the market to force rival brands Fido and Solo, the discount entrants of Rogers and Bell respectively, to also drop the system access fee, leading some to speculate the fee could be going the way of the dodo in Canada. Which is good news for consumers, who will now be able to get a better read on the final cost of their cell phone plan.
The question of inconsistency between the messages Telus was sending through its eponymous brand and Koodo also seemed moot, since for the most part Koodo skirted this line well, trumpeting its lack of the hated fee and fixed-term contracts without expressly condemning the practice entirely.
Koodo's latest ads, however, appear to have crossed that line. Here's a sampling from the lyrics of one of their ads:
"Fixed-term contracts, excess fees, are so gross and sleazy. Just say no and get Koodo. And please don’t eat yellow snow."
It's one thing to suggest that a fixed-term contract or a system access fee, as another companion ad suggests, "smell." Such language could be considered in the spirit of the garish tone of the brand's ad campaign. But the word "sleazy" is another matter entirely. It suggests intent, and malicious intent at that.
No doubt, if comments on our articles here at CBC.ca are any indication, many consumers might share the opinion that a three-year contract or the charging of a system access fee could be considered "sleazy."
But it seems disingenuous at best for a company that continues to offer contracts with those very terms to make the same claim through another brand, unless there are changes afoot planned for the parent brand to do away with some of those features.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Tech Bytes »
Recent Posts
- 2nd zombie paper rises from dead
- Wednesday, August 19, 2009
- Would Bill C-61 have protected copyright violators?
- Friday, August 14, 2009
- Teens and Twitter trends
- Wednesday, August 12, 2009
- Australia biggest ISP admits to lying
- Wednesday, August 12, 2009
- Capturing carbon, the old-fashioned way
- Tuesday, August 11, 2009
- Subscribe to Tech Bytes
Archives
- August 2009 (8)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (10)
- May 2009 (18)
- April 2009 (17)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (12)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (10)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (16)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (15)
- March 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (13)
- January 2008 (47)
- December 2007 (12)
- November 2007 (12)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (18)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (25)
- March 2007 (28)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (35)
- December 2006 (25)
Comments
Chris
I guess the questions are: 1) is the target market of the Koodo advertising aware that Koodo is just another brand of a parent company that still offers the fees, and 2) if they are, do they even care? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then I guess Koodo can be outrageous as it wants.
Posted November 27, 2008 12:26 PM
stg
mississauga
This article has nothing to do with koodoo ads "crossing the line". Why does the title not match the body of text?
Posted November 27, 2008 01:09 PM
Hudson
Rexton
Koodoo can say what they want in their advertising. I am saving between $20 to $30 per month on each of the two phones I transferred to Koodoo from Bell (Aliant). I do not care who the parent company is. Money in my pocket is money in my pocket. I am now trying to decide if buying out my other two contracts with Bell before they expire and transferring the number to Koodoo is worth it.
Posted November 27, 2008 03:53 PM
zeta
Toronto
Paul seems to be totaly out of touch with the real world!! Another brand, Dove, which have won countless awards for its real beauty campaigns, goes out and fools boys with its AXE brand, which is all about fakery etc. Both brands are owned by Unilever. So, its entirely possible to have different brands stand for different things.
Posted December 1, 2008 09:57 AM
Sharon
Canada
Lol. Ooooooo you called other companies "Sleezy" Ooo. What kind of story is this? CBC is still as silly as it ever was.
Posted December 29, 2008 05:28 AM
willie wilson
"But the word "sleazy" is another matter entirely. It suggests intent, and malicious intent at that."
slea·zy
-Shabby, dirty, and vulgar, often the word is associated with prostitutes.
ma·li·cious
-With Evil Intention.
Sleazy has nothing to do with malicious intent in the least. If Koodo were to call anyone or any compant sleazy. For the matter they would not intend on acts of evil.
Posted March 4, 2009 09:20 PM
Alex
Toronto
Ok um this isn't that big of a deal for me, the only problem I have is how annoying the damn ads are, and how frequent too..
Posted August 23, 2009 01:53 PM