SBC Weighing a Name With a Ring

Which three letters will it be -- AT&T; or SBC?

Now that SBC Communications Inc. has a deal to buy AT&T; Corp., the telecom world is wondering which initials will live on.

The decision is up to SBC. And its chairman, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., wasn’t saying much Monday when the companies announced SBC’s proposed $16-billion acquisition of its onetime parent company.

“We obviously need a few days to figure all this out,” Whitacre said. “The AT&T; brand is a terrific brand, and I’m certain it’ll live on in a way that’ll make them proud and us proud.”

There is little doubt that AT&T;, the nation’s oldest telephone company, is the premier brand with instant national and international recognition and a simple stock symbol -- T.

Indeed, a Forrester Research Inc. survey found that 8 million residents said they had AT&T; local phone service, yet the company never had more than 4 million local residential customers, said analyst Lisa Pierce.

SBC, on the other hand, hasn’t been fully accepted as a brand by customers in many of the 13 states where it is the dominant local phone company.

In California, for instance, many folks still write their monthly checks to Pacific Bell, even though SBC bought that company eight years ago.

But SBC has been working hard to get its name known, changing Pacific Bell Park in San Francisco to SBC Park, home of the San Francisco Giants. In San Antonio, where the company is headquartered, its name is emblazoned on the arena that is the home of the San Antonio Spurs.

Many industry analysts believe SBC would be foolish to get rid of the AT&T; brand for the corporate market, where AT&T; has 30% of the major companies, or for the international market, where AT&T; is well known and well respected -- and SBC is largely unknown.

“Nike owns Converse and two brands survive because Converse still has a certain amount of cachet as basketball shoes,” said Daryl Schoolar, an analyst at InStat/MDR research in San Jose. “So why cut off the AT&T; brand? I think you will see both brands continue.”

But if SBC is buying for the future, perhaps it’s time for both sides to swallow their egos and come up with a new name, much like Verizon Communications Inc. did, said analyst Ken McGee of Gartner Inc. in Stamford, Conn.

“I’m not convinced AT&T; is a well-known brand for people under 25 years of age,” McGee said. “So if SBC is concerned about the future, why would they pick a name so linked with the past?”