T-mobile’s spokes-girl has stepped out of the pink dress and into black leather. The subtext of this T-mobile is not going to play nice anymore. Which going by the old saying “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” this is a huge switch from the oh-so-similar nature of previous T-mobile ads that had the same look as the classic Mac versus PC ads. Yes, considering that homage, I would say stepping up your game with a fresh concept is a good idea.

If only T-mobile weren’t going about it all wrong.

This recent T-mobile ad is set on a desert road. The voice over identifies a motorcycle rider driving on that road with an iPhone on the AT&T’s 4G network. Past him blows the T-mobile gal who the voiceover identifies as T-mobile 4G. They do a bit of rewind and replay in slow motion to work in some humor where T-mobile glances at the slow AT&T as she passes – then off she zooms.

The big problem with the ad is it is introducing unnecessary variables. The ad is meant to show off T-mobile’s fast 4G. Comparing AT&T 4G and T-mobile 4G by itself might create value for T-mobile. But T-mobile pairs its value against two variables – AT&T’s 4G and the iPhone. T-mobile is, in essence, making the assumption that the value of its fast 4G connection is more valuable than the brand of Apple and its iPhone – not a great tactic.

Speed is valuable in the mobile market, but it’s hard to figure out the differences between carriers. If T-mobile could be more single-minded in that effort, without confusing audiences by including the iPhone (which, recent reports say, will be coming to T-mobie), it can take the lead on a future table stake (that will provide value until the other networks increase their speed to the equivalent). But it must be single minded in that focus and not bite off more than it can chew.

Right now, the ad acts as a reminder to those who want an iPhone that they better not switch to T-mobile. That, for much of the population, the iPhone is more important than a possibly faster data connection.

The crux of positioning a messaging towards something like “unlimited data” is that the messaging must always maintain consistency or the messaging becomes meaningless. For some time now, Sprint has marketed itself as the last place in town where unlimited data was still safe. If only. It seems Sprint will now be doing away with its unlimited 4G data for devices with mobile hot spots.

When we work with brands and provide brand positioning, that positioning also includes ways to action that brand and fulfill its promises. Positioning without action is as meaningless as no position at all. As a general rule, don’t promise what you can’t deliver.

Sprint is in a difficult position and has been working down this road to correct the situation. It is behind the competition and pushing a message (unlimited data) that the market can no longer trust with complete confidence. It is also competing in a market where consumers are locked into contracts and have to pay extra costs to switch. In fact, Sprint couldn’t fulfill its “Now Network” brand until it recently paid heavily for the ability to carry iPhones. Therefore, for a time, Sprint couldn’t fulfill its brand promise until it carried the today’s most coveted phone.

Being the “Now Network” is also inherently a challenge as “now” is a bit nebulous. It might mean “fast” and “acting urgently,” but it can also mean “up to date” or even “status quo.” The problem is that Sprint has never defined what that meant, unless it was the unlimited data. Leaving any room for interpretation is never good, not to mention the much larger issues of how is it at all emotionally resonates to the market.

Sprint’s financials showed a Q3 drop, but it also saw an increase in subscribers by 1.3 million. Tactically, Sprint is now moving in the right direction. It has the iPhone and is working to create a faster LTE-advanced network, but tactical moves are not enough by themselves. Now, with the category table stakes out of the way, Sprint needs to find something more meaningful than “unlimited data” to talk about if it wants to foster a strategy transition from “let’s keep up” towards “lets get ahead.”

Looking at different markets, the bare minimum needed to compete varies. Sometimes, the minimum can be efficacy or FDA approval in the medical community, for example, or it might mean providing ample battery capacity for mobile electronics. They are all aspects that are not optional to compete but, if you are looking for a long-term presence, are required. Sadly for Sprint, the market of wireless providers has one of the most expensive table stakes– the iPhone.

Sprint just announced it will be purchasing 30.5 million iPhones over the next four years, a commitment to the tune of $20 billion. While Sprint’s stock has been taking a hit for this recent move, my response to those selling their Sprint stock is that, to compete, this was something Sprint needed to do.

Brand messaging is vital, even concerning table stakes. By the same token, while brand provides the reason “why” a company does everything, actions must reinforce that “why” and fulfill the brand promise or the brand becomes meaningless. What also muddies that “why” is when the brand fails to meet the bare minimum to compete in that market.

The iPhone only on AT&T was a differentiator. But once Verizon began to carry it, all the equity AT&T held was lost and it moved from a differentiator to a table stake.

Under these circumstances, I would say that Sprint has made a correct move by including the iPhone in its portfolio. The playing field is now level and Sprint is in a position to seize that opportunity using brand messaging that is meaningful and says why it has the iPhone.

Competing to increase market share through monthly minutes allowed or by data packages offered is short-term strategy. Now, while differentiators are for the most part flat in this market, is the time for Sprint to build preference by saying something emotionally resonate about the “why.”

I’m in the center of the cell phone world today as I’m speaking at the CTIA Wireless 2011 conference in Orlando, but we’re all being overshadowed here by AT&T’s proposed purchase of T-Mobile.

This is being touted a shock wave because it will leave just three big players in the market – AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. But my first reaction is that it means another poor brand has failed, as they always do.

I’m not so worried that a choice has been taken away from me because I never would have chosen T-Mobile anyway. It has been a troublesome brand at best. Its “Stick Together” brand is wrongheaded because you’d have to believe that everyone is pulling us apart in order to want to “stay together.” And its recent marketing campaign mocking the style of the Apple’s great “I’m PC. I’m Apple” spots only helps the competition because it looks so desperate (and overly clever).

There are, of course, worries that the increasing consolidation of the market will lead to less innovation and the less choices can stagnate a market. But the competition between the big carriers is fierce, among the most competitive and either of the three would be scared not to keep up.

In addition, consumers demand innovation so much that providers, including the forward-thinking phone makers such as Google and Apple, can’t innovate fast enough.

No, I don’t think consumers will suffer all that much from this, although it does creep closer to the days when there was only the Bell System controlling land lines. It is the natural progression of things because the T-Mobile brand wasn’t going to survive anyway.

I am in awe of the brand power of Apple. If you have read this blog for any length of time, you know I am a self-confessed Apple loyalist.

As you may know by now, Verizon announced that it will start carrying the iPhone 4 next month.  Verizon finally gets arguably the world’s most popular phone and Apple gets access to “The Network.”

What I found so interesting about all of the news and opinions surrounding this news was that the discussion was primarily centered around the iPhone instead of Verizon. In recent memory, I do not think that Verizon has ever scheduled a press conference with the magnitude of the one it had yesterday.

And really if you think about it, this was a press conference about the iPhone not Verizon. Verizon is just the new host for the iPhone. The phone made the news “newsworthy” and Verizon’s role is simply to support it.

I believe there were three winners with this announcement: Apple and the customers of AT&T and Verizon. Clearly, Apple is the big winner as ultimately it has access to more customers. However, the customers of AT&T and Verizon also stand to win as each company is fighting a battle for users with the same device. That most likely means that consumers can look forward to service costs becoming more competitive.

The big loser is Android. There are a great many Verizon customers who “settled” for a Droid because their contracts prevented them from switching to AT&T for the coveted iPhone. I have a sneaking suspicion that Droid will soon become the defacto free phone when a customer signs a two-year contract.

What is so interesting about this from a brand perspective is that the brand that Verizon and AT&T sell (Apple’s iPhone) is what is spurring change. This is evidence that Apple’s brand power far eclipses that of either AT&T or Verizon. In fact, one might go so far to say that bringing the iPhone to Verizon has made cellular telephone service providers practically irrelevant.

Neither AT&T or Verizon evoke brand preference or loyalty and this is a problem for them. Without any reason to choose, the default becomes price – a position I’m sure neither AT&T or Verizon want to claim.

Unless they do something quickly to reinforce their brands in an effort to create preference, service providers will only be able to compete on price and promotion. The best chance they have as it stands now is the hope to be the exclusive provider of iPhone 5.

T-Mobile is an example of a brand with absolutely no meaning whatsoever. As a result of this emotional void, T-Mobile finds itself scrambling for preference and survival.

Yesterday, it was announced that Walmart was “partnering” with T-Mobile and launching Family Mobile, a cell phone plan offering unlimited talking and texting for $45 a month.

As things are now, this plan, available at Walmart stores everywhere, is cheaper then any plan currently offered by T-Mobile through its traditional outlets. Napoeon was right, “The logical end to defensive warfare is surrender.” And the new alliance with Walmart makes sense as a last ditch effort to grab sales — even as the brand driver changes hands and we discover that Walmart is now the low-cost champion of yet another market segment.

The difference this time is that, while you might buy a SONY flat screen at Walmart and save a few bucks, you were buying a SONY. Now you are buying the Walmart cell phone and the carrier is secondary.

Will this strategy work?  I don’t know. Ask Apple.

First off, with Apple rumors, you never know if they are actually going to really happen.

The WSJ reported on Wednesday of the impending release of the iPhone to Verizon.  Apple and Verizon’s stock went up and AT&T’s went down.

It is sad really to think about how far out of touch cell phone companies are from their target audience.   People choose AT&T because of the iPhone.  Consumers wanted the iPhone in spite of the fact that it was on AT&T.  Consumers switched companies, canceled contracts and iPhone users put up with dropped calls, poor customer service, and poor local coverage for the privilege of having an iPhone.  Guess what, it looks as though Apple is extending that privilege to Verizon.

Cell phone companies have traditionally held on to their biggest phones and used them to attract customers.. The problem is, that thinking works some customer do switch (a lot did for the iPhone.  But with the iPhone, the product became more than a product it became bigger and more important to the consumer than the cell companies and now everyone wants one.

If the WSJ report is true, and there is good reason to believe it is, this is a game changer.   If this works for Apple (barring any network problems), more companies will follow suit.  Consumers will pay a higher initial cost for a device and think of the service as secondary.

So what does this mean for the service providers, particularly AT&T?  Unless they want to become nothing more than a means to end for the consumer (like a power company, for example) they need to start taking a real hard look at their brands.  They need to quickly figure out how to position themselves to resonate with their target audience that goes beyond a product they are selling.  They must give a reason WHY they are the right choice and this does not mean using the table stake claims of “fastest network, biggest network, or most subscribers.”

Can you hear me now, AT&T?

The earnings announcement for Verizon Wireless impressed many because it rose almost 30 percent from last year, which in today’s economy is something to crow about. What’s wrong-headed, though, are those attributing Verizon’s success to its ad campaign, which is about visually demonstrating all the “people” behind the network. 

The “Dead Zone” and “Can you hear me now?” campaigns that may have increased awareness, but I’m here to tell you it doesn’t increase preference. (Verizon is running neck-and-neck with AT&T, and its iPhone exclusivity, as top dog. Although that exclusivity is about to end with an agreement between Apple and Verizon looming.)

It simply amazes me that any wireless provider could differentiate itself by claiming ownership of table stakes like “network reliability” and “more bars in more places.” (The latter might work for a resort area, though.) When is the last time you had trouble with a cell phone connection? That may have been a problem years ago, but network reliability is now something everyone has. Few prefer Verizon for that reason.

Most of Verizon’s success has come through acquisition (think Alltel) and consolidation. Customers feel more handcuffed by their cell provider than are in love with them. Verizon’s competitors should take notice. There is opportunity in them thar hills to create preference when only table stakes are being marketing – even to those rare few in those increasingly hard-to-find “dead zones.”