RSS
Twitter
My Exclusive Is More Exclusive Than Your Exclusive
from the stupidity-isn't-exclusive dept
Mobile operators often tout "exclusive" content deals they've made that are supposed to give them -- and only them -- access to certain content, which they then try to use as a competitive differentiator. This deals often don't make much sense, mostly because it's doubtful that many people choose their mobile operator based on the content they have on offer. But they also don't make sense when they're not exclusive: UK carrier 3 is talking up a deal it made with Warner Music, which includes the Madonna single "Hung Up" being "premiered exclusively" on 3. "Hung Up," of course, is the Madonna song Orange made available to its users "exclusively" in October for a week before its general release. So what happens when your rivals start to have your exclusive differentiators?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Duh!
Then it stops being exclusive, duh!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Duh!
What is a rhetorical question?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Orange = 3
Just like to point out that 3 and Orange are the same company. Which is generally why [atleast in Australia] they share the same deals.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Orange = 3
Orange and 3 aren't the same company. One of Orange's early owners was Hutchison Whampoa, which owns the "3" operators around the world. Orange is now owned by France Telecom, and Hutchison units license the Orange brand for use in Australia, India and Israel.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its marketting
Is ANYone surprised?
Marketting has rendered our language meaningless:
"New and improved"
"the best"
"extra strength"
"quality assured"
"specially engineered"
"specially formulated"
and now
"exclusive"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment