Sometimes I hate saying something is great PR when I don't really agree with the actions being taken. I kind of feel that way about Comcast.
Comcast recently announced that it is lauching $10-a-month Internet program for low income families. (BTW, the image above is from the referenced Yahoo article - do they look like low-income kids? Argh, that stuff frustrates me, but I digress).
The details of the program are:
In order to qualify for the Internet Essentials program, a family must reside within a Comcast service area, have a clean billing record with Comcast, have no current internet service, and have at least one child who receives free lunch through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Comcast is using the NSLP requirement to ensure that only low-income families are able to take advantage of the Internet Essentials option. The service provided by Internet Essentials includes connection rates of up to 1.5 Mbps download and 384k upload.
Personally I think 10 dollars a month for crappy internet is a rip off. And why put any restrictions on this at all - does Comcast really think that NON-low-income families would sign up for something crappy like this? You'd HAVE to be poor to go for this.
I get 5 megs down and 300 gig cap for 36 bucks after taxes. So from my perspective what you are getting for your 10 bucks is utter crap. I think five bucks a month would have been fair for this level of internet service (actually, this level of Internet service should be provided free by the government it would be so cheap to deploy).
Having said all that, from a PR perspective, this is a brilliant move. It makes Comcast look like they care about low income families. I mean, I almost feel like a heel criticizing the offering (but nonetheless I stand by my views).
One of the biggest issues corporations are going to face moving forward is how do they offset the public perception that they are just these big, faceless money-making machines that don't care about anything other than profits.
Community engagement, tiered pricing models and marketing services to disadvantaged publics definitely helps to offset any 'greed bleed' - that's my term for when greed starts to bleed in to your brand and define how people see you.
So from a PR perspective, Comcast knocked it out of the park here as they look like a company that really cares about helping low-income families get connected to the internet. While I think their price is a bit high, I can't deny that it's better than nothing and kids need to be connected to the internet if they are going to have a shot at keeping up with their classmates.
So like I say, great PR, I just wish the service was even cheaper so that I could really get behind the message and notion that Comcast genuinely cares about helping impoverished households.
Comcast recently announced that it is lauching $10-a-month Internet program for low income families. (BTW, the image above is from the referenced Yahoo article - do they look like low-income kids? Argh, that stuff frustrates me, but I digress).
The details of the program are:
In order to qualify for the Internet Essentials program, a family must reside within a Comcast service area, have a clean billing record with Comcast, have no current internet service, and have at least one child who receives free lunch through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Comcast is using the NSLP requirement to ensure that only low-income families are able to take advantage of the Internet Essentials option. The service provided by Internet Essentials includes connection rates of up to 1.5 Mbps download and 384k upload.
Personally I think 10 dollars a month for crappy internet is a rip off. And why put any restrictions on this at all - does Comcast really think that NON-low-income families would sign up for something crappy like this? You'd HAVE to be poor to go for this.
I get 5 megs down and 300 gig cap for 36 bucks after taxes. So from my perspective what you are getting for your 10 bucks is utter crap. I think five bucks a month would have been fair for this level of internet service (actually, this level of Internet service should be provided free by the government it would be so cheap to deploy).
Having said all that, from a PR perspective, this is a brilliant move. It makes Comcast look like they care about low income families. I mean, I almost feel like a heel criticizing the offering (but nonetheless I stand by my views).
One of the biggest issues corporations are going to face moving forward is how do they offset the public perception that they are just these big, faceless money-making machines that don't care about anything other than profits.
Community engagement, tiered pricing models and marketing services to disadvantaged publics definitely helps to offset any 'greed bleed' - that's my term for when greed starts to bleed in to your brand and define how people see you.
So from a PR perspective, Comcast knocked it out of the park here as they look like a company that really cares about helping low-income families get connected to the internet. While I think their price is a bit high, I can't deny that it's better than nothing and kids need to be connected to the internet if they are going to have a shot at keeping up with their classmates.
So like I say, great PR, I just wish the service was even cheaper so that I could really get behind the message and notion that Comcast genuinely cares about helping impoverished households.
Comments
Post a Comment