10-10-220 "Save a buck or two"...compared to wHAT?

“Save a buck or two”? Compared to what?

It’s like ad pitches that say “tastes better”. Better than what…a dog-vomit omelette?

Can I use this as a sig?

Probably save a buck or two over your normal long distance rates.

I can’t remember if it’s 10-10-220 or another, but…

They ofer the first 20 minutes for $0.99.

Big whoop! That’s 5 cents/minutes, the same as a bazillion other carriers’ rate. If your call’s 10 minutes, that ends up being 10 c/m.

And it’s 7 c/m after the first 20. So a 30 minute call would cost $1.69, or 5 [sup]2[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] c/m.

So only for the miniscule range of 20 minutes [sup]+/sup]/[sub]-/sub] a few seconds can you get the same 5 c/m that any other carrier can offer.

Scam city!

Right, that’s also being discussed in the other 10-10 thread.

My point though is that they don’t offer a comparison at all, it’s just “save a buck or two”. Not “save a buck or two ***compared ***to Sprint or MCI”. They are counting on gullible consumers without an ounce of critical thinking skills to incorrectly assume that their service is a “buck or two” cheaper than everyone else. I can’t figure out who is stupider, the people who fall for this, or the dumbass 10-10 company that came up with this asinine ad campaign.

“Save a buck or two” is not the pitch line for 10-10-220. It’s the pitch line for IIRC 1-800-COLLECT. You will supposedly save a buck or two over what a collect call would cost you by dialing zero. If you dial zero then the number the call is routed through whatever carrier is operating the line you’re using. You’ll pay that carrier’s rates. If you dial 1-800-COLLECT (or 1-800-CALLATT, or a 10-10 number) you’re routing your call through that specific carrier and getting that carrier’s rates. The fine print on the ads discusses the basis of the comparison so if you’re that interested, tape one of the ads and freeze-frame it on the fine print.

LOL! Just goes to show that all some consumers remember of some of these ad campaigns is how stupid they are, but not the name of the product.:wink:

  • Hey Harry! How’s your wife?

  • Compared to what?

  • My wife.

Reminds me of that old joke, often associated with Rep Nicholas Longworth (husband of Alice Roosevelt Longworth) who was prematurely bald. Supposedly a colleague rubbed Longworth’s bald head and said “you know Nick, your head feels just like my wife’s behind.” Longworth rubbed his head and said, thoughtfully, “I do believe you’re right, it does.”

I believe this is one of the ads you’re thinking of:

Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper!

Every single time I see those commercials, all I can think of is “More like regular Dr. Pepper than WHAT? Dishwater? That’s probably true, but…”

I think they mean to say “Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper THAN BEFORE!” But some high executive, formerly responsible for the diet formula, didn’t want to remind the public of the ‘bad old days’ and his or her own folly of aftertaste. Ergo, we get a nonsensical ad.

I always took that to mean that Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper than Diet Coke, Sprite, Pepsi etc. taste like regular Coke, Sprite, Pepsi etc. Er, something like that. :slight_smile:

That’s what they want you to think. However they cannot make that claim because it’s not true. Therefore they resort to deceptive language in their ads to make you believe the claim without them actually making it.

Well, legally I think they can make the claim, provided they have done taste tests and have data which supports the conclusion.

Do you really think they’d miss out on a chance to brag that their product was better than a compititor’s if they could? Of course not. Taste tests probably revealed what most consumers already know: that diet versions of soft drinks taste a lot worse than thier non-diet counterparts. And that all are about the same as far as how much different they taste than the originals. Enter ad agency to come up with a clever slogan to try and fool the public into believing something that’s not true.

Having once worked at a telecommunications company, there is certainly something to the argument that the intent of these 10-10 dialing codes (which are, in industry parlance, called “soft-picking” a carrier) was at least in part to confuse the market and prevent you from using any of them. I’m not as familiar with the industry now as I was a few years ago, but if you checked the fine print in the ads, it became quickly obvious that the two or three biggest telecom providers (AT&T, Sprint, etc.) were responsible for the overwhelming majority of these things. The inevitable result for the consumer: “Let’s see, was it 10-10-789 that had that good rate? Or 10-10-220? Or… crap, I don’t remember. I’ll just use regular long distance.”

The internet to the rescue! This site lets all and sundry know who owns what 10-10 numbers and the rates.

Or, they have data which support the idea that their diet tastes more like the regular than other diets taste like their regular counterparts, and, realizing that “Diet Dr Pepper tastes more like regular Doctor Pepper that Diet Coke tastes like regular Coke” is far too cumbersome, the ad agency puts together the shorter, snappier version.

Again, I don’t think there’s any legal problem with their making the claim as long as they can point to something that supports it.

Around here we get commercials for Geico Insurance. At the end of their ads, they claim:

“Save up to 15% or more off your regular insurance”

With that statement, they have covered the entire spectrum possible of savings. I think that’s kind of cool how they crafted such a slippery line.