Someone recently tweeted that he was sick and tired of the Verizon Map commercials (for the record, that someone was @matt_vance). A number of people joined and agreed.
It’s not just that the commercial is annoying — from a business perspective, it’s just plain dumb.
Here’s why: It focuses on the wrong decision criteria.
For sure, coverage area is important to cell phone users. But how many cell phone users use their phone in 99.9% (or whatever Verizon claims in its ads) of the locations within the lower 48 states? If you do, you’re probably alone.
What matters to any one customer (or prospect) is whether or not Verizon has good coverage where s/he is and plans to be.
I’m a Verizon customer, and have been for a number of years now. For the entire time that I’ve been a customer, I haven’t been able to get any cell phone reception at my house — I live in a dead zone (15 miles out of Boston, you’d think I was in the middle of nowhere).
I was at a Verizon store with my daughters recently, as one of them was upgrading her phone. As we waited for service, I noticed on the wall that Verizon sells — for about $200 or so — something they call an Extender, which would probably be perfect for someone like me who lives in a dead zone.
If my daughters hadn’t been there with me, I probably would have gotten into one of my typical “philosophical discussions” with the sales rep (the girls get really embarrassed when Dad argues about stupid things with salespeople).
This “discussion” would have gone like this: If you guys have such great coverage — as you boast in your annoying “there’s a map for that” commercials — then why in the world should I spend $200 for some device to improve the reception?
This annoying little matter aside, the reality is that having complete national coverage is meaningless to any one customer. What matters — that is, what drives the decision of carriers — is something else. Or more specifically, other things. Not only coverage area where the customer is and will be, but things like device choice (don’t try to tell me iPhone users are ecstatic that AT&T is their providers) and service reputation.
Because it doesn’t focus on the real decision criteria (possibly because it can’t), Verizon’s ad is just plain dumb.
But not to be out done — or should I say out-dumbed — what does AT&T do?
Responds with an even dumber ad featuring Luke Wilson.
What makes AT&T’s ad even dumber?
First of all, Luke Wilson. What’s the matter? Was there no one else on the C-list of celebrities willing to do an AT&T commercial? How sad to see AT&T go from the iconic James Earl Jones to the moronic Luke Wilson.
The second thing that makes the AT&T response dumb is that… well, they responded. By responding to Verizon’s dumb ad, AT&T validated Verizon’s focus on nationwide coverage as a decision criteria.
Verizon and AT&T: Dumb and dumber.
In fairness, though, I think it’s the firms’ respective ad agencies who are to blame here. And you wonder I’m critical of ad agencies?
There are lessons that marketers in a range of industries should learn from Dumb and Dumber. You should be able to figure them out for yourself.
I think Verizon’s ad is actually quite compelling. Even if you don’t need to reach someone in literally every centimeter of the country, the ad reassures the viewer that you can count on being able to use your phone anywhere you are and not have to think about it.
The only criticism people have of the iPhone is that it’s only on AT&T and calls frequently get dropped. Verizon is shrewdly capitalizing on the key advantage it has over AT&T in light of not having the iPhone.
You said “the ad reassures the viewer that you can count on being able to use your phone anywhere you are.” I would assert that the ad “claims” that, not necessarily “reassures” it. And as I said. I live in a dead zone 15 miles out of a major city. So the “claim” or, as you put it “reassurance”, is pretty bogus, no?
When advertisers get caught in a back-and-forth penis measuring contest, neither advertiser wins. Both end up looking alike and sounding the same…five-year old crybabies.
“My map is bigger than your map.”
“Is not.”
“Is so.”
“Is not.”
“Is so.”
“Well, your map is dumb.”
“Is not.”
“Is so.”
This is one of the worst tit-for-tats in advertising history, and Ron, you’re right: It is completely annoying. I don’t think either AT&T or Verizon realize how they look from the outside. It’s almost as if these campaigns were made to satisfy sensitive corporate egos — not for consumers but despite them.
Whenever you respond to one of your competitors publicly (in ads or otherwise), you are letting them dictate the terms of battle, which is a HUGE marketing mistake.
And Luke Wilson, please get some decent clothes.
The back and forth measuring stuff is bad enough, but what gets me is that AT&T felt compelled to respond. Can’t any brand/firm/whatever take the high ground and stick to their guns and strategy?
If anything, AT&T should have responded w/ ads showing Ron Shevlin getting ZERO bars in his home 15 miles from Boston. And some Verizon guy trying to sell me a $200 device to improve the coverage area. I could do a better job of pitching AT&T than ol’ Luke.
And this just in…
AT&T’s “crappy attitude” is killing its brand.
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i7d41666c039b61af15fe073b44839fb2
And then you have this, which appeared in the NY Times last month: AT&T takes the fall for iPhone’s glitches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html
@Ron – I’m sorry to hear that you happen to live in the one dead zone Verizon has in the entire Northeast, but you’re the exception, not the rule.
@Jeffrey – Verizon’s ads aren’t tit for tat, and it’s fair game to compare your product against your competitor (Coke vs Pepsi anyone?) and especially when you are doing so based on objective data (as opposed to say, taste).
AT&T on the other hand, is being reactive, which I think is always a recipe for problems, if not disaster. Certainly doesn’t make them seem “leader-like” or instill confidence in the viewer (especially with bloated, past-his-prime Luke Wilson leading the charge). AT&T would be wiser to keep on promoting that they’re the exclusive provider of the iPhone to get people in the door. Shine the light on your strengths, not your shortcomings…
Ron,
As a longtime Verizon customer, I take issue with your assertion that Verizon’s focus on maps is idiotic. Annoying, yes.
Verizon carries fewer of the “hot” phones and has more expensive plans than every other carrier (overall). But their call coverage is second-to-none. You can drive across the country with a Verizon phone and not have to worry about too many dead zones. I can attest to that. I drove through Nebraska with at least 3 bars.
I even called up Verizon a few months ago and contended with them that I could get two smart phones and the data plans on AT&T or T-Mobile for the price of one smart phone (with data plan) and one regular phone. The customer service rep acknowledged this and said (correctly) that I get what I pay for in terms of coverage. The reason that it’s more expensive is because I get better coverage (which I do). They sold me on the fact that if I was in an emergency situation, I’m more likely to trust my Verizon coverage than any other coverage.
I think I agree more with Jordan’s contention that AT&T’s responses are ridiculous and could lead to disaster. The fact that the ads are completely false also don’t help their cause. I’m frankly surprised with the whole notion of “You can’t talk and surf the web at the same time.” I don’t have a smartphone, but I know Verizon customers who do that all the time.
Simply put, AT&T is known for their devices, not their coverage. Verizon is known for their coverage and their customer service (which is superb I might add). Verizon–while being annoying–is playing up their strength while AT&T is walking away from theirs.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Scott. Much appreciated.
I don’t dispute that their coverage area is better. But I would contend that there are very few people who need coverage in Salt Lake City one day, Harrisonburg VA the next, and Nebraska the day after that.
I think my big issue — perhaps not well articulated — is the extent to which each of the two firms are reacting to each others’ ads. Instead of basing their own ads on well thought out and defendable strategies.
Regardless of who started the pissing contest first, this consumer has had enough maps.
AT&T’s approach is the exact same problem with Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” campaign. Reactive.
Those Cohens sure love Verizon…
Jeffrey,
Us Cohens stick together! Anyway, I agree that it has gotten ridiculous. When the Verizon maps commercial first came out, I thought it was clever. Now, it’s overboard, and AT&T isn’t helping the cause.
I agree, the pissing match can end any time now.
@Jordon,
I live an hour north of New York City. Everywhere around me for miles has 3 or 4 bars. I get no bars. Translation, the second Verizon dead zone in the North East.
@Ron, I almost bought one of those extenders. Instead I complained to Verizon. After reading this I feel the need to complain again.
@dmgerbino
BTW – Another great blog post. I am wondering what the Verizon advertising strategy should be for the 90% of its market that lives and works in a small area. I think it would go something like this:
1) Split between the major demographic/psychographic
hold on, one of my Droids(tm) is missing