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.

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

AT&T’s approach is the exact same problem with Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” campaign. Reactive.

Those Cohens sure love Verizon…

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.

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.

@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…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html

AT&T’s “crappy attitude” is killing its brand.
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i7d41666c039b61af15fe073b44839fb2

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.

“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.