The wireless war continues between AT&T and Verizon. In my last post, I felt that Verizon's aggressiveness might have been somewhat unwarranted but a federal judge clearly disagreed with me, as he dismissed AT&T's lawsuit that Verizon's latest campaign makes it seem that AT&T offers no coverage in large portions of the country. Not to be out-done, AT&T went full speed ahead on plan B: a counter campaign called "Side by Side", which launched last night.
I sincerely wish that AT&T had not executed plan B. Here are all of the things that are wrong with this ad:
1) A side by side comparison? Nothing reeks more of "panic-driven PR move by the second-best guy". AT&T is a household name and, yes, the second largest wireless provider in the country, but it isn't going to lose a large percentage of its subscribers in the few weeks it would have taken to develop a more creative, witty, polished and compelling ad. Rattling off facts with no story behind them doesn't do anything to reinstate any credibility in AT&T's offerings or brand, and if anything, is likely to take away from both.
2) No mention of the iPhone. The ad alludes to the 100,000 apps but considering that the iPhone is AT&T's strongest weapon and both Verizon ads take it on directly through "There's a Map for That" and the iPhone Misfit Toy, shouldn't the retort have included at least a mention of the iPhone? Maybe AT&T wasn't able to get Apple's sign off on this in time, or maybe Apple wanted to have nothing to do with it, but it is a glaring hole in this comeback strategy.
3) Luke Wilson. Seriously, Luke Wilson? He's a funny actor but he looks exhausted and jaded, like he just got off a 10 hour flight (he may well have). Is that really what you want your brand to look like? Verizon has hipster teens and cutesy toys - and you fight back with a A-/B+ list funnyman, through a script that has no personality and does not leverage his brand (i.e. humor) in any way at all. Except for that last comment about AT&T not having a V in its name, which would have sounded a lot funnier if Wilson had actually made fun of what it means to have a V in your name. For instance if the line had actually been (my words in bold): "Cool name that starts with a funky letter, like, hmm, V? Oh yeah, it got one." it would have been somewhat more effective.
To me, this ad was a mistake and it was clearly created to satisfy top executives at AT&T who wanted an immediate response, however sloppy, to stave off the news and analyst hounds; this much is obvious by the fact that the TV ad was accompanied by a print campaign in the Wall Street Journal. I recognize their point of view, but as an AT&T customer and iPhone user, I would have preferred if they had addressed me, since I'm the one who generates revenue for them and is likely to jump ship as a result of Verizon's ads.
Would've, should've, could've; it's all done now. We can only hope that AT&T gets its act together quickly and is actually able to come back with something more solid, something that helps it prevail over the lawsuit dismissal and its own failure of an ad, otherwise it probably really has something to worry about as Black Friday approaches and people start lining up outside Verizon stores for the new Droid phones.
Related Post: Verizon: holiday cheer or churlishness?
