Alright, perhaps it’s not all that maniacal, but it does raise a question about negative advertising. It certainly isn't new - Verizon recently came under fire for another ad they ran called, "There's a Map for That" (punning on the popular iPhone ads) where they used a network coverage map to illustrate how bad AT&T's coverage is; they even put up comparison maps in their store windows. AT&T sued them for misrepresentation in return. I'm beginning to wonder that they may have been justified in doing that.
Granted, the AT&T network has some legitimate problems - such as dropped calls, slow downloads and calls going directly to voicemail - and Verizon is justified in moving aggressively to promote its reliable network. But at what point do you stop making a case for yourself and start to paint yourself as a cutthroat, insensitive brand? The iPhone has a lot of fans, despite the network, and by taking it on with this passive-aggressive approach, does Verizon risk alienating diehard fans?
Another thing: Apple is already expected to become carrier-neutral in 2010 once its contract with AT&T expires, and I'm sure Verizon will want to be an iPhone vendor (rumors are already swirling that a new iPhone will be launching for the Verizon network). By running an ad in which the iPhone is called a "misfit toy" (if only because of its association with AT&T) I can't imagine they're winning a whole bunch of points with Apple.
It’s clear that this type of advertising (facts + veil of cuteness + sardonic humor) has been legitimized by the Mac vs. PC turf war. I’ve been a big fan of the “I’m a Mac” campaign, but those ads have begun to get somewhat below the belt. They are increasingly less based on facts (no viruses, no security issues), and now raise questions about Microsoft’s integrity. They sound a lot more personal and are subsequently less funny and less enjoyable. I own numerous Apple products and love them all, but I am beginning to feel a little less proud that the tete-a-tete’s between Mac and PC are turning into sound petty school yard fights. I wonder: at what point do the diminishing returns of aggressive behavior begin to set in to negatively impact a brand?
Then again, this may be an entirely moot point in the wireless category. After all, to what extent are people attracted to phone handsets by the brand personality they exude, versus the simple facts of cost and performance? Unlike Asia, where a cellphone is largely a status symbol, perhaps most of the American audience is fairly brand disloyal and therefore mostly insensitive to aggressive advertising?
Or, perhaps this ad isn't as negative as it seems at first blush. For all I know, I may just be disturbed by the sight of abandoned toys (remember Velveteen rabbit?) and/or sentient toys with a distinct evil streak (a la Chucky), and there’s just some major transference happening here with the new Verizon ad. I bet that never came up in a focus group.
Another thing: Apple is already expected to become carrier-neutral in 2010 once its contract with AT&T expires, and I'm sure Verizon will want to be an iPhone vendor (rumors are already swirling that a new iPhone will be launching for the Verizon network). By running an ad in which the iPhone is called a "misfit toy" (if only because of its association with AT&T) I can't imagine they're winning a whole bunch of points with Apple.
It’s clear that this type of advertising (facts + veil of cuteness + sardonic humor) has been legitimized by the Mac vs. PC turf war. I’ve been a big fan of the “I’m a Mac” campaign, but those ads have begun to get somewhat below the belt. They are increasingly less based on facts (no viruses, no security issues), and now raise questions about Microsoft’s integrity. They sound a lot more personal and are subsequently less funny and less enjoyable. I own numerous Apple products and love them all, but I am beginning to feel a little less proud that the tete-a-tete’s between Mac and PC are turning into sound petty school yard fights. I wonder: at what point do the diminishing returns of aggressive behavior begin to set in to negatively impact a brand?
Then again, this may be an entirely moot point in the wireless category. After all, to what extent are people attracted to phone handsets by the brand personality they exude, versus the simple facts of cost and performance? Unlike Asia, where a cellphone is largely a status symbol, perhaps most of the American audience is fairly brand disloyal and therefore mostly insensitive to aggressive advertising?
Or, perhaps this ad isn't as negative as it seems at first blush. For all I know, I may just be disturbed by the sight of abandoned toys (remember Velveteen rabbit?) and/or sentient toys with a distinct evil streak (a la Chucky), and there’s just some major transference happening here with the new Verizon ad. I bet that never came up in a focus group.
