Negative comparative advertising is nothing new. We’re pretty used to seeing all sorts of advertising and marketing strategies that base their tactics around making the other guy look bad. Sure, it’s what you have to do sometimes to make your product look better. But, when has a line been crossed and when is it simply a clever idea that the competitor wishes it thought of first?
Earlier this week Engadget released an article covering the story of AT&T suing Verizon for the “There’s a map for that” ads and the allegations of false advertising within them — mainly the map coverage comparison. So you’re not in the dark on this, you can check out the commercial here and see what all the fuss is about before reading on.
The Verizon ad is a pretty big lash out against the AT&T 3G service and how it compares to Verizon’s. AT&T’s main objection is their belief that the ads are misleading viewers into thinking that outside of their 3G service, you cannot get normal cell coverage. There isn’t any disputing that Verizon’s 3G network leads as far as its competitors, but the argument is that it’s misleading the viewers on a different level. Here’s what AT&T had to say:
“In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn’t offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T’s wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon’s misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T’s strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers… and we’ve beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn — a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.”
Apparently, before the commercial aired Verizon had already pulled specific wording and made it less harsh against AT&T, but it wasn’t enough. AT&T claims that the wording still confuses the large audience of non-tech savvy people out there, which is something commercial producers should have factored in. From the looks of it, the dispute ain’t over yet. Engadget makes a good point at the very end of their post, saying they hope AT&T is spending just as much time improving their service as they are fighting this lawsuit. What are your thoughts?
