Verizon vs AT&T

Round 1: There’s a Map for That

Up against the overwhelming popularity of the iPhone, available exclusively through AT&T, Verizon launches their map comparison ad. They score big on two Friction Marketing tenets:

1. Marketing Jujitsu – Using classic Friction Marketer strategy, Verizon hijacks their opponent’s slogan and turns it against them. Apple’s expensive “there’s an app for that” marketing campaign becomes “there’s a map for that”. Now every time Apple spends on advertising, Verizon’s coverage map springs to mind.
2. Clear differentiator – The coverage map quickly and easily tells the story. Every time an AT&T customer experiences connectivity issues, they wonder if coverage would be better elsewhere.

An interesting side-note: Verizon completely ignored all the other cell phone carriers and in doing so removes them from consideration in consumers’ minds as well. Verizon also cleverly avoids being the bully. “Hey – it’s just a map and we’re just reporting the facts.”

Round 1 Score: AT&T 0, Verizon 2

Round 2: There’s a Lawsuit for That

Realizing they are taking a beating, AT&T heads for their lawyers, seeking an injunction to stop the ads – claiming they are misleading. (The maps show 3G coverage. The lawyers argue this is misleading as AT&T’ has superior 2G coverage). Verizon’s legal team fires back:

“AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.”

A judge quickly throws out the suit. Friction Marketing says if you have to reach for your lawyers, you can’t have a popular appeal. If you reach for your lawyers and they lose, it’s even worse.

Round 2 Score: AT&T 0, Verizon 2 (Verizon gets a bonus point for quickly shutting down their opponents legal team.)

Round 3: AT&T Strikes Back

If the lawyers won’t work, let’s call in the ad agency. AT&T launches a counteroffensive TV commercial featuring a matrix of comparisons. Usually Friction Marketers do well with the comparative matrix – they are effectively unbiased (or appear to be) and helps educate people quickly as to differences. However, AT&T’s matrix stumbles – the differences are essentially immaterial. Presumabally if you can’t get 3G reception you speed is essentially infinetly slow. AT&T stumbles again – their ads end with with pettiness – in the matrix ad, the check for Verizon falls off, in the umbrella ad, the Verizon name falls over, in the download ad, the Verizon character stumbles around headless. This is unnecessary, undignfied and childish. It reflects poorly on AT&T, not Verizon.

Round 3 Score: AT&T 0, Verizon 1

Score to date? AT&T 0, Verizon 4.

What Should AT&T do?

Let’s face it their only real asset is as exclusive provider of the iPhone. (This is a strong, yet extremely costly position – they’ve spent $1.3 billion dollars to discount the price of the must-have gadget). The iPhone should be enough of an asset to flaunt and fight back with; however, AT&T’s exclusive deal is set to expire this year. Reports suggest they are trying to extend it into 2011, but have not locked it down yet. AT&T lives on the corner of rock and a hard place: the more they rely on their iPhone exclusivity, the more they will have to give in their negotiations with Apple in order to maintain that position. Prediction: AT&T knows they are toast w/o exclusivity as the iPhone provider. They extend the contract, but pay through the nose to do so.

Tagged as: AT&T, Marketing Jujitsu, Verizon