backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by chose.. on Dec 12 at 3:30 PM


AT&T uses Luke Wilson in a counterattack on Verizon's "Anti-AT&T" commercials

A federal judge handed AT&T a lump of Christmas coal, denying the company's pleas for an injunction to take Verizon's commercials mocking AT&T's network off the air.
There will be no injunction in AT&T's stocking this Christmas

Negative advertising can be a tremendously effective tool, just ask Microsoft.  While people may by now be getting tired of Apple's attack commercials against PCs, for several years they served as an effective tool in building Apple's market share back to relevance and raising the company's brand image. 

However, what's especially lethal is when you can create a negative advertising campaign that's actually true.  That's what Verizon did when it pounced on Apple's partner AT&T over the company's poor 3G coverage.  With AT&T's partner Apple recently admitting that the carrier dropped as many as 30 percent of its calls in some regions, on average, Verizon, the nation's largest carrier, pounced on its second place competitor airing a series of commercials mocking it.

AT&T took a gamble and took Verizon to court over its new "There's a map for that" commercials.  It argued that TV viewers by and large weren't smart enough to distinguish from 3G coverage maps and total coverage maps, despite the Verizon commercial providing textual and verbal indications that the maps were representative of 3G coverage.  Thus AT&T argued the commercials would mislead customers into thinking AT&T had no coverage in much of the country when it really only had no 3G coverage.

The company upped the ante when it asked for an injunction on Verizon's latest "Island of Misfit Toys" commercials, expanding the case in federal court.  However, Verizon refused to back down from its attacks, commenting in court filings "the truth hurts."

Now AT&T's Christmas wish to take its competitor's ads off the air has been met with disappointment.  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. handed the telecom a lump of coal, denying their request for an injunction, commenting that while Verizon's commercials were "sneaky" they weren't misleading. 

Judge Batten Sr. commented that people might "misunderstand" the commercials, "but that doesn’t mean they’re misleading."  He even had both sides laughing when he elaborated, "Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic.  They’re not fully alive."

The loss is no laughing matter for AT&T, though, as it faces a worse hit to its already marred brand image, thanks to the heightened publicity the suit has given the commercials.  Recent brand studies showed that the commercials seemed to be working with Verizon's brand perception rising over the past several weeks, and AT&T's brand image plummeting.

AT&T will have one final chance to try to silence Verizon, at a second hearing on December 16.  However, with Verizon crying that AT&T is trying to silence its right to free speech and AT&T unable to directly challenge the commercials' accuracy, AT&T's hopes of a last-minute Christmas surprise seem to be growing increasingly dim.

In other news, AT&T has finally decided to combat Verizon's commercials directly with a commercial of their own. The company has employed Luke Wilson to jab Verizon on such issues as simultaneous talking/web surfing and the company's lack of “popular smartphones”. You can view the commercial here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That commercial was...
By Ramos22 on 11/18/2009 9:15:29 PM , Rating: 5
terrible.




RE: That commercial was...
By BruceLeet on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That commercial was...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/18/2009 9:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!


RE: That commercial was...
By tastyratz on 11/18/2009 10:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
I just had to comment, that clip art baby for this article has been my forum signature for well over a year now
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/tastyratz/si...


RE: That commercial was...
By Ristogod on 11/19/2009 9:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
That baby is ugly.


RE: That commercial was...
By spread on 11/19/2009 6:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. It's from Wedding Crashers guys. Relax.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n46CtDmKOg


RE: That commercial was...
By Samus on 11/19/2009 4:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
caaaaaaaaaaarl!!


RE: That commercial was...
By Omega215D on 11/18/2009 10:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love some of the retards that post under the Youtube video. like one saying how ATT is not bad because not many people leave their home area that often so the coverage is not that important.

The douche doesn't even know what CDMA is capable of and that GSM can get "crowded" at times.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/18/2009 10:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
CDMA however loses signal strength the more people are on it too.

CDMA is still superior, but I'm not buying any stupid phone locked to a carrier, and certainly not some stupid CDMA only phone with no SIM card slot. That $559 Nokia N900 looks just about right.


RE: That commercial was...
By rvassar on 11/18/2009 10:54:05 PM , Rating: 1
CDMA is on it's way out. The max data rate on CDMA EVDO is much slower than GSM 3G. Verizon is switching it's network over to LTE over the next few years.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/18/2009 11:21:02 PM , Rating: 3
LTE is the new CDMA in a way. There is no TDMA done in LTE as there is currently in GSM/GPRS, or Att's HSPDA.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 2:07:03 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, just to clarify,

TDMA - really old phones on Att/Cingular - Went dead around 2005 or 2006
GSM - Still uses Time Division Multiplexing
CDMAone/CDMA2000 - Most laughed at Qualcomm when they made it, saying it would never work, and even if it could, it would be too expensive and battery draining. Obviously uses code division multiplexing

The newer UMTS/HSDPA stuff and LTE no longer use TDM but CDM.

LTE looks also like UMTS/HSDPA upgraded, though I have not been able to confirm.

In any case, Cingular deployed UMTS first on 1900mhz, and that may explain why their coverage sucks, at least, indoors. They are now doing 850mhz as well since that works better indoors.

Get a Nokia N900, and it can work on T-Mobile's 1700mhz, Atts 1900 and in Europe at 2100mhz, though all of those suck for indoor use :(


RE: That commercial was...
By Fireshade on 11/20/2009 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in Europe at 2100mhz, though all of those suck for indoor use :(

That's probably your carrier's fault.
I've never had any indoor connection problem in Europe. Always excellent connections.


RE: That commercial was...
By bhieb on 11/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: That commercial was...
By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well if they are going to make a comment on it and passing it off as a fact then yes they should research it before commenting (the post didn't sound like an opinion). We have the capability to learn and understand why not use it?


RE: That commercial was...
By nerdboy on 11/19/2009 6:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
I don’t understand how AT&T can say they have the best 3G experience when they don’t offer the same 3G coverage everywhere. I have AT&T blackberry and a Verizon blackberry and the Verizon works everywhere and the Tethering service is much faster with my Verizon Blackberry. So I can’t get calls on my Verizon phone when I suffering the web, who cares as long as it doesn’t take 10 minutes to check your email.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 8:43:36 AM , Rating: 5
See I don't know what you're talking about. On my Droid I can be using the GPS navigation, which uses both the 3G (to pull the maps) and the GPS at the same time, while also making a phone call.

People who can't be on the internet and the phone at the same time I think have a phone not capable of both at the same time. I don't think its a network limitation because I've done it.


RE: That commercial was...
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct. The CDMA voice network and EVDO rev A data network (found on Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, and US Cellular) are completely different. Some devices don't have a chip that can handle both connections at the same time. Others do.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Did you make the phone call while using the GPS or did you use the GPS while on a call?

It's not a phone limitation, it's a network limitation of CDMA/EVDO. Besides, what good is a GPS when you have no signal in the middle of nowhere, because even Verizon doesn't have 100% coverage? You don't think that those base maps are all dependent on the network 100% do you? It would awfully suck to have your phone say "Oh sorry, can't navigate without Verizon, sorry!" That would be stupid.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I was using the GPS navigation w/ turn by turn directions feature of the phone. And while doing that I can make and receive calls. I know the phone is using the 3G while using the GPS maps cause it shows you. So its handling 3G connectivity to get maps, using the GPS chip to get location, and handling the phone call.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 2:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying you are wrong, but while no other Verizon phone has issues with making and receiving calls either while on EVDO it just puts the connection on hold, then resumes the data connection when the call is done.

Saying there are chips to use both CDMA and EVDO means it has to have a dual radio. Verizon wasn't going to solve this until SVDO, but instead will just go to LTE, since that actually will inherit the UMTS way of doing things, being able to send both voice and data over the same connection.

I think you would have to wait a while to see the new Google Map app stop displaying actual pics of the road vs. just the street lines. If you really want to test it out, try loading a fresh web page while on a call and see if it works.

I know all of this from doing smartphone support for Verizon. I seriously doubt that if they overcame this limitation they would be silent about it.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 3:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you're right. Oh well. It doesn't affect me using GPS so that's what I care about.


RE: That commercial was...
By heulenwolf on 11/19/2009 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I hear an enormous amount of iPhone user frustration, both online and from people I know, that says the AT&T 3G experience isn't so great.

From my own personal experience, when I needed a 3G broadband card to VPN into work from an area that had enormous population density, VZW got it done without a hitch. AT&T's legacy GPRS network dropped out several times in the same area. But hey, they do have a name that includes an ampersand!


RE: That commercial was...
By kd9280 on 11/19/2009 9:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
So basically, AT&T's checklist can be summed up with four words, "We have the iPhone."


RE: That commercial was...
By Motoman on 11/19/2009 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
...which is plenty enough negative press for them right there, as far as I'm concerned.


RE: That commercial was...
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, AT&T have built their business model around a bunch of zealots. So far that has worked out for them.


RE: That commercial was...
By dtm4trix on 11/19/2009 2:45:53 PM , Rating: 3
While I have a 1G iPhone, ATT sucks balls and I wish that apple would pull its head out and make phones for other carriers. It would be a much better phone if it wasn't tied to ATT.


RE: That commercial was...
By Alexstarfire on 11/19/2009 5:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you have the 1G iPhone then I don't see how AT&T could be bad. AT&T has excellent 2G coverage, as I can attest to with the 3-4 different phones I've used on their network over the past 5 years.

I've always heard the iPhone gets crappy reception, but I've never cared to take my dad's iPhone to test it. I wouldn't want to use a hunk of crap like the iPhone, especially the 1G iPhone. My personal opinion so please don't blast me on that.


RE: That commercial was...
By Jalek on 11/20/2009 12:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T has the iPod with a crappy phone built in.
Also, rollover minutes, but when you lose signal so often, you usually have extra minutes.

I've had Cingular for years though, and the iPhone's worse than any phone I've used for losing signal. You can be on a call, looking at the full bar strength indication, and watch it lose signal completely and drop the call, then in 20 seconds or so, full signal again, all without moving.

Never had that happen with various Motorola phones on that service.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki