Speed Dial: 60-Second Marketing Insight Newsletter

 Print   �  Bookmark

Marketing Mano-a-Mano Verizon vs ATT in New Hand-to-Hand Marketing Wars By Marie Elwood, Brand Marketing Consultant  March 16, 2010 - Speed Dial Issue 23

Four.

Billion.

Dollars.

According to Jeffry Scott's 1/19/10 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, that's how much money Verizon and ATT have spent in their latest cut-throat marketing wars for the $150B American wireless market. Verizon landed the first blow with their smash "There's a Map for That" ad campaign late last year, which has been answered with a non-stop barrage of  ATT TV spots featuring Luke Wilson.

The Verizon vs ATT take-no-prisoners approach is becoming increasingly common in America's marketing wars: instead of polite references to "other leading brands", an increasing number of advertisers are launching direct assaults on their competitors and boldly naming names.

Domino's Pizza is using this tactic, taking on Papa John's by aggressively claiming victory in a recent consumer  taste war. Clorox 2 calls out Tide Stain Booster specifically its latest TV ad campaign as well.

Are these hard-hitting moves just a natural reaction given the difficult US economy?  Possibly, but other factors are also in play in this latest round of marketing wars:

- Image-Busting:   
In early 2010, Domino's took  the most daring move in recent marketing history, announcing that their pizza had become so bad that it needed a complete overhaul. It's "do-or-die" for Domino's, and winning a taste test over a national brand whose tagline is "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza" is credibility-building news.  

- Hold the Fort: 
Proctor & Gamble is the king of the massive laundry detergent/ fabric softener market. Clorox has a smaller fiefdom: bleach & bleach alternatives. With the release of P&G's Tide Stain Booster, Clorox seems to believe that the lord of the laundry universe is making a play into its territory. Since companies defend their crown jewels to the death, Clorox's latest TV ad is hardly surprising. The marketing wars have spread to the laundry room.    

As we look at these aggressive marketing wars, one important tactic deserves the spotlight: companies are pairing strong verbal messages with absolutely atomic visuals. How impactful would Verizon have been had they just talked to consumers about ATT's perceived coverage? The visual of "the map" is the master stroke in the Verizon vs ATT campaign.

Domino's also adds a visual dimension with its consumer taste test graphs vs. Papa John's. And Clorox pans to a wide shot comparing the value of its laundry additive to Tide's in an approach reminiscent of General Mills' 20-year-old " How Many Bowls of Total.... Hope You're Hungry!" TV advertising.

So much dirt and so many dollars are being slung around in these types of ads, but when the dust settles, does it really matter? Does anyone win in these marketing wars?

In the short-term, yes. Negative campaigning works- - that's the long-held conventional widsom from the American political landscape. In the short-run, choices are made at the ballot box & elections are won or lost; customers pull out their wallets & opt for Choice A or Choice B. 

The long-term implications, frankly, are less clear. While negative campaigning may be effective in winning elections, Gallup polls consistently show that the people who leverage them- - members of Congress- -  are perceived as being the one of the most unethical and dishonest groups measured.  Needless to say, this is hardly the image companies aspire to for their brands.

What's next in these marketing wars? Join me in watching as the Verizon vs ATT, Domino's vs Papa John's, & Clorox vs Tide sagas unfoId, and let's observe the aftermath of hand-to-hand brand combat. 

TOP