It seems you can’t turn on the TV these days (or Hulu or whatever transmission method you prefer) without seeing a “maps” commercial by Verizon. The short of it is that Verizon claims to have 5x more 3G coverage than AT&T. Brilliant ad campaign. And if they did their homework correctly, there’d be no way for AT&T to rebut.

However, AT&T found a solution: they’re just going to sue Verizon. Not about the claim, because they’re not arguing that it’s false. They’re suing because they claim that the Verizon ad is misleading.

Wait, what?

Yes, AT&T thinks that Verizon is implying that people without 3G coverage can’t receive phone calls or surf the web at all. Oh, did I mention that this is even after Verizon had fine print that clearly stated that phone and internet service are still available in areas without 3G on the AT&T network?

So why did AT&T do this? My guess would be they felt the shot to their pride. Verizon hit them where it hurt and there was no way AT&T could retalliate. I’m not saying AT&T should have taken their ball and went home, but they could have handled this much better than with a flimsy lawsuit. As of right now, I can see this turning into a PR nightmare.

Consider the following:

-AT&T filed the lawsuit not because Verizon’s claim of 500% more 3G coverage was false. People who read about the suit may correctly infer that AT&T concedes victory on that point.

-Others may read between the lines and feel that AT&T doesn’t believe in their own marketing/advertising department to come up with a rebuttal. Or maybe they don’t even have faith in their network.

-And let’s face it. This lawsuit makes AT&T seem like a kid who wants to play dodgeball but then complains when he/she gets hit.

Note: I should have prefaced this post by saying that I have been an AT&T customer for about 6 years (through the whole Cingular phase).

It’s no secret that Android phones will soon be flooding the market. The latest product in this category is the myTouch phone from T-Mobile.

From the looks of their commercial, it seems like a solid product and another entrant in the long line of supposedly serious iPhone competitors.

However, what is their target audience? I assumed that since I’d been seeing these commercials a lot (no matter what program I was watching) that I was within the target demo. But then again, look at who’s in the commercials.

Whoopi Goldberg, for one. As far as I’m concerned, the last time she was relevant was when she was in the movie Ghost. But now she’s hosting The View, which is for older women.

Phil Jackson is also in this commercial. Former Chicago Bulls coach and current LA Lakers head coach. Are viewers who aren’t basketball fans supposed to know who he is?

And the last person in this ad is Jesse James from the show West Coast Choppers. I don’t watch the show, but I assume the audience is mostly male. I didn’t even recognize him in the commercial. I actually thought it was Fred Durst.

And the commercial is set to song by (the artist formerly known as) Cat Stevens. So obviously, they’re trying to target an older audience… who is both female and male… who watches basketball, TV shows about building bikes, and The View.

The other major point of the commercial is that customization is the key feature of the phone. While that’s all well and great for young people who like to have individualized everythings, I don’t think adults particularly care for a cartoon vampire caricature of themselves on the back of their phone.

But hey, maybe when I grow up some more that’s what I’ll want.

The one consistency I’ve found with Microsoft advertisements is that they’re pretty inconsistent. In the past few years (since the modern PC vs. Mac wars began), Windows commercials have generally been hit-or-miss.

The last three-spot TV campaign they ran showed a lot of promise. I especially liked the introductory one featuring an Asian girl named Kylie who, after showcasing Vista’s ease of use, exclaims “I’m a PC and I’m four and a half!” For once, it seemed as if Microsoft had their fingers on the pulse on what people found memorable and worth sharing. Simply put, people love watching cute kids and create buzz around those types of videos (just consider the YouTube hits Hey Jude sung by a small Asian boy or the more recent kittens inspired by kittens).

And then the Microsoft effect kicked in. Each subsequent commercial featured older kids, each less cute than the last. The follow-up commercial featured a 7-year old girl named Alexa who demonstrated Vista’s ability to stitch photos together. For me, that one was a miss. But then the last of the set featured an 8-year old boy named Adam (who had the voice of a teenager) creating a photo slideshow. After the first time, I had no desire whatsoever to see that commercial again.

Anyway, Microsoft has rolled out a new TV campaign (by Crispin Porter). It features Lauren, a young woman trying to find a laptop with certain specifications for under a grand. She visits an Apple store, where only one of the computers is within her budget but outside of what she wants. Eventually she decides to buy a PC from BestBuy and Microsoft foots the bill. On the drive over to Best Buy, Lauren makes a statement that’s making waves around the tech marketing industry: “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person.”

Watch the spot (via MSN):
<a href=”http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&#038;playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:0bb6a07c-c829-4562-8375-49e6693810c7&#038;showPlaylist=true&#038;from=msnvideo” mce_href=”http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&amp;playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:0bb6a07c-c829-4562-8375-49e6693810c7&amp;showPlaylist=true&amp;from=msnvideo” target=”_new” title=”Laptop Hunters $1000 – Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion”>Video: Laptop Hunters $1000 – Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion</a>

Why this Ad works:

In the first college Advertising course I ever took, we discussed why people buy certain brands and products when they enter a store. And the one point that’s really stuck with me through the years (due to personal relevance) is that generally, you cannot change the mind of the consumer who walks in with a mission to spend the least amount of money. Clever smear campaigns against the competition may help you, but of course, they have their consequences.

The latest PC ad (and the ongoing marketing technique of making the term ‘PC’ synonymous with Windows, and by extension Vista) taps right into the most undeniable benefit of purchasing a Windows-loaded machine: It’s cheaper. The ad is obviously not targeted towards Mac or PC loyalists, but to the ever-growing number of consumers who want to buy a new computer and aren’t exactly tech-savvy. In this day and age, that’s a critical audience. Think about it: your aunt wants a new computer to check her e-mail and isn’t sure whether to get a PC or a Mac. She sees this commercial, which convinces her to try a PC because she just wants the barebones capabilities. So she ends up buying one and (ideally) acclimates to the OS. Boom, brand loyalty. Then let’s say your younger cousins will also use the computer. Parents are a major reference group affecting brand loyalty so your cousins become second generation Microsoft users and buy PCs for years to come.

Of course, that example is 100% dependent on how Apple responds to the Microsoft ad. They’re usually very good with tongue-in-cheek retorts that don’t come off as petty.

So we’ll see.