AT&T’s latest 3G ad decapitates Luke Wilson

John Brownlee ()

AT&T’s latest advertisement to tackle Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” ads uses Luke Wilson, his twin and a decapitated doppelganger to make its point: AT&T’s 3G network is faster than Verizon’s.

As an ad, it’s certainly funny to watch Luke Wilson stumbling around, noggin-less. Guillotined by Verizon’s slower 3G service, Wilson’s body becomes a random engine of nerve endings chaotically firing, like a chicken with its head chopped off. The ad ends as Wilson’s headless body collapses to the floor, deftly cutting away just before his bowels loosen. The intact Wilsons then wander off for a snuggle.

The argument the ad is making, however, seems poorly thought out. AT&T certainly does have a faster network than Verizon… in fact, Verizon’s never contested that fact. What AT&T doesn’t have is anything even approaching Verizon’s coverage.

If you break this ad down to what it’s saying beyond the quirky charm, AT&T is making the following argument: if you are in an area with AT&T’s fastest 3G coverage, you can download a JPEG of Luke Wilson 20% faster than you can download it anywhere on Verizon’s network. That’s great, but most people would take reliability over a 20% boost in speed. AT&T would do better taking the money they are spending countering arguments Verizon has never made into their infrastructure, countering arguments Verizon has made.

DON'T MISS
Which Carrier Will Provide The Best 4G Service To Future iPads and iPhones?

6 comments »

About the author

John BrownleeJohn Brownlee is news editor here at Cult of Mac, and has also written about a lot of things for a lot of different places, including Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker, AMC, Geek and the Consumerist. He lives in Cambridge with his charming inamorata and a tiny budgerigar punningly christened after Nabokov's most famous pervert. You can follow him here on Twitter.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in News |

  • Mike

    Agreed. The money Luke Wilson is getting could put up some much needed towers. And all Verizon needs to do is have a parade of iphone users saying ‘love the phone, hate the network,’

  • Qjersey

    The coverage angle is a joke, the only people who can’t get coverage live out in less densely populated areas. Not exactly Apple’s target urban dwelling market.
    I live near a big city and haven’t had any problems with dropped calls…which used to happen to me all the time on Verizon.

  • mike

    Not much insight on this article, does this author assume AT&T and their ad agencies are dummies and didn’t think of this? AT&T and AT&T’s ad agency must be well aware that Verizon has larger 3G coverage.

    The current AT&T ad strategy (right or wrong) is to redirect the conversation to broader topics on network. Who cares if it works everywhere, does it work where I live and work? Does it work well?

    Larger question remains. AT&T’s network is robustly tested with the iphone data hogs. Will Verizon’s network be able to handle the influx of this massive amount of data once it becomes available on it’s network? Why is AT&T not given credit for taking on this huge amount of data on it’s network?

  • fotostuf

    I really don’t take sides one way or another, but had some thoughts:

    1. How many people are traveling the country and just have to have 3G coverage everywhere they go? I would think this number is very low, therefore not of great importance to sales of a phone.
    2. If most users live in an area and/or travel to areas that have coverage, why worry about everywhere else? Reality is, corporations go where the money is, and if they successfully service the major markets, lesser markets are just not going to get the service.
    3. Where is service readily available (any service, not just 3G)? If one company can service you when another can’t, it really doesn’t matter what KIND of service is available. I have a good friend just outside a major city and she gets NO service from anyone. So the whole debate is irrelevant. If one company can show a greater NUMBER of people with some kind of coverage over another company, they are the ones that provide the service needed, regardless of speed.
    I have AT&T and found this out in a small town away from everywhere. No one had service EXCEPT for me, therefore, AT&T provided what I needed whereas Verizon did not. Who cares about the speed when you need to make a call?

    It isn’t what you think you want that matters, it is what you are using at the moment. If coverage is available, you “win”. If a company provides 3G service to its main customers, having faster speeds is exactly what they are going to purchase, not maps that show they can travel somewhere and still get 3G service.

    I would assume most people would go for having a working phone over downloading Luke Wilson! Now, if it was Salma Hayek, that would be different! ;-D

  • michaeld

    Don’t miss the point of advertising: Will the image stick in the viewer’s mind? I say “yes.” From an advertiser’s standpoint this ad is visually clever, gets the message across quickly, and is memorable. The message is simple: ATT is faster than Verizon, and how can you argue that when “time’s up” and the headless guy stumbles and falls off screen.
    This ad is a winner, and much better than the previous ATT/Luke Wilson ad.
    Congrats! Can’t wait to see it on TV.

  • http://videounstop.blogspot.com YOUTUBE