Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Nov 04, 2009
AT&T to Verizon: There’s a Lawsuit For That (MSNBC)
What do you do when a competitor produces a comparative advertisement that really hammers you hard? Well, one thing you may be able to do is take the problem to court. And that is what AT&T is doing because they are not very happy with new television ads being run by Verizon (see ad at YouTube). The ads claim to compare the 3G coverage (i.e., primarily high-speed data access) in the U.S. for both providers by showing a side-by-side comparison in the form of nationwide coverage maps. It really doesn’t matter that a very, very large percentage of the U.S. population is covered by both services. What does matter is that the visual suggests more are covered by Verizon and a voice-over suggests AT&T may leave customers without access.
While the voice-over is what AT&T is mostly complaining about (AT&T says customers will still be covered but maybe not by 3G in mostly remote areas), what makes this an interesting story are the maps. More than likely this ad campaign would not be much of a problem if the comparison was limited to just words in a print ad. Instead, this is a case where the visual (i.e., maps) probably caught AT&T’s attention as well as the attention of millions of television viewers. And AT&T is crying foul.
AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and is asking for a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction to stop the ads. The company requests an immediate hearing and said AT&T has "suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm" as a result of the commercials.
Do the colors used to represent each company’s coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T – also suggest something to viewers?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Nov 02, 2009
Making Micro-Payment Models Work Online (E-Commerce Times)
Some may think that nearly any product can be sold over the Internet. But in reality low-priced products, and in particular low-priced physical goods, have generally not been a viable selling option particularly when purchased in small quantities. The problems tend to center on two key cost issues: 1) the fees retailers must pay to financial institutions for accepting credit cards (the main payment option for Internet purchases), and 2) the costs incurred when shipping physical goods. Both costs eat away at retailers' small profits on low-priced products, thus offering retailers little incentive to sell these. Low-priced services have fared better as shipping costs are often taken out of the equation (e.g., digital music) but the credit card fees still exists.
The problems surrounding purchases of small quantities of low-priced products is an important reason why many websites selling these products require accounts to be filled with a minimum amount of funding (e.g., Apple iTunes) before a purchase can be made or they have a setup that accumulates product purchases that are then included in a monthly billing system.
Micro-payments, variously defined as methods allowing for low-priced product purchases (anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars) have for many years been touted as a way to handle this. But so far it hasn't quite worked out though as discussed in this story it is not stopping companies from trying to figure it out.
Efforts in the past to address the costs of card processing of micro-payments by aggregating transactions into a single batch have not been successful. Other efforts to jury-rig credit cards for micro-payments include forcing the customer to purchase "credits" in round increments like $20. Pre-selling credits creates a stored value and closed-loop payment system, akin to the gift cards sold at grocery line checkout or in mass transit ticketing, where the funds may be used only with a single merchant.
Besides the cost of credit card fees and shipping, what other costs do retailers face who may consider selling low-priced products over the Internet?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Oct 28, 2009
The Keys to Brand Success (Millward Brown)
For the last few years the guys at Millward Brown have been producing insightful marketing content and this story (in PDF format) continues the good work. It covers the factors that set brands apart and hopefully make them distinctive such as the brand name, logo, packaging design, etc. But not only does the story cover the factors important to branding, it also looks at the psychology behind these factors and how these affect customer decision making.
In reality, the process of unlocking brand associations is more complex than simply matching up brands with words, shapes, or colors. In many cases it is not the individual elements of a brand’s presentation that are important, but the way these work together.
Do major Internet companies that offer online services, such as Google and Facebook, need to focus on branding issues in the same way that consumer products companies, such as Procter & Gamble and General Mills, look at branding?
