Latest Verizon/AT&T Commercials
Ever since I realized how much advertisers had to tell the truth in their advertisements, or risk being sued, and what not, I’ve tended to take a closer look at what they’re saying in their commercials.
I’ve really paid attention to the LANGUAGE, and compared them to their competitor.
Case in point is the latest Verizon and AT&T Commercials that discuss the coverage of their respective networks, and how they try to compare themselves to each other.
Verizon for instance has a string of commercials out there lately that have been bragging about the size of their 3G coverage versus AT&T. Apparently my idea of AT&T being a great network in terms of 3G was false, but at the same time, as a typical cell phone user that doesn’t travel the United States that often, or to that many destinations, a fuller map really doesn’t make a difference to me. I have great 3G coverage here in Tampa, and I get decent coverage in MA. My hometown in Massachusetts doesn’t quite have 3G coverage, but closer to Boston, as I tend to be when I’m on vacation there these days, has plenty, as far as I can tell.
So really, as long as I have great 3G coverage where I need it, why would I care if it’s everywhere else, where I don’t, or won’t, ever need it?
Well, back to the subject, because of the string of Verizon commercials attacking AT&T coverage, AT&T takes an effort to counter, and have a recent string of advertisements that say “Verizon is lying and we want to set the record straight. We have the greatest coverage in the US”.
Sadly, I can’t find that commercial on youtube easily to share.
But immediately I picked up on something: AT&T does not mention 3G anywhere in their new commercial! They’re tricking users to believe that they’re simply countering the 3G argument with the “truth” (and a larger, more complete map), but in reality they’re trying to compensate for their obvious lack of 3G coverage vs Verizon, and hoping viewers don’t pick up on this little nuance.
Don’t even get me started on Sprint. They say they have the nation’s largest 3G network, and the country’s first 4G network. If they’re so amazing, why the hell do they not have a leg up on Verizon and AT&T? And what is this 4G anyways, and if it’s so amazing, why aren’t the new smart touch-phones taking advantage of this?
I kind of feel like I’m alone in this, pointing out the nuances of advertisements. Then again, people tend to notice the lies in commercials pretty damn fast, and point them out immediately. But only the lies. AT&T didn’t lie about their coverage being greater than Verizon…. OVERALL coverage. However, their 3G coverage (according to the verizon commercials) is apparently SEVERELY lacking.
Mac vs PC thoughts
So, this is going to be a little bit of a rant.
I used to be a hardcore PC geek. A big PC gamer. I used to break my first computer all the time when I was in elementary/middle school, because I was always messing around with the settings and stuff, learning the inner workings of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. I started with an Intel 386 chipset, with only a 100 mb harddrive (I think… it’s been a long time already)… and had another family computer after that, followed by a massive 2,400 dollar Alienware purchased in the fall of 2003 as my graduation gift from high school (prior to them being bought out by Dell [2006])
About 3 years ago (the start of my senior year of college in 2006) I decided that I wanted a laptop. I also decided that I no longer wanted to be biased against a company like Apple without giving them a fair chance.
I even compared prices with the hardware provided, and found that Mac prices are highly justified for the powerful hardware that they provide. Also, they don’t allow for the crappier systems to even be sold (so slow they can barely run the OS, I mean), only providing high end systems. Basically, the least expensive MacBook they provided is 1,200 dollars (vs the cheapest pc laptops at around 4-500)
This decision came shortly after I heard that Apple’s new MacBooks had intel chipsets in them, with the ability of also running Windows (via a Boot Camp beta). I thought this is the perfect chance for me to try Apple computers and if I despised OS X, I could always go install Windows. In fact, when I purchased the MacBook, that was the FIRST thing I did: install windows. Just to have it set up.
… And I never went back. I ended up uninstalling the Windows partition less than a month later. I don’t know what it was, but Apple absolutely pulled me in with their simplicity, and their ease of use. The way everything just worked so smoothly together. When my Alienware finally crapped out on me after 5 glorious years of upgrading and power, what did I purchase to replace it? Well, a Mac Pro, of course.
I’ve never spent more than an hour inside of Windows Vista (and only on other people’s computers, fixing them).
Then Microsoft starts coming out with those commercials, where they tell the random person if they find the right laptop for them in the store, they’d get it for free. Sure, that’s a good concept, but I just get so annoyed by some of the “challenges” that Microsoft sets up, and some of the opinions of the people who are looking around in the store.
One of the commercials was a flaw from the beginning… the voice-over said that they challenged the person to find a decent laptop under one thousand dollars. I immediately shook my head and went “wow, way to set it up so there’s no way you can lose”… Also, stating the obvious: the cheaper (therefore less high end hardware) computer you buy, the shorter time you’ll have it before you need to spend money to upgrade it or replace it. My “top of the line” Alienware purchased in 2003 lasted me a solid 5 years, with very little upgrading. That’s how powerful it was. If I spent 600 dollars on a computer, I probably would’ve replaced it within 3 years, or would’ve spent at least double the amount I spent on the Alienware upgrading it. When you don’t pay a lot of money on a computer, you don’t get a lot of power or life out of it. In the end, you’re still going to spend as much money, odds are.
The other commercial, one I just saw yesterday, had a girl that had a 1,700 dollars limit to spend on a new laptop, and was buying a one for school. When she looked over at the Macs, she said “it seems that you’re just paying for the Brand”… I shouted “Bull Shit” out into the empty, quiet apartment, making my cat jump a little. As I stated above, I looked and compared hardware with multiple products among multiple brands, mac and pc before, and it really doesn’t seem to be any difference in price when the hardware is identical. And if it is the “brand”, then it’s because of the amount of extra care that Apple puts in their systems to make them as simple and streamlined as possible. Hardware on a Mac is MADE to work with each other. They are so perfect for each other, and so plug and play, it isn’t even funny.
I wondered if this was me being a Mac Geek, or if I just am finally not biased and noticed the flaws in the arguments being provided by Microsoft as to why their system is better. I’m starting to look at the former, as I think to myself and wonder if I would ever go back to a windows pc.
I still laugh that it took me 2 days to figure out how to install a program on OS X when I first bought the laptop. I was expecting a double click, next, next, next, next, ok, install, finish” process… rather than the simple drag and drop that Apple does. It was an attempt to install Firefox which didn’t mention anywhere that I had to drag and drop into the applications folder.
Simple, intuitive, and natural-feeling for everything that is done in OS X. If that is the “brand,” and an extra cost, then I’d gladly pay it.
Let’s not even get into how much better customer service (the Apple Geniuses) are over the Geek Squad, etc… Not to mention they provide most of the help for FREE… I mean, come on! The Geek Squad wouldn’t even let me bounce some thoughts off of them without paying 70 bucks just to figure out what was wrong with my Alienware (“diagnostic” as they called it), not including the cost to repair it.
So, I have to stop letting commercials get to me. I just notice the “false” advertisements, and the ignorance of some people in those “reality” commercials, and it gets on my nerves. I notice that a lot with the beer commercials too, but I guess that’s another post.
Just to clarify, I call it “false” advertisements, in quotes, because they are really pushing the limits of false advertisements, without breaking the law. The same way McDonald’s says that their food is natural and healthy (though that’s before they load it with preservatives and sodium)… And how Cingular could have the “Fewest Dropped Calls” but Verizon have the “Most Reliable Network”… I always thought the fewest dropped calls would be the most reliable… so how can both companies have the best network in that respect?
Thoughts? I’m spent with typing all that, and calling it a day.
Twitter Statistics from Sysomos
Ogilvy PR 360’s Fresh Influence blog did a recent post about Twitter statistics that have been recently collected by the social media analytical company Sysomos.
The top 10 stats that Ogilvy lists show some of the highlights of the report.
Beyond the fact that Twitter is amazing for getting your product and news across, some stats show how Twitter just might not be hitting the amount of people you hope to be. For instance, the report shows that “a small minority creates most of the activity.”… only 5% of the users generate 75% of all of the activity on the site.
Hell, I used to think I was part of the minority for only having 148 followers (and only following 133), but the survey also tells me that “nearly 94% of all Twitter accounts have less than 100 followers.”… That was actually very surprising for me to read.
But yes, check out the rest of the 10 Stunning (And Useful) Stats About Twitter, and if you’re still interested, download the rest of the report from Synomos
A Brief History of Twitter
So, Twitter is 3 years old this month (went Beta on March 31st 2006, and Live on June 13th 2006 so depends on what date you use)… I actually have been a member since February 7th 2007 (thanks to this api for that information). I joined a little bit later than it began, but I actually joined prior to @replies became an actual part of Twitter (prior, people used it for communication, but posts were not intricately connected when they were used).
I feel like I’m trying to say “I used them before they were popular” to not sound like a bandwagon fan of the service? Perhaps.
This is a great drawing shows, briefly, how Twitter has expanded over the past 3 years. I’m glad I have been part of it since near the beginning.
Thanks to Tech Crunch for reporting it, which is where I first saw it, I think. I’ve been seeing multiple mentions of it across the web today, and thought that my audience (do I even have one?) would enjoy it as well.
I find it particularly amusing that it includes the Twitpocalypse, which threatened to cause many 3rd party Twitter apps to crash.
History Lesson from Monolith