First Graders Stick Out Their Tongues

It was a radio ad. I heard it for the first time a couple of months ago. I couldn't believe this bit of audio advertising whimsy was the brainstorm of a major player in my industry. Odds are, the same ad is unspooling in your market. Maybe you're the one responsible for it; if so, my analysis will seem harsh. I sympathize with your position but not with your method.

Here's what I heard: A schoolteacher asks her class to list the 50 United States. As his classmates begin to recite, a boy interrupts. He asks: "Why do some wireless companies claim that their phones work all across the country, when in reality they do not?" Because some wireless service providers "are very, very bad," his teacher responds.

This surely was meant to generate a laugh, especially at the expense of the "very, very bad" carriers that compete with this incumbent cellular operator. Do you find it funny?

Here's what I thought: How far we have come to amount to so little.

I promise at some point in the near future to share an example of stellar carrier marketing. (It does exist in abundance.) But for the moment, let's take a look at this ad, which I'm calling "First Graders Stick Out Their Tongues: 15-second radio spot."

First, it's inaccurate. It is not the policy of new wireless competitors to mislead customers about nationwide coverage. If this kind of misrepresentation occurs, it's the symptom of a renegade sales agent, which is a customer-service problem that plagues all segments of the public wireless network.

Second, it's misleading. There are, in fact, newly competitive networks that provide nationwide coverage. Yes, they've accomplished this thanks to partnerships, handoff agreements and multistandard hardware. In the eyes of the customer, that's all that matters. If their calls connect the majority of the time in most places, they are receiving the same service as on the incumbent networks.

Third, it's condescending. Maybe it was an ingenious idea to explain a high-tech concept by using a low-tech environment. Think about it a little harder. The teacher represents the incumbent carrier. The children represent the customer. Could you get any more insulting than that?

Fourth, it's shortsighted. You build brand identity by communicating what you are, not by postulating what your competitor is not. Focus on the latter and you'll be left with no brand equity, especially if your competitor uses itself as its measuring stick. The only time to stick out your tongue is when you exercise a legitimate technological advantage. (Think per-second billing or interactive services or E-911 compliance.) Even then, your unique position is more important than your competitors' failings.

Fifth, it's lowbrow. Image-building runs parallel with branding. They are necessarily intertwined. When you cheapen your image -- by delivering inaccurate, misleading, condescending or shortsighted messaging -- you cheapen the brand.

Before the LMDS auctions, the Telecom Act or the PCS auctions, industry analysts predicted that incumbent wireless carriers, with marketing departments softened by years of barely competitive duopolies, would struggle for position. Two years ago, I wrote about the early signs of slippage. A creative unit such as "First Graders Stick Out Their Tongues: 15-second radio spot" represents a new low and makes you wonder if anyone in this incumbent's marketing department was listening. If not, that's the only thing here that is "very, very bad."