EDIT: People seem to be glossing through this and assuming it's the same 'they can't say Only at Verizon!!!" complaint. It's not. For the main point, look to the part I've edited to emphasize in red text.
--------------------------------------------------------
I've commented in threads past where people have accused Verizon of fraudulent advertising for their stating that saying "Only at Verizon" that technically those ads had phrased it in such a way that while the majority of people would infer that it could only be used on Verizon's network (counting those of us here as the minority), there was some key phrasing that made it actually true - such as saying ".......... with up to $400 back. Only at Verizon." The pacing made it easy to look at that last clause as a separate statement, but it wasn't. While I'm not a fan of it, it's the commonplace spin all marketing groups apply to boost their respective brands, and there's no laws requiring them to make efforts to avoid misinterpretations.
But let's take a look at this latest TV commercial...
Transcript:
Looking at the Announcer's three statements.
"The new Pixel phone by Google, only on Verizon"
Well, this is false. They could say only at Verizon, as it (or Best Buy on behalf of Verizon) is the only physical location at which it can be purchased (at least in the USA). This is the first instance I recall seeing them state this without a qualifier to provide defensibility.
"The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."
This is 100% false. In order for this statement to be valid by any interpretation, Verizon doesn't have to be the only carrier capable of powering any of these three - it has to be the only carrier capable of powering all three. If any one other carrier can power all three, it's fraudulent advertising. Problem for Verizon is that every wireless carrier in the world that can deliver reasonably high speed data can power all three (and all of the major players in the US easily meet that criteria).
"So buy a Pixel, only on Verizon, and get up to $300 back. And right now get 4 lines and 20 Gigs for just $160 with no surprise overages, all on America's best network"
This I have no problem with - there's nothing whatsoever wrong from a marketing perspective here. They're the only ones offering that exact amount back. There should be no surprise overages so long as on entering the agreement a customer has read all the terms and understand that there can be overages, and how costly they will be. As to the "America's best network" claim, they have metrics to validate that claim (and it's irrelevant that the other carriers all have metrics by which to make the same claim).
On an unrelated side note... Anyone else think that this commercial would have been a LOT more entertaining if they'd brought in Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld to do it? Kramer reacting to the VR would be priceless!
--------------------------------------------------------
I've commented in threads past where people have accused Verizon of fraudulent advertising for their stating that saying "Only at Verizon" that technically those ads had phrased it in such a way that while the majority of people would infer that it could only be used on Verizon's network (counting those of us here as the minority), there was some key phrasing that made it actually true - such as saying ".......... with up to $400 back. Only at Verizon." The pacing made it easy to look at that last clause as a separate statement, but it wasn't. While I'm not a fan of it, it's the commonplace spin all marketing groups apply to boost their respective brands, and there's no laws requiring them to make efforts to avoid misinterpretations.
But let's take a look at this latest TV commercial...
Transcript:
ANNOUNCER: "The new Pixel phone by Google, only on Verizon"
GUY IN VEST: "Ok, Google. Show me Korean restaurants in Boulder."
GOOGLE ASSISTANT: "I found a few places."
ANNOUNCER: "The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."
WOMAN W/ VR: "How is this possible?"
ANNOUNCER: "So buy a Pixel, only on Verizon, and get up to $300 back. And right now get 4 lines and 20 Gigs for just $160 with no surprise overages, all on America's best network."
GUY IN VEST: "Ok, Google. Show me Korean restaurants in Boulder."
GOOGLE ASSISTANT: "I found a few places."
ANNOUNCER: "The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."
WOMAN W/ VR: "How is this possible?"
ANNOUNCER: "So buy a Pixel, only on Verizon, and get up to $300 back. And right now get 4 lines and 20 Gigs for just $160 with no surprise overages, all on America's best network."
Looking at the Announcer's three statements.
"The new Pixel phone by Google, only on Verizon"
Well, this is false. They could say only at Verizon, as it (or Best Buy on behalf of Verizon) is the only physical location at which it can be purchased (at least in the USA). This is the first instance I recall seeing them state this without a qualifier to provide defensibility.
"The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."
This is 100% false. In order for this statement to be valid by any interpretation, Verizon doesn't have to be the only carrier capable of powering any of these three - it has to be the only carrier capable of powering all three. If any one other carrier can power all three, it's fraudulent advertising. Problem for Verizon is that every wireless carrier in the world that can deliver reasonably high speed data can power all three (and all of the major players in the US easily meet that criteria).
- Google Assistant only requires Internet connectivity, so any compatible network (and the Pixels are compatible with virtually every wireless network worldwide) offering even modest speed of data will be able to power it.
- Unlimited photo storage is not a network feature in any way, and most people will likely set their phones to only back up over WiFi. And realistically, Verizon is probably the least preferable network on which to back it up directly due to lack of competitive high-use/unlimited data options.
- DayDream VR, like photo storage - only takes an Internet connection (albeit a speedy one), and Verizon is one of the less wallet-friendly options of the carriers on which to do it over their network as opposed to over WiFi.
"So buy a Pixel, only on Verizon, and get up to $300 back. And right now get 4 lines and 20 Gigs for just $160 with no surprise overages, all on America's best network"
This I have no problem with - there's nothing whatsoever wrong from a marketing perspective here. They're the only ones offering that exact amount back. There should be no surprise overages so long as on entering the agreement a customer has read all the terms and understand that there can be overages, and how costly they will be. As to the "America's best network" claim, they have metrics to validate that claim (and it's irrelevant that the other carriers all have metrics by which to make the same claim).
On an unrelated side note... Anyone else think that this commercial would have been a LOT more entertaining if they'd brought in Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld to do it? Kramer reacting to the VR would be priceless!
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram