After deciding last night that I'd seen the AT&T commercials starring Luke Wilson one too many times, I resolved to roll in today and dash off an exasperated post. Does the cell carrier really think that consumers are too stupid to realize that Verizon is criticizing AT&T's 3G network specifically, not its overall coverage, in its "We've Got A Map For That" campaign*? And if not, then why is AT&T airing ads in which Wilson talks about how AT&T covers 97 percent of the country with its regular network - which not only doesn't counter Verizon's claim, but could also be seen as confirming it, in a way? Anyway, about that post: It turns out I didn't need to go ahead and write the rest of it, because several observers at Slate were wondering the same thing, too, as the battle to win smartphone customers continues to rage. To wit, Seth Stevenson's take on the Wilson-starring ads, and Farhad Manjoo's look at the applicability of Verizon's and AT&T's claims in general.
For the record, I have to agree with Stevenson: I much preferred Wilson as Richie Tenenbaum, or in "Legally Blonde."
*An iPhone-owning conspiracy theorist I know, by the way, suggests that Verizon might in fact be trying to appeal to Apple executives with its campaign, so they'll be willing to ditch AT&T once its iPhone exclusivity agreement expires - something that analysts expect to happen sometime next year.