The “Name Names” Phenomenon in Recent Commercials

I watch a lot of TV series online. Correspondingly, I have to watch the commercials from the broadcasters’ sponsors before the episode starts. Then recently, I observed an interesting phenomenon that companies begin to call their rivals’ names directly in their commercials.

It is noticeable that the “Name names” strategy has been going on for a while in the oligarch-competing high-tech industry. Although the target, without any doubt, is always Apple, the “name names” game remains vague and anonymous. For example, you would see Samsung teasing on Apple from time to time by creating a mock or parody of its commercial ideas or by showing off its new features in comparison with one of Apple’s competing products. With Apple’s unique characteristics in design, it’s apparent to know what the finger is pointed to. However, Apple’s brand logo is hidden in the commercials. If the character in the commercial has to talk about the rival product, expression such as “my pad,” “the other brand” will be used to imply, rather than directly name Apple’s name. Nevertheless, the competition now has gone to a whole new level.

The first commercial that rises my interest is Microsoft’s Surface Pro3 vs. iMac and iPad one. In this commercial, one Surface and one iMac are placed right next to each other in the screen. No people face is presented but two narrators are talking with each other behind the curtain while they’re exploring the two products on hand. The plot is very simple. Surface user discovers one new feature of his device and the Apple user will show his surprise and interest. Then the surface user will explain the feature for few seconds followed by a underlying rhetorical question: “your iMac/ iPad doesn’t have this?” After several rounds of this routine, the message of Microsoft cannot be blunter: One Surface is better than your iMac and iPad combined! Well, although I am not an Apple fan at all and have been saving money for a Surface pro for ages, I do not feel good about the intent of the commercial.

Sometime later, just as I decide to treat this commercial as a single case, the new Verizon vs. AT&T commercial jumped into my sight. In this commercial, Verizon ruthlessly laughed at AT&T’s limited wireless network coverage around the country by presenting a contrast coverage map of the two companies. The message at the end of the commercial is even boarder: switch your AT&T service to Verizon if you want a better wireless connection. Unfortunately, I have been a customer of the target’s product again and am pretty pleased with the target internet service it provides. My personal experience obviously does not add up to the content in the commercial. Perhaps AT&T has not been as used to the direct attack as Apple does, the company released an official announcement on the website reclaiming how stable and efficient their network coverage is and accusing Verizon of tarnishing AT&T with false and misleading information.

I have no idea about how this “name names” strategy works. The assault definitely irritates the loyal customers of the rival brand. As far as I observed and experienced, the moderate customers are not feeling very good about this strategy either. From past case studies, those controversial commercials could also ignite a full-scale public relationship war between the brands and ended up with lawsuits, in the worst case.

However, if the risk of this strategy is in plain sight, why are companies still going for it one after another? There is no doubt that the message of this kind of commercials is clear and well-received by the audience. However, are they really buying the claims of the advertising brand and will this “unkind” behavior harms the brand image in the long run? I am curious about these questions and I am still looking for an answer.