Maybe it is because of today’s economy that has resulted in desperate times for marketers, but it has become blatantly obvious that marketers of leading brands are playing “war games” with their competitors, as they fight harder to win or retain market share.  In particular, leading up to the Holiday Season, which is kicking off on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, could have been the motivator for engaging in desperate measures, negative or not.

Witness the recent Verizon ad that showed a map of the US with dots as to ATT ‘s cell phone coverage.  It showed vast empty spaces, clearly implying that ATT has limited coverage, prompting an immediate suit from ATT for false claims. Verizon shot back that “the truth hurts,” and defending its claims.   Lawyers suddenly became very busy.

These games are not new, but have been escalating in numbers unseen before and to the point of willfully misleading consumers and, more significantly, impacting sales on all sides.

Most claims are much over nothing.

For example Pantene versus Dove, has Pantene attacking Dove’s claim that its conditioner “repairs” hair better, while Science Diet versus Iams, has that company claiming that “No other dog food stacks up like Iams.”  Campbell Soup versus Progresso, had a particular damaging ad, when Campbell soup said its Harvest lines of soup are “Made with TLC,” while competitor Progresso’s soups are “Made with MSG.” And then there was Direct TV, who a few months ago had a banner straight across its ad, claiming that competitor Charter Cable’s bankruptcy, would affect its service.  Charter sued and lawyers became busier.

Interesting that it is the dueling marketers that are forcing their competitors to show proof, rather than the “watchdog,” an advertising division of the FTC, which requires by law to have a reasonable factual basis for their commercials.  But filing a complaint with the National Advertising Division, even though a cheaper route than going to court is voluntary and has no legal power.  Defending claims therefore, requires companies to delve into minutiae, as in supplying test results, providing proof for statements and seeking experts to substantiate it all.

These war games are really desperate measures, replacing well thought-out campaigns with messaging unique to the brand.

Here’s what I have to say to marketers that engage in such wars: there has to be a marketing strategy that becomes the basis for all forms of communications, be it advertising, public relations, promotions or digital marketing, one that provides the directional thought for driving a brand forward, without resorting to slamming the competition simply because of a dearth of creative and persuasive messaging, which should win the hearts and minds of consumers.  Deliberate misinformation or negative implications vis-à-vis competitors only weakens a brand at a time when social engagement, i.e., “befriending” consumers, is imperative to the success of a brand.

Here’s another thought:  attacking and suing is one way of getting publicity, albeit negative.  It’s a by-product, but I certainly hope that it is not part of any plan.

Now that the euphoric celebrations surrounding yesterday’s 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall have abated, I want to take a moment to reflect on one of the most tumultuous and cataclysmic events that took place in the second half of the 20^th century, resulting in 47 years of divisiveness that left at least two generations out of touch with the rest of the world. It was as much a lockout of critical thinking and influences of the West, as a lock-in of insular thought.  Although built as a “fortress,” it was not a defense wall, rather an ideological wall, resulting in a disruption of access and communication for all of its 47 years.

Unthinkable today. Digital media has pierced communication barriers much stronger than concrete and steel. Witness the flow of information that seeped out in the recent Iran election protests – real time news that even the Ayatollah’s “infinite power” could not suppress.

Since the Berlin Wall came tumbling down or, rather was actively chipped away cinder block by cinder block, a whole new era has ushered in – an era where the concept of erecting walls to keep people or information out, no longer applies. In the 20 years that ensued, the invention of the World Wide Web (1989) with instant access to knowledge, coupled with advent of social media (early 21^st century), just about obliterated the concept that brick and mortar could become a barrier to the free flow of communication and information.

But there are other “walls” that have tumbled.  Witness the melting of corporate “walls,” where transparency is the currency of the day or brands, that are spending great time, money and care to sweep away barriers to embracing and engaging consumers.

There are some walls however, that are part of the open connectiveness in which we live.

Apparently digital media played a large part of the Berlin Wall’s 20^th Anniversary.  A Berlin Twitterwall was erected to display Twitter messages for Twitterers who wish to share thoughts on the fall of the Berlin Wall as well as to focus on which walls still have to come down to make our world a better place.

Ironically, the page was blocked in China after nearly 2,000 web users in the country left messages on the wall.

A few months ago, (blog of June 11), I wrote about the FTC that was then swarming around Mommy bloggers who were paid by companies, either with free products or fees, and mostly “behind the scenes,” influencing buying decisions.  This time around they are peering into credit rating companies that use the mandated free credit reports as a lure for charging a monthly service fee that alert subscribers to important changes in their credit status.

Apparently consumers have an insatiable appetite for knowing what other people know about them and, as such, have fallen into one of those schemes that counts on them not paying attention to the costs that are billed to them monthly, as they keep on checking their own credit rating.

Even though the FTC has said that a yearly free credit rating can be had through a government-mandated site, or by going to freecreditreport.com (owned by Experian and mandated by the FTC to be free, annually), companies like Experian, among others, are fending off the Feds with TV ads that push their own point – that financial misfortune can be averted if consumers track their credit status on freecreditreport.com.

According to an article in the NY Times on November 3, “the FTC is not amused.”

Surprisingly, the FTC countered with its own TV ad, featuring a trio remarkably similar to the gang in Experian’s commercials, singing a warning about not being misled and getting entangled in their web.

Isn’t there a ‘little law lying around somewhere’, that the FTC could easily enforce? Is that all the muscle they have?

Anyway it gets worse…

Apparently the FTC overlooked the real culprit, the credit monitoring services that are “a rapidly expanding niche approaching $1 billion in sales for which millions of people have signed up, often unwittingly.”  It seems that these companies have managed to convince the consumer that these services can be useful for identity theft victims, for example, who want e-mail alerts about new accounts that thieves might have opened in their name.”

No question about it that both the credit rating/monitoring companies are preying on confusion and/or paranoia and profiting from it.  As to why the FTC is tackling such a minor player in the larger scheme of things, it is because Congress recently passed a credit card reform law and attached a measure that directs the FTC to press sites like freecreditreport.com to provide more prominent disclosures.

What is not clear is why the FTC is resorting to a copycat measure in using paid TV ads as a communication tool.  It would behoove them to search out other formats and unleash an aggressive public information and education campaign such as tapping the editorial media, building an informational micro site and interacting with social media network groups, and more.

It’s their responsibility — and the public has a right to expect more…