Rogers Communications Eaten By Bell, Doesn't Like It, Sues
There's always a fine line between humor and brand emaciation and Canada's Rogers Communications thinks Bell stepped over that line with an ad that shows a cartoon cheetah representing Bell eating a cartoon rabbit representing Rogers. Rogers has no problem with competitive and comparative advertising, "but when someone crosses the line and tries to disparage our brand, which is worth billions and billions, enough is enough. We have to do something to stop it," said Rogers Wireless Chief Marketing Officer John Boynton.
While the ad can, no doubt, be seen as a humorous approach to comparative advertising and a nod to eating your competition for lunch, watch the ad yourself and let us know what you think.
by Steve Hall Feb- 8-06 Click to Comment
Topic: Commercials, Policy
Topic: Commercials, Policy
Holy moly...that's pretty brutal; I think even if they had left out the rogers name, the ad would have been funny (insinuate the eating the competition for lunch message - in Canada there is VERY little competiton already!). But I don't know about suing them. I actually hadn't seen the commercial before (living in Canada...) but I have now! Funny, funny...
I think Rogers should spend its money on crafty engineers instead of crafty lawyers. Of course, then they wouldn't have a scapegoat....
Very funny ad! I don't think Rogers should sue Bell as long it is true that Bells is better. Being better means eating competition!
As far as I can see, its based on a fact.
So if Bell really is 5X faster then I see no problem with that ad. Although I doubt it would be considered ok if it were made in this country.
Wow. All that fuss over a cute little cartoon? The only way this would offend Rogers is if the dig is entirely true. So like little pussies, they whine and cry.
What happened to tough, stoic businessmen who laughed at healthy competition?
Maybe John Boynton was on his period.
Rogers executives are idiots. What's the best that can happen?
A: You sue, Bell gets tons of publicity, you win and the ad goes off the air after everyone has already seen and discussed it. You look like reactionary whiners.
B: You sue, Bell gets tons of publicity, you lose and Bell wrings as much juice out of the ad as possible. You still look like reactionary whiners.
Rogers should spend more time and more money creating effective advertising and less time (and money) on lawyers to defend their 'billions and billions' corporate image.
I challenge Rogers to give me one example where suing a group/competitor has had any long-term benefit.
Brand emaciation, you said? Think you might mean evisceration...
Any one ever play the video game Maniac Mansion? That's what this reminds me of.
Come now get your facts straight before you comment. I work for Rogers and the only reason why they told them to take the add of the air is because is false advertisement. The comerical leads one to believe that Bell internet is 5 times faster then Rogers, which it isnt. Rogers has faster internet then Bell. Bell failed to state that Bell wireless Cell phone internet is 5 times faster then Rogers. If they woulda done that everything would have been fine.
Chris, you've bought in to your company's propaganda. Cable internet is only faster than Bell DSL when there is one or very few customers fed on a single pipe. The higher density the population the lower the speed. On the other hand, with dedicate services to the switch, Bell DSL isn't affected by the number of people in your area. So, there are situations in which each is faster. However, as the majority of Canadians live in urban centres where the population is higher, Bell *is* actually faster for more people.
Chris is talking about wireless internet. Ie ) Data.
I am also a Rogers employee and a former Bell employee. I know for a fact that EVDO (Bell) is faster than EDGE (Rogers) but evdo has far less coverage than EDGE.
And the commercial is just hilarious and Rogers executives are whiny pussies.