Regardless of opinions about the companies behind the ads or even the claims made in the ads, it's pretty clear to the majority of observers that the Verizon ads are simply better ads. The question is why.

I think there are two clear reasons the Verizon ads work better and they offer us some important lessons for our own marketing efforts. The first reason is that Verizon is acting, while AT&T is reacting. The Verizon ads don't start with someone saying, "AT&T is making these claims...," but that's exactly what AT&T does. Mistake number one.

The second reason (and the inspiration for this post's title) is that the Verizon ads create a clear, compelling visual story. The medium for the ad is video - hence visual. AT&T's response is not visual, and therefore less powerful. Yes, they obviously are showing video of Luke Wilson standing in front of a chart (in the example above), but the story is not conveyed visually. The image of the Verizon map contrasted by the AT&T map in Verizon's ad tells the whole story.

What's the difference? Imagine (or, you could actually try this) watching each ad with the sound muted. Which one conveys its message more effectively (especially if you had never heard the audio portion before)? Yes, dialog is important (except when it's not - see Target's Christmas ad), but when dealing with a visual medium (like, oh say television/video), the visual story is key.

So AT&T is not only reduced to reactionary campaigning, they're doing it in a weak manner by depending on the talking more than the visuals - and let's not even get started on the old-school idea of using celebrity spokespeople to lend credibility to a message. (Does having a paid professional actor read lines make you more/less trusting of a company's message these days? I know which side of that I fall on.)

The important idea to take away here is that when you're working on your own visual marketing - online videos, ads, web sites, etc. - remember that what people see carries a much stronger message than what they hear or read. Yes, the two must work together. You can't have text that reads like Charles Dickens with visuals that look like they were taken from William Gibson. (ed. - OK, re-reading this I realize you can have that, you just better really know what you're doing to pull it off.) But take to heart the advice that's given often to aspiring screenwriters - tell the story in images - the audience only knows what you show them on the screen. So show them why you are what they need.