Bashing your competition--bad, side by side comparison of features/benefits to highlight differentiation--absolutely!

I have always wondered how this applies to good-humored jabs at the competition. The Mac/PC anthropomorphism is a great example. I know the Mac faithful love it. But what about PC users? Are they as fanatical as Mac users? Have any Apple ads, as much as they're talked about, resulted in the company making a dent in Microsoft's market share?

I also remember some clever Pepsi/Coke commercials back in the 80s. I enjoyed some of the "next generation" ads that portrayed Coca-Cola as irrelevant in the future. But was it effective? Coca-Cola is still the soft drink giant. Pepsi... not so much.

Maybe there's something to be said for using ads to make your existing customers even more loyal by attacking the competition. But most of the time, the manner in which it's done just comes across as petty bickering. The beer wars a few years back come to mind as an example. "Choose on taste" indeed.

Why do you need a side by side comparison? If you understand the market (good thought?) than your message should be able to create the differentiation by itself.

Spike,

Good observations in your post. Bashing the competition seems to be au courant these days. Politicians engage in it; professonal athletes do it and so do companies vs their competitors. I wonder whether we've just become enured to it and just ignore most of it. What do you think?

Spike,

I think your take rules most of the time, but it does depend on the marketing execution.

I agree with Cam. I love the PC/Mac ads, and three decades ago the Pepsi Taste Tests compared Pepsi to Coke. I liked those, as well, and they changed my preference to Pepsi. That's why you might us the comparison strategy.

I guess there's always exceptions to Spike's point, eh?

Interesting that Cam raised the Mac/PC anthropomorphism. I actually really like those commercials -- but then again, I'm a Mac person. I like the idea that I am not the sort of geeky PC who wears black socks and sandals... I'm like the Mac guy.

But do the Apple commercials do anything more than reinforce that Mac people are cool and PC people are not? Do PC types begin to worhip at the Apple altar as a result?

All Mac ads are valentines to people who already use Macs. It's just a way to make them feel better about paying the Mac premium ("You're cool.") But you can't tell me any PC users switched because of the Mac vs PC ads.

Besides, I really like the PC guy (he's brilliant and witty in real life) while the Mac actor seems like another useless hipster in Williamsburg.

Oh, and on the real topic: comparisons do work at times. I worked at a ski resort with 100 more trails than any nearby competitor. We made a lot of noise about that, mentioned our competitors by name and number. The comparative data did indeed drive visits.

One of the spots that I was referring to was comparing some car (Toyota? Hyundai? I can't recall.) with a BMW. THAT is the kind of thing I was referring to. It doesn't make sense. There are two completely different mindsets. Does someone who's car shopping really have both a Toyota or a BMW in mind? Surely not. They are completely different vehicles that speak to different people. If anything, it shows that a BMW is what a lot of people aspire to.

Do you see where I'm going?

Great point, Spike. I've always wondered why car companies in particular point out that I should compare their cars to the competition... in some cases, I wouldn't have even placed the two cars in the same category, let alone considered one over the other in making a major purchase decision. I'd rather have the advertisers tell me how great THEIR cars are alone, rather than bash the competition. After all, I want to drive their car, and not the other ones that they're spending their time talking about...

Is there a happy medium -- either a well-thought out and witty ad campaign (like the Mac vs. PC ads) vs. simple side-by-side feature comparisons?

Thanks for a thought provoking post, Spike.

On a different note, is there any value in pointing out your own weaknesses as compared to the competition?

For example, pretend you are trying to sell someone a Motorola phone, and the most important feature to them is reliability. Unfortunately your phones are not very reliable, but you know that Nokia's most certainly are. How honest should you be in this situation? Is there any advantage in admitting this truth?

Put another way, does the customer's appreciation of your honesty outweigh the cost of losing a sale?

This will obviously vary from situation to situation, but it's something I've been thinking about lately. We all talk about transparency and honesty, but where do we draw the line?

Funny, a friend actually just commented that he LIKES those ads where Hyundai pokes fun at Lexus & Land Rover. I don't think Hyundai believes it will lure away Lexus shoppers. But maybe the ads will make people who can't afford a Lexus but have auto-envy feel better It gives them reason to be snotty and obnoxious just like their luxury car-driving brethren. Seems to me the REAL trend isn't in bashing the competition; it's in making your customer feel smug & superior with whatever gimmick or joke you can scrape together. I also believe it ties in with the reality TV fad, which is another way the common wo/man gets to sit in judgment of others and ridicule their shortcomings.

I think this greatly depends on the execution and idea of the commercial.

For example, someone mentioned the Apple ad where they compare directly to the PC. In this case, the ad is so well done and well thought that they are speaking directly to a niche of people, for whom apple is definitely a winner... Plus, they are mentioning a differentiating value that Apple has, and that the PC is long from achieving; so the winner is obvious.

But for a commodity-like product where the main difference might be price, or other not so relevant quality, then you would definitely want to talk ONLY of your brand.

Hope this helps.
Ron E.
http://brandcurve.com

Well-timed post, Spike! I saw a bit in the Wall Street Journal today that Diet Pepsi is bringing back the "taste-test"... TV ads depict the cool characters on "Beverly Hills 90210" choosing Diet Pepsi, while the geeky characters choose Diet Coke.

Comparison marketing works when aiming for those "on the fence" or to reinforce loyal purchaser expectations. It's not going to make converts of those resistant to other/negative perspectives in the first place.

Disclosure: For whatever it's worth, I did switch finally from PC to Mac, in small part reacting to the marketing. When my latest laptop died and customer service failed me for the umpteenth time, Apple's ad perfectly captured everything that I detested as a longtime frustrated PC user. In similar fashion, years earlier, PC manufacturers attracted me with what had been value for price comparisons with the Mac.

All I know is that Coke & Pepsi still can't hold a bottle to Jones for taste or creativity.

So the tug of war continues with more folks tugging on a frayed rope.

Going way, way back, for those who remember, there was Avis' groundbreaking "We're #2" campaign. They didn't have to mention Hertz -- everyone knew who #1 was at the time. But their statement that as #2 in their market they had to try harder seemed to resonate with people.

It didn't bash the competition, but the point was clearly made and well understood by consumers.

This is a great post. Makes you really think about the strategy behind these ads.

The Pepsi taste tests of the 80's were so successful that it promoted Coke to make one of the biggest marketing mistakes of the company's history. It changed its formula. The backlash from consumers forced them to bring back the old formula as Coke Classic. I would have to look this up, but I believe this translated into a substantially larger market share for Pepsi. It was a great blow in the cola wars.

Apple bashed the "PC", actually IBM, in 1984. I believe the commercial only ran once on at the Super Bowl. The word of mouth alone was worth the "bashing". The current Apple ads are just a modern interpretation of that 1984 ad. It creates buzz. I use PCs personally because the price is generally lower and I find no real difference between these platforms as far as me getting work done. However, I see people switching because they identify with Apple’s creative hip image. We may not see the total benefits of this approach until today’s high schoolers and college students get into the marketplace. Remember many them and a good number of us are carrying an Apple product in our pocket (iPod). These ads serve Apple’s overall image for their entire product line. I can’t wait to see what happens with the iPhone.

The car ads comparing low cost cars to luxury models makes people who can not afford the luxury model think that the cheaper car is just as good. They are not competing against BMW, but rather trying to get a step up on cars in their price class. People who buy and can afford BMW or Mercedes are probably not going to buy a Hyundai because of these ads.

As classic TV, radio and print ad results drop and it becomes harder and harder to differentiate this is actually a good way to imply difference. For large brands this type of advertising makes sense as everyone knows who they are and who their competition is.

Great comments all around.

Harry,

I agree on the Coke vs. Pepsi angle, but Coke was able to recover and now is arguably the most recognized brand in the world - not bad.

I think that Apple was "bashing" the entire computer industry in 1984, which IBM happened to dominate at the time. They were making a statement: "we're not going to take it anymore and we're going to offer something different.

As far as comparing low cost cars to luxury ones I believe that it doesn't help the cheaper car owners feel just as good. It's reminding them that they can't afford a luxury car. Do you think they go around telling people that their Hyundai had 5 more horsepower than a BMW? Not likely.

I stand by my statement in the original post: "When the little guy attacks the big guy, it tells me that the big guy must be kickin’ your ass – and for a good reason. And when the big guy attacks the little guy, it tells me that they must be eating into your share of the pie for a reason, so I should check them out."

It's not a good idea for large brands. It's a terrible idea. Why would Nike, BMW or Coke even need to talk about their competition? You know who they are. And you know what they stand for. Why cloud the message?

Apple is the exception to the rule. But you know what? They are the exception to EVERY rule.

My situation is that I want to launch a targeted marketing campaign focused at my cometitors clients. This competitor is larger than we are. We are a smaller startup that adresses many problems of the larger company and we do it for 1/100th of the cost. We stand to convert many of their current clients with such a campaign. I came across this article when trying to do research in finding any legal problems in mentioning my competitors company name and features. If anyone has more information there, please let me know!

Spike,

I totally agree. I can't think of a specific example right now, but I know many times I have watched a supposedly comparative ad and thought to myself that the product being "slammed" was actually getting more air time than the sponsored product and that often it was hard to tell who was actually paying for the commercial.

Steve

Spike, my honest reaction, not especially good advice in this article.

It can be highly effective for laggards in the market to compare / attack the leader. Especially when they have a features / benefits better widget.

Besides, can you give me one example of one ad that “trashes” the competition? I doubt it.

Back before I was a copywriting "salesperson in print," I was a salesperson on the road, repping for phone company yellow pages advertising. We were given good advice about battling independent phone books: "Don't insult the competition. Instead, demonstrate how our advertising product is the best." It's classy advice, no matter what you're selling. I may be naive, but I think that showing a lack of civility leaves a bad taste in the consumer's mouth.

Back before I was a copywriting "salesperson in print," I was a salesperson on the road, repping for phone company yellow pages advertising. We were given good advice about battling independent phone books: "Don't insult the competition. Instead, demonstrate how our advertising product is the best." It's classy advice, no matter what you're selling. I may be naive, but I think that showing a lack of civility leaves a bad taste in the consumer's mouth.

Had to chime in and disagree. Roy Williams (the wiz) gave praise for the recent apple ads precisely because it is controvercial! I agree and feel that if tastefully done, comparative advertising can be effective. Your article smells too much of the "be safe" mentality which often means being invisible - of course not your intention, but that's how it came across to me...

I would take a calculated risk if i knew of a real differentiator for my company and hang it over their heads...but no need to mention the competitor's name usually (PC, not Microsoft, "other" instead of "company x").

My advice to "Spike" (Spike? Really?): GROW A PAIR! Way too many companies (I won't use the term 'marketers' because that would be an insult to real marketers) exhibit the "quiet as a church mouse" mentality you advocate. Come on man! Take a stand... shout from on the roof tops and stake your claim! I'm about to become an Apple owner in large part to it's brilliant and merciless pummeling of Windows (not to mention it's superiority in general.) That's ballsy to the Nth Degree... and in spite of severely missing the mark from a DR stand point, my hat's off to Jobs et al for calling the other gunslinger out into the street and letting the quickest draw win.

Spike, I do agree with you. I am a marketing consultant to a large pharmaceutical company in India. My client was to introduce a new antipsychotic -aripiprazole.

Aripiprazole offered many benefits to the patients and these benefits were not present in any of the competing brands. The Brand Manager and Vice-President (Marketing), decided to higlight the negative effects of the strongest competitor, olanzapine, instead of highlighting the benefits of aripiprazole.

They talked more about the side-effects of olanzapine not the benefits of aripiprazole, over-ruling my strong objections to this tactic.

The outcome was predictable -The brand failed miserably, the Brand Manager and the Vice-President lost their jobs.

Vivek Hattangadi
The Enablers
Brand Consultant
vivek.theenablers@gmail.com

McNamara, I can give you several examples. One of the ones running right now are the Subaru spots that trash BMW, Lexus, etc. It's a terrible move by Subaru.

Dave Andrew, I've got an extra pair if you need to borrow them. And yes, it is Spike.
Where, I ask you, in my post did I say be quiet? Oh yeah, that's right I DIDN'T. And as I mentioned before, Apple is the exception to the rule, as they are the exception most rules. They're Apple, after all. Did you know that a recent poll found that most people sympathize and feel sorry for the PC guy and think the Apple guy is a jerk?

When i first saw these ads I found them offensive, but now I got used to them.