Comparative advertising has been used by a number of reputable brands in many and varied sectors. BMW has gone tit for tat with Audi in a series of outdoor billboards, Burger King has done it to McDonalds and Dove has done it to Pantene. Recently ads from Microsoft, Samsung and PayPal have targeted Apple, specifically surrounding the launch of its new iPhone and iOS software. The rival brands have challenged Apple on a range of their products and while the ads may be memorable for consumers, the point remains: do these ads make rival brands come across as petty and insecure or are they humourous and brilliant?
Marketers generally see campaigns that target competitors explicitly as taboo and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has no explicit laws surrounding comparative tactics. Its guidelines state: “Comparative advertising may be used to promote the superiority of your products or services over competitors as long as it is accurate. The comparison may relate to factors such as price, quality, range or volume.” While these tactics definitely get attention, some would say that it is not necessarily the kind of attention a brand wants.
Nathan Quailey, general manager at Ogilvy Sydney, believes that comparative advertising has merit if there’s a “rational basis for comparison."
“Comparative claims can work,” he added, but they should be seen as a “last resort”. The brands that do it well “add personality” without necessarily undermining a rival’s product.
PayPal’s newest ad is an example of reactionary marketing and heralds the line “We the people want our money safer than our selfies,” clearly taking advantage of the iCloud hack that resulted in the publication of naked celebrity photos and personal information. PayPal doesn’t name Apple directly, but the subtlety isn’t lost on the consumer.
Apple Pay is the new service that threatens PayPal. However, PayPal has legitimised Apple Pay, or at least recognised its impending success, by releasing a way for developers to integrate the service into their online apps. Apple is also restricting the use of its new NFC chip addition, meaning PayPal won’t be able to join in on the new phones’ ability to act as an in-store credit card. So it seems, all PayPal can do is undermine Apple with competitive ads.
Samsung also attempted to sting Apple in the wake of the iPhone 6 launch. With a YouTube-only advertisement that featured two actors dressed identically to those that work at your local ‘Genius Bar’, Samsung once again singled out its multi-billion dollar rival. The string of advertisements is called ‘It doesn’t take a Genius’:
Past campaigns have painted iPhone users as ‘wall-huggers’ due to the device’s dwindling battery life and shows iPhone owners with “screen envy”. Samsung Australia tends not to comment on competitive marketing strategies and this instance is no different.
Apple, the company that gets millions of views of its own ad promos without using much paid media at all, managed to get one-up on Samsung recently. Ellen DeGeneres, the celebrity behind Samsung’s ‘Oscar Selfie’, tweeted a picture with the line, ‘Here’s my first selfie on my new iPhone 6 Plus!’ Competitive, yet subtle.
Microsoft has also jumped back on the Apple bashing bandwagon with a line of ads comparing its products to Apple’s. The Mac vs. PC war is long-running and now the mud slinging brings into play other device manufacturers.
Most recently, Microsoft released an ad that compares its own voice assistant Cortana to Apple’s Siri. Cortana mocks Siri in the ad using Jen Taylor’s voice against Siri’s robotic tone. Siri fails to recall the same information as Cortana and the ad ends with Siri admitting, “Now, that is a smartphone.”
Angela Morris, executive planning director at JWT Sydney, said that the Mac vs. PC battle is one that has created two tribes, “Apple as the brand for a smarter, cooler type of people, uniquely enabled by Macs. It’s an intelligent strategy, that leverages social identity theory.”
While ads like BMW’s outdoor “Checkmate” to Audi’s “Your move BMW”, are highly ‘shareable’ and do not undermine either brand, attacks on Apple have failed to force the brand to retaliate. However, Microsoft and Samsung may be treading a thin line across what is deemed acceptable, considering their ads veer away from comparison and more towards the “last resort” mentality Quailey referred to.
Morris says, “Aside from the legal implications and need to avoid misleading and deceptive claims, there is also a need to be careful that you enhance rather than damage your brand in the process. While some level of product comparison is accepted in certain sectors, consumers don’t generally like comparative strategies, feeling that it’s a bit ‘poor form’ from a brand.”
“When there is over-choice, we would advise focusing marketing spend on creating compelling and relevant reasons to consider your brand as a distinctive choice in it’s own right – rather than relative to competition,” Morris said.
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.
Need a job? Visit adnewsjobs.com.au.
Have something to say? Send us your comments using the form below or contact the writer at rebeccachambers@yaffa.com.au
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.