Comparative advertising is defined as advertising that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information. It’s Promotional technique in which an advertiser claims the superiority of its product over competing product(s) by direct or indirect comparison.
Evaluation of To Degrade the brand competitor’s performance brand Increases Acceptance ofconsumer’s brandinformation Convince users
To degrade the competitors brandon the basis of value propositionthe competitive brand is offering.
Consider thesponsored brand as an acceptable alternative when they repurchase.
Convince usersof competingbrands toswitch to thesponsoredbrand
Increases consumer’s informationabout alternative brands.
Ease the consumerstask of evaluatingthe performance ofparticular brandsagainst otherbrands.
It is not misleading.It compares goods or services meeting the same needs orintended for the same purpose.It objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiableand representative features of those goods and services, whichmay include price.It does not create confusion in the market place between theadvertiser and a competitor or between the advertisers trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods orservices and those of a competitorIt does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trademark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of acompetitor.
In direct comparative ads the competing products either are explicitly named or can be precisely identified (by photos, images or trademarks).
Burger king vs.. McDonald HUL and Procter & gamble(Rin vs.. Tide) Complan vs.. Horlicks Nike vs.. Adidas
Indirect comparative ads do not directly refer to competing brand names.
Captain cook and Tata salt Nirma and HUL Pepsi and thumps up Sprite vs. Pepsi Rasna vs. Tango Tide an surf excel
A tvc promoting Ujala liquid blue showed that 4 drops were adequate to bring striking whiteness of clothes while several spoons of other bands were required. A lady holding a bottle of Ujala was looking down on another bottle and exclaiming ‘chhi, chhi, chhi!’ in disgust. The manufacturers of Regaul, a competing brand, approached the Commission that the advertisement was disparaging its goods. The bottle did not have any label and similarity with the reguel bottle.
In a television advertisement promoting Vicco tooth powder, another tin, of oval shape and without any label is shown. White powder coming out from the can was described as useless. Colgate claimed before the Commission that this was disparaging its product Colgate toothpowder.
HUL advertised ‘New Pepsodent that it was ‘102% better than the leading toothpaste’. The test of the two samples are visually depicted side by side. The saliva of ‘the leading toothpaste’ shows large number of germs. Boys were asked the name of the toothpaste. One boy said Pepsodent. The response of the second boy was muted. However, lip movement of the boy indicate that he was saying ‘Colgate’.
In 1962 Hertz was the clear leader in the car rental business, with Avis as one of the brands in the following pack. The Avis We try harder campaign repositioned Hertz creating a relative, believable and compelling strength for Avis. The market dominance of Hertz became a weakness and Avis became the right choice in the mind of consumers.
Influencing the Competitors perception of Current sales brand loyalty Shifting of the consumer can be can be consumers. regarding a increased. hampered. brand.