Hacker News Reader

Comment by anxx | Hacker News Reader

It's only in the US that I have seen advertisements for a product include direct bashing of a competitor's product. I am not talking about a list of features where you show in which way yours is superior; that is still acceptable (although also deceiving much of the time). I am talking about ads like the Nimoy-Quinto Audi commercial where Nimoy had stupid problems fitting stuff into the Mercedes.

This is such a jarring way to advertise, it's like watching a bully beat a defenseless kid - does anybody feel more sympathy towards the product this way?

View on HN

The conventional wisdom is that you should punch up, not down. In other words, if you're behind the market leader, it's OK to throw a punch at it in your ads, because your product isn't as widely known or understood as theirs is. But if you are the market leader, you don't throw punches at competitors, because you're already winning and doing so just reminds the viewer/reader/whatever that other alternatives exist.

This mitigates the "defenseless kid" syndrome a bit, because if you only punch up you're by definition only taking on products that are stronger in the marketplace than yours is.

You can see this in action by comparing Apple's ads. They had no problem running the "I'm a Mac" ads when their product (the Mac) was far behind the market leader (Windows PCs). But iPad ads don't do product comparisons, because the iPad owns the tablet market so there's no upside to reminding people that "tablet" does not necessarily equal "iPad."

The classic example of the conventional wisdom you mention is Avis "We Try Harder" (#2) versus Hertz (#1).

To me "We Try Harder" has always sounded like a terrible slogan. In my mind it sounds like they try but fail, rather than actually doing things…

"Avis: The 'A' is for effort!"

Coke vs. Pepsi is a classic example. In the Cola Wars, Pepsi, from time to time, punches up against Coke far, far more than Coke ever attacks Pepsi. Coke certainly increased their advertising in response to Pepsi in the height of the cola wars but they never attacked Pepsi outright.

Comparison advertising is also a "marketing smell" (by analogy to "code smell"). If you're doing comparison advertising, you're probably in a Cola War. Cola wars are a negative-sum game where you only have to increase advertising if the competition does--sort of a prisoners dilemma. It's preferable to avoid getting into those.

In the EU, such advertisements are illegal. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_in...:

"Comparative advertising

Comparative advertising explicitly or by implication makes reference to a competitor or competing goods or services.

This type of advertising is only permitted when it is not misleading. It can be a legitimate means of informing consumers of what is in their interests. Therefore, in particular, the comparisons should:

- relate to goods or services which meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose;

- relate to products with the same designation of origin;

- deal objectively with the material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods or services, which may include price;

- avoid creating confusion between traders, and should not discredit, imitate or take advantage of the trade mark or trade names of a competitor."

That is one reason why you will not see such advertising in the EU. Another may be cultural; in some EU countries, all comparative advertising was illegal before this EU directive (yes, you could not even show your product as being inferior in every way)

Finally, some would see this as the offenseless kid attempting to beat the captain of the boxing team.

> This type of advertising is only permitted when it is not misleading

Maybe you missed a bit? It's perfectly legal, you just need to be 100% factual, and if you're not you'll get taken to the cleaners in court. So people are suitably wary of using it, but it does happen.

(Same basic principles apply in New Zealand, fwiw)

I replied to the first line of the post. It reads: "It's only in the US that I have seen advertisements for a product include direct bashing of a competitor's product". In the EU, you cannot get away with 'direct bashing'.

You can bash, as long as it's factual: "X is more expensive, has a lower resolution, smaller area display, shorter battery life, and is heavier than Y. Buy Y!". They're all facts. But you can't say (in the rest of the world outside the US anyway) "X sucks because it's slower than Y. Buy Y!", unless you have big brave lawyers or X is somehow slower on every independent factual measure.

I think you need the 'sucks' part to talk of bashing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative) seems to agree:

"Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group, or subject."

Also, I think you are not ever allowed to say "X sucks" in the EU because that is an opinion, even if X is somehow slower on every independent factual measure and if X is 100% equal to Y in every other quality (price, looks, weight, etc)

For example, a slower car might be more appropriate (= suck less) for people with slower reflexes, a slower mobile phone might stay below your data limits easier, a slower restaurant might give you more time to contemplate about the meaning of life, a higher price might make a product more attractive.

To talk about this from a marketing perspective:

Comparative advertising is best described as a necessary evil. Marketers hate using it -- it's their equivalent of the nuclear option. It's cheap, unimaginative, and universally weakens the customer's evaluation of the brand.

The issue is that it, like a nuclear bomb, it's incredibly effective. Customers remember comparative advertising better, digest it more effectively, and it helps disseminate cognitive information clearly. Ironically, customers internalize comparative advertising more often with regards to the product being denigrated (ie. "This product is worse!") than with the product being promoted (ie. "This product is better!") This is important with low-effort purchases like <$20 consumer goods.

(As an aside: I think the idea of making comparative advertisements illegal is absolutely absurd. What should be made illegal, though, are advertisements like this, which are blatantly false no matter what the fine print says.)

Advertising like that is illegal here in denmark. it's one of the biggest 'culture shocks' I had when visiting the USA. Turning on the tv and seeing an ad openly trashing another product (Along side with seeing a movie edited for tv and broken up with ads every 10 minutes. Also illegal in denmark)

The ad in question was for some kind of medicine for upset stomachs.. A guy is sitting at a bar complaining about his stomach going "I tried this medicine" holds competitors product up to the camera "But it didn't work AT ALL" and then his friend saying "oh there's your problem, this will fix it"..

Very bizarre and shockingly disgusting way to advertise (for someone who grew up in a culture without it)

> Very bizarre and shockingly disgusting way to advertise

Seems more direct than the alternative. If you believe you have strengths compared to your major competitor, why is it bad to lay out the comparison explicitly in your marketing? Sure, comparative advertising can go to far, but why not leave it up the company doing the advertising to make sure they don't come off looking petty?

Because they lie. Directly, or through omission, or through implication, or through some ridiculously convoluted means, but we all know it to be true; we cannot trust the advertiser.

> we cannot trust the advertiser.

Of course you can't. That's why you don't just take advertising at its word. Anyone who does is a fool. But to say that you shouldn't allow comparative advertising because of the possibility of lying is absurd. There are other laws that cover truth in advertising.

Using someone else's brand, without their permission, in a way that will damage their brand, to try to sell your own goods, in a way that everyone knows is going to be fantastically biased. Seems pretty out of order to me. :)

> Very bizarre and shockingly disgusting way to advertise (for someone who grew up in a culture without it)

Can you explain why you think this way? Sure, it's not polite, but I don't see how competing for market share would or should be a gentleman's game.

It's disgusting for someone who's not used to it, the same way that offensive and overtly graphical language can be disgusting to someone who grew up in a puritanical household.

It was just a culture shock from being exposed to something that seemed vulgar compared to what I'm used to.

.... and then there was the political ads... jeez :p

Right, but I'm asking you go a little deeper than just seemingly using the word "disgusting" again. I get that you find it disgusting, but can you introspect a little bit about why? I'm genuinely curious.

What is it about your puritanical household that makes an ad meant to positions oneself in a superior light vs. their competitors "disgusting"?

It wasn't just positioning themselves in a superior light, you can advertise your own strenghts without actively smearing someone else. What would you think of a person that instead of spending energy on showing off his qualities, spent all his time ragging on others?

If it was down to me and another candidate for a job then I'd have no problem saying "Look, you want to do X and Y(e.g., multitask); the other candidate doesn't have experience with X and his scores on Y weren't great (let's just say I know this). My experience and test scores are superior for what you want to do, and what you want me to."

Now, that's more civil than the world of advertising, but it's the same general principle. Commercial tend to make it a little bit more humorous. Comparisons aren't always polite, but they're often appropriate.

That's interesting. Personally, if I knew something like that, I think I'd make sure to highlight points where I'd compare favourably to the other candidate, but I'd leave it to the interviewers to actually make the comparison, rather than telling them his weaknesses.

It seems like a purposely mean way to conduct business. I also found this way of advertising gross and unappealing. It makes me think a lot less about the company advertising.

The information in the ad is biased and self-serving, so right off the bat I ignore almost anything they say.

I dont get that feeling at all when a company boasts about "best x, or won y competition" but bashing another product looks childish, mean and immature. A "my kid is better than yours" kind of debate.

I honestly embarrased for them when I see an ad that portrays competitions as mentally inept or comically retarded.

Doesn't that "gross an unappealing" apply to most US advertising.

I don't know about you, but I thought commercials in my country (Netherlands) were stupid until I watched US television. I felt my IQ dropping with each commercial.

Also: advertising prescription pharmaceuticals, and in a way that would embarrass your local street drug dealer...

I was going to mention that, but showed some restraint.

I simply cannot believe those ads are actually effective with the 20 second panic inducing side-effects enumeration.

I swear I saw an add about flew medication with "thoughts of suicide and depression" side-effects. What..the..hell. Who would buy that, and why are they advertising it.

That isn't just culture shock. That is a clear example of the higher integrity (in general) of Danish society than the US. That is, they place a higher value on honesty, fairness, and contributing positively to society. I am from the US, have always lived in the US, and have never been to Denmark. But from my few experiences with people from Denmark, and knowledge about their political/economic/social affairs, it is clear to me this is the case. I understand the analogy about vulgar language, but in my opinion this involves issues of ethics and core values much deeper than just "offensive" words.

To those who misunderstand, it is not a problem to compare your company or product to a competitor. It is only a problem to make a comparison on anything other than a strictly objective, factual basis, which is in no way deceptive (See the comments regarding EU law). I would guess those countries that banned (or still ban) comparisons did so to avoid the hassle of trying to sort out whether something was permissible or not.

Apple ran the "I'm a Mac; I'm a PC" ads. Those started off as great advertising because they only pointed out bad things about Windows that everyone already accepted as bad things. Once those ads started becoming unnecessarily adversarial, they became bad advertising. Apple probably ran that campaign a bit too long.

Depending on your point of view, Apple's products are either A) Clearly superior or B) Not obviously inferior. For a not insignificant number of people, their choice of smartphone is a personal statement. Attacking products that people love is not a good way to create converts.

Attacking products that clearly suck works until a point. Then it starts to feel like a bully beating a defenseless kid. Microsoft's advertising feels more like a nerdy kid who spent all night thinking up clever and witty retorts, only to fail miserably in delivering them when face to face with the bully. The crowd of cool kids don't laugh with the nerdy kid, they laugh at them.

Depending on your point of view, Apple's products are either A) Clearly superior or B) Not obviously inferior.

I prefer systems with a window manager that actually supports multi-tasking.

Having one shared menu bar is a pain. Having a row of icons for possibly-already-running applications, instead of a list of what windows you have open, is a pain.

Click-to-raise is less of a pain, but still annoying. Which is why I run XFCE on my desktop at home, since MS Windows and Gnome (and I think KDE?) get this one just as wrong as Apple does.

One shared menu bar at the top of the screen is supported by Fitts's Law, which says that targets at the edge of the screen are faster and easier to click:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law

No comment on the rest.

Fitt's Law also says that closer targets are easier to click, and is concerned only with how long it takes to move the mouse pointer rather than how that fits into the larger picture of what you're doing.

Having the menu separate from the window breaks spatial locality and associates the menu to the computer rather than to the application.

And this is mostly relevant on big screens like the biggest iMacs. It's just wrong, imo.

Gnome doesn't require "click-to-raise," though it's the default.

You aren't likely to convert any current tablet owner with a commercial. You can influence the customers who aren't married to any ecosystem or brand, though.

Of course you can convert any iPad owner who is eager to have a usable keyboard and a great Office suite on her tablet so she can stop carrying both a tablet and a laptop with her everywhere.

Office suite, sure, but keyboard? In both cases, a physical keyboard is an add-on that you buy, and the quality of the keyboard is pretty much up to you to decide then.

Useable keyboard: bluetooth keyboard. Office suite: Pages, Numbers, Keynote.

> This is such a jarring way to advertise, it's like watching a bully beat a defenseless kid - does anybody feel more sympathy towards the product this way?

At least in this case, the iPad is so dominant that they probably feel there's no alternative but to address it directly. I'm sure the marketing team knows better, but they're making the comparison because they're in a position of extreme weakness. It's an act of desperation. The defenseless kid here is actually Microsoft.

yes, in Europe it's subtle at least.

remember a BMW (or audi, or benz) comercial where it showed a spy type scaping from several bad guys, and all the bad guys had the competitor car (i think the bad guys had mbenz) and they were all sliding off curves and crashing...

there were quite a lot BMW/Audi/Merc competitive commercials in the US market. to name a few:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VohEkWMkbsI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auEdEYY3ao4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTyVL9TQmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWh6sSl_5Is

Maybe slightly off-topic, but I came across a sly (and clever) way to advertise by belittling your competition:

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=3844...

The 404 page ("Oops! Looks like we lost one").

Anyone who is into road cycling will get the pun immediately. Specialized vs Giant. The Rabobank team rides Giants. While the Specialized guy is riding in the front of the pack on that picture :)

Yes, I think it's illegal in Europe, or at least in some countries.

I've always chalked it up not as advertising but as branding. Those commercials serve to build a brand around a product and keep current owners involved in the brand, through feelings of superiority or whatever.

It's like CocaCola commercials: they don't need awareness through advertising, they want branding. Everyone knows what Coke is, but they want you to associate happiness with their product, so they keep branding.

So when I see luxury brands bashing each other, I imagine that's part of what rich people pay BMW and Mercedes for. For that feeling of "I'm better than you because I own X", which the brands deliver through marketing like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com