You’ve Been Mac’d, Positioning Your Competition

In the genre of negative ads, the idea is first to distill your competition to a single product attribute and then fix that attribute to an immovable scale. Advertisers may do this by setting up a straw man or by naming their competitor’s product directly. Particularly aggressive, one-sided negative ads are referred to as attack ads. Some advertisers go on to introduce their products favorably. These are called comparative ads.

Characteristics
As outlined in the New York Times “Dueling Brands Pick Up Where Politicians Leave Off“, these ads are tactical in nature. Advertisers who choose this tactic are rarely bashful about their messaging focusing on an important buyer value. As they risk consumer backlash, negative ads often carry a humorous or “tongue-in-cheek” tone. Finally, according to the Times, they often give rise to a competitive response. Digging a little deeper, we see other “trademarks”:

• It’s an underdog tactic. When you are the market share leader your objective is to grow the market. When you are #2 or #3, your objective is to take share. Therefore, it is a fundamentally competitive or “distributive” tactic.
• Given time constraints, the desire to get the most “bang for the buck”, and desire to limit litigation, they are usually highly-targeted assaults focusing on one key attribute.
• They are often topical in nature. That is, one rarely launchs a comparative or attack ad to build one’s brand. One launches an attack to quickly assert superiority. This is often best done in a topical context. For example, as we will see below, Apple uses the latest, negative press to lampoon the “PC”, a stand-in for Microsoft and it’s Windows Vista operating system.
• There are significant differences between political ads and commercials based primarily on latitude given the different forms of speech. Commercial comparative ads must comply with the law or risk civil liability. Per Goodwin Procter’s Top 10 Things to Know Before You Launch A Comparative Advertising Campaign, the advertiser must: 1. Know both what they are saying and implying, 2. If the comparison is based on a consumer survey or demonstration, follow a bulletproof, repeatable process, 3. Substantiate all claims.

Let’s see an illustration of these points below.

Fixing Your Competition - The Straw Man
Tongue in Cheek - Dunkin Donuts turns its nose up at Starbucks. Catchy tune - “Perhaps Fritalian”.

Or, if you prefer, McDonald’s frontal assault on Starbucks pricing.

The Attack Ad - Naked Aggression
Most common in election years, these ads may dispense with comparisons. This is often because the subject matter is either too complex given the space/time available or because the advertiser’s products don’t compare well. Here’s a classic example authored, not surprisingly, by the Fox Television Network.

The Direct Comparison - Naming Names
Using the absolute ruler of “taste”, witness the Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks Microsite, YouTube Channel and YouTube video:

The Passive Comparison - Setting the Mood
While Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads have become progressively more pointed, their appeal is based on the perception of what is “cool”. Notable attributes of the series below include: 1. They are timely, literally seizing on Microsoft’s week by week moves, 2. They are focused, distilling the differences between operating systems (embodiments of whole companies, philosophies, etc.) into simple sound bites. 3. They are humorous, making Microsoft seem defensive, inept, and 4. They are cross-platform, including TV ads to coordianted online “roadblocks”.