30
Ad Wars!
Filed Under (*Creative, *Guerilla Marketing, *Thought Provoking, *Viral Marketing) by shane on 30-06-2008
Tagged Under : Audi, Bentley, BMW, Competitive advertising, Subaru
When Advertisers go to war, the artillery is scarce and so is the ammunition. Unlike conventional warfare, where hand to hand and close quarter combat is the order of the day, the conflict between advertisers is far more suited to a nuclear holocaust. You see, in a brand rivalry, advertisers will launch an ad that targets their competitor. Once the ad has been launched, the competitor will devise a counter attack that will either stop the war or in some cases even fuel the war. Some brands have been slugging it out for decades, take Coke vs Pepsi, McDonalds vs Burger King and of course Mac vs PC.
This from of advertising is outlawed in South Africa and if you to run an ad that rips into another brand you’ll get klapped stukkend. But you can however, run a competitive advert if it is done in the correct manner as in these examples.
The following adverts were run in this exact order:
1. BMW started this Advertisement
2. Audi Answered
3. Subaru needed to say something
4. Bentley Chairman wanted the last word
Tasteful, with a hint of F*** You. You got to love competitive advertising.
Hi Shane. Dont you love advertising. The less said, the stronger the meaning!!
regards
Grant THom
Hi Shane,
Why is that Ad Wars is outlawed in South Africa?
Will this sort of advertising not promote “jump out of the box and kick it into Timbuc 2″ creativity and competition. I’m sure that many designers will love to work on campaigns that will surely keep them inspired and motivated to out create others.
Regards
Emiel
@Emiel
Well Emiel, comparative advertising would make for awesome creativity but are againts the ethics of the Advertising Standards Authority S.A. Below Ive sampled a section form their website on Comparitive Advertising in S.A:
Comparative advertising
7.1 Advertisements in which factual comparisons are made between products and/or services are permitted provided that-
7.1.1 all legal requirements are adhered to. Attention is drawn to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993;
7.1.2 only fact capable of substantiation are used as governed by Section II Clause 4.1;
7.1.3 one or more material, relevant, objectively determinable and verifiable claims are made;
7.1.4 the claims are not misleading or confusing as governed by Section II Clause 4.2;
7.1.5 no infringement of advertising goodwill takes place as governed by Section II Clause 8;
7.1.6 no disparagement takes place as governed by Section II Clause 6;
7.1.7 the facts or criteria used are fairly chosen. In this assessment the following will, inter alia, be taken into account:
• the significance of the facts or criteria used;
• the relevance and representativeness of the facts or criteria used; and
• whether the basis of the comparison is the same.
7.1.8 products or services compared must have the same or similar characteristics and must be intended for the same, or similar, purpose.
7.1.9 the contextual implication be strictly limited to the facts;
7.1.10 where claims are based on substantiated research, the express consent as to the accuracy and scope of such claims be obtained from the relevant research body;
7.1.11 the advertiser accepts responsibility for the accuracy of the research and claims.
7.2 It should be noted that reference to claims above shall be deemed to include all visual and aural representations.
7.3 Group comparisons and comparisons which identify competitors by implication are acceptable subject to the criteria contained in this clause.
7.4 The guiding principle in all comparisons shall be that products and/or services should be promoted on their own merits and not on the demerits of competitive products.
7.5 In considering matters raised under this clause, cognisance will be taken of the intention of the advertiser.
7.6 It is strongly recommended that advertisers obtain advice regarding the conformity of advertising material with all the provisions of clause 7 especially the Trade Marks Act before placing a comparative advertisement.
It does state that factual comparisons made between products and/or services are permitted provided but they have to adhere to advertising goodwill and that kind of contradicts the first statement. If a advertiser does runs a competitive advertisement it’s expect to be pulled within a few days and the client will receive a fine. A pity isn’t it!