The recent advertisements placed by Whitakers capitalising on the woes of Cadbury have certainly raised eyebrows within the marketing and FMCG communities. That the ads stand out the way they do is interesting in itself because while they do not break any rules, they do raise issues concerning brand marketing and the very nature of what it is to be a New Zealander.
Legally I believe these ads are fine – they meet the admirably clear guidelines dictated by the Advertising Standards Authority, which can be viewed here: http://www.asa.co.nz/code_comparative.php.
In a nutshell, the Whitakers ads adhere to the three key ASA guidelines, which are as follows:
-
Comparative advertisements should be factual and informative.
-
Comparative advertisements should explicitly or by implication make clear what comparison is being made.
-
Comparative advertisements It should not mislead the consumer about other products or services with which comparisons might be made.
In essence, the Whitakers television advertisements do little more than read out what’s on the packages, as that’s the key story to be told. The advertisements are clear, factual, simply-told and devoid of subjective hyperbole. This is beneficial in two ways. Firstly, it ensures the advertisements are kept within the bounds of the ASA guidelines. But importantly too, this direct ‘tell it how it is’ approach to the creative execution also fits well with the Whitakers brand. This is an important point, and possibly one reason why so little obvious comparative advertising is aired in New Zealand – because while a simply-told, no frills advertisement suits Whitakers well, the format will be ill-suited to many other brands, who would find it difficult to shoe-horn their creative style into the comparative format whilst still retaining their brand essence. In addition, even one’s position in the brand hierarchy will influence how ‘acceptable’ a comparative advertisement is to the public.
To illustrate this point clearly, one only has to imagine a reversal of the Cadbury – Whitakers situation. Consider for a moment if Whitakers had done everything that Cadbury had done (pricing, packaging and formulation), and done so for the same reasons. An identical Cadbury’s advertisement would not be successful, because the creative approach does not suit the fantastical nature of Cadbury advertisements (gorillas and eyebrows!), and we would have a situation of a multinational ‘picking on’ a small local underdog. New Zealanders love their underdogs, and this raises the second key challenge for any businesses considering comparative advertising – one cannot be seen to be bullying a smaller competitor, especially if that competitor is smaller, newer, or breaking a monopoly. Exceptions do apply of course – the recent Jetstar debacle demonstrating how quickly a welcomed, sunny brand can burn up any public goodwill in a flash.
Hence we have the current situation in which little pure comparative advertising occurs in New Zealand – the potential for negative backlash is too great, and the available comparisons often too fine or inconsequential to win much ground.
However, there are of course many current examples of indirect comparative advertising - that which only implies who the competition is, thereby freeing up the legal restrictions and allowing for greater on-brand creative. Consider…
-
TSB advertisements, who compare themselves against ‘big banks’ as a generic whole;
-
Kiwibank, who compare themselves against ‘Australian banks’;
-
TelstraClear, who are clearly referring to Telecom when their character talks with an old, grey telephone.
In all three cases the comparing company is perceived as the new upstart (of course Telstra is far bigger than Telecom , but the key is that in New Zealand they still have challenger status). In addition, the ads use a mix of humour, understatement, and metaphor to avoid appearing too argumentative – because of course nobody, New Zealanders especially, likes a whiner.
There is also a middle ground that advertisers can consider, in which competitors are named but comparisons not specifically made. An excellent example of this is the “Adidas Loves Competition” advertisements that have been run globally. In these simple print advertisements which can be viewed here, the headings refer to the competition in positive terms – headings such as “Check the new Reeboks”, “Isn’t Puma great?”, and “Nike has great ads”. In each case the Adidas logo is positioned some way down the page, with the strapline “Adidas love competition”. I interpret the key messages as being that Adidas is edgy, innovative, surprising and above all welcoming to good competition – as is any goods sportsperson. If all good sportspeople compliment their competitors, why not a sportswear brand? These advertisements actually work by giving competitors credit, an uncommon advertising strategy in itself.
For an amazing look at some comparative advertising that pushes all boundaries and which shows how a small but likeable challenger can use humour to succeed with comparative advertising, readers are strongly encouraged to view the ‘Get a Mac’ campaigns run by Apple in the US. Visit YouTube and search for ‘Get a Mac’ to see how the two characters (Mac and PC) can make Microsoft look abysmal (not difficult, admittedly) without ever mentioning the Microsoft name (admittedly the ‘PC’ character bears a striking resemblance to Bill Gates).
In all these cases the key points remain – if your brand is going to be promoted through comparisons with the competition, much more has to be considered than just the legality of the execution. Any comparisons have to be seen as inherently fair, respectful, on-brand and relevant to the consumer – they have to suit the Kiwi notion of giving everyone a fair go, as much as they have to suit your brand, your category, and your position in the market.
Jonathan Dodd is based at market research company Synovate. Contact him at jonathan.dodd@synovate.com