The Homa Files

TakeAway:  Due to the increasing competition for consumers’ dollars, negative advertising is at an all time high. 

Companies are responding to this wave of aggressive advertising by demanding that competitors cough up the proof behind their claims. 

But, do attack ads actually work? 

In at least some cases, the answer is no: attack ads may lead consumers to abandon not only a competitor’s product, but also the entire product category. 

Has this new focus on negative advertising caused companies to lose their perspective on the consumer market?

* * * * *

Excerpted from NYTimes, “Best Soup Ever? Suits Over Ads Demand Proof,” By Stephanie Clifford, November 22, 2009

… Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route — filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and Iams, AT&T and Verizon, and Campbell Soup and Progresso have all wrestled over ads recently.

The goal is usually not money but market share. Companies file complaints to get competitors’ ads withdrawn or amended.

The cases themselves might seem a little absurd — an argument over hyped-up advertising copy that not many consumers take at face value. Pantene has attacked Dove’s claim that its conditioner “repairs” hair better, and Iams has been challenged on one of its lines, “No other dog food stacks up like Iams.”

Dueling advertisers, however, argue that these claims can mislead consumers and cause a pronounced drop in sales. Since advertisers are required by law to have a reasonable factual basis for their commercials, their competitors are essentially demanding that they show their hand.

The increase in these actions may be a reflection of the dismal economy: in recessions, when overall spending lags, advertisers must fight harder for customers …

The number of complaints over ads from competitors … is on track to set a record this year … 

Defending claims made in ads sometimes requires delving into minutiae. The Pantene-Dove case centered on whether Dove Therapy repaired hair better than a Pantene conditioner. To defend its conditioner ad, Dove supplied a study measuring the combing force required by treated hair, a study on breakage in a 200-strokes-per-tresses test, and had an expert defend its decision to use the “wet combing” method rather than “dry combing” …

How brands will deal with their competitors’ advertisements is an increasingly important component of the overall marketing strategy … must explore lots of permutations, whether it’s offensively or defensively … But, as with all attacks on competitors, these disputes run the risk of persuading consumers to avoid not just a rival’s product, but the product altogether.

Last fall, Campbell Soup started an ad campaign that said its Select Harvest soups were “Made with TLC” while labeling Progresso soups, from its rival General Mills, “Made with MSG.” Progresso responded with its own campaign, and then both companies complained to the advertising review division, which recommended withdrawal of some ads from both sides … The damage was already done …since then, unit sales of wet soups at both companies have declined every quarter. A UBS analyst attributed the drop largely to the advertising battle …

“They’re navel-gazing and they’re not thinking about what consumers want to hear — they’re just talking at conference tables about how to strike back or how their integrity has been affected” …

Edit by TJS

* * * * *

Full Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/media/22lawsuits.html

* * * * *

This entry was posted on January 11, 2010 at 7:24 am and is filed under Mktg - Advertising. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.