Do You Want to Start a Brand War?

By Chris Crum - Fri, 08/15/2008 - 10:11am.

Do you have enough fire power?

I have never been a big fan of the type of ad campaign in which the company tries to play off of a competitor's brand.

This type of "smear" campaign always runs rampant in election years of course with politicians constantly telling you why they're better than the other guy. It is not an uncommon strategy for businesses either.

Subway Vs. McDonald's

An example that comes immediately to mind is Subway. They have had a slew of advertisements trying to push the low-fat section of their menu while constantly comparing it with McDonald's cheeseburgers.

This may have been an effective strategy for them, but cynical people like me are pretty turned off by it. Of course a small turkey sandwich has less fat and calories than a quarter-pounder with cheese, French fries, and a large Coke.

They don't mention that they have foot-long meatball subs, fried potato chips and Coke also, which would be a fairer comparison.

McDonald's also has salads and grilled chicken wraps.

I've always wanted to get that off my chest.

On the other hand, it is good that they're promoting healthier food and they probably have swayed many people away from McDonald's to their restaurant.

Campaigns like this have both pros and cons.

On the positive side, you are giving your customers reasons why you are better than the other guys.

Dropping the name of a competitor can be a way to capitalize off of the accomplishments of another brand, and take it in a fresh (or at least different) direction.

You are also letting the audience know that they are part of your market.

One negative aspect of this kind of ad campaign is that you are putting your competitor's brand in the minds of your potential customers. Why even make them think about your competition?

This is especially a con when resentful audience members (like me in the case of Subway Vs. McDonalds) would just as soon go to the competitor out of principle.

Depending on the nature of your campaign, it could be looked upon as a lack of class on your part if you are insulting your competitors in your ads. This can reflect negatively on your business.

I am not saying that mentioning your competitors in your marketing is always a bad decision. I am sure there have been many successful campaigns based on this model.

I am just saying that you should stop and think about how it will reflect upon you, and be careful how you go about it. You may even start a brand war when your competitor fires back, and if they are a bigger brand than you, it may not be the best move.

Just use caution. Thoughts?

News Tags: Marketing, Branding, advertising

About the author:
Chris is a content coordinator and staff writer for SmallBusinessNewz and the iEntry Network. Subscribe to SmallBusinessNewz RSS Feeds.

Comments

By Guest (SBN reader) - Sun, 08/17/2008 - 9:08am.

Subway sells baked potato

Subway sells baked potato chips. They have Pepsi products, not Coke. And the point in those ads is that you're better off eating one of their healthy subs than a sandwich from McDonald's, which even cynical people should know to be true. What does the fact that they have meatball subs do to refute that point? Weird statement there, chief.

By Chris Crum - Mon, 08/18/2008 - 7:40am.

RE: Subway sells baked potato

The point is that subway has unhealthy food too (like meatball subs) and McDonald's has healthier foods too like salads and wraps. Yet instead of comparing similar sides of the spectrum, they compare the opposite. McDonald's could just as easily have a similar campaign talking about how much better-for-you one of their grilled chicken wraps is than a meatball sub from subway. It's the same principle. Yeah, Subway has baked potato chips, but not ONLY baked. You got me on the Pepsi though.

You can get healthier or unhealthier meals at either place but Subway chooses to attack McDonald's.

By Paul G (SBN reader) - Mon, 08/18/2008 - 10:27am.

Brand War

I agree with your opinion regarding being careful when mentioning a competitor because of possible backlash. One need only look to the Coke/Pepsi wars of the 70's and 80's to see how much money can be spent for minimal market share variance. However marketing and advertising as implementation of branding must define the company's differentiating factor. That differentiator in this case is the overall healthier bent of Subway versus MCDonald's classic fast food position. That is how they have been positioning themselves for years. Personally I do not have an issue with them mentioning McDonald's directly because the primary selections at Subway are the more healthy ones. If I want a meatball hero I am going to a local pizza place, not subway. If I order a salad at McDonald's I am doing so because I am there with my kids and refuse to take another step closer to my impending heart attack on that particular day. The strength of the Subway brand is as a healthy lunch alternative. They should have the right to advertise it in the same way that Burger King talks about flame broiling. Even more so because it is a more impactful reason to their client's overall health. I might go there myself today.

By Chris Crum - Mon, 08/18/2008 - 10:40am.

RE: Brand War

You're right. They have every right to use this kind of campaign, and I'm not saying it doesn't work for them. I just find it unnecessary to target McDonald's when you can obtain a healthier or an unhealthier meal at either location.

I'm all for promoting the healthy menu, but why drag McD's into it and not Wendy's, Hardee's, Burger King, etc.

I do understand why...McD's is bigger than all of them, and Subway wants to steal their business, which is obviously a good goal too, but McD's could launch a full scale marketing attack on Subway if they wanted to (they obviously don't feel that threatened). If they did, Subway would find itself at war with one of the largest brands in the world.

Anyway, the point of the article is not really Subway vs. McDonald's. If you feel that this kind of campaign would be beneficial to your business, than by all means go for it. The point I was trying to make is that you should consider the repercussions that could follow.

After all, we're talking about applying this to a small business.

By the way, good point with Coke/Pepsi.

By Gail Reece (SBN reader) - Thu, 08/21/2008 - 8:37am.

Brand War

Chris, I was so happy to read your article. I have hated the subway ad for so long! It is an insult to their clients pretty much saying we don't know what is a healthier selection. Second it shows they know they can not compete with the quality of a local sub/sandwich shop that uses better quality ingredients and remain profitable. So... they chose to compete against the fast food industry. It's a quick buck at best. They are not in that market, yet. Most shops are not located for quick off the highway access with drive through service. It's tough marketing a product that doesn't have a real class it fits into. Best to stick with the specials, by two and get one free etc... They did well with this. Leave the bashing to politics which is nauseating enough. The majority of items i sell can be purchased many places from the smaller mom and pop shops to nationwide chains. I choose to set myself apart by offering an entire product line in different cost saving configurations, discounts, buy 2 or 3 and get a % off, personalized help with selections, plus free shipping offers. I know our customers are smart enough to figure this out and will return for consecutive purchases for the same reason. I don't need to smear it in their face by bashing anyone. Negativity is never a good place to start an ad campaign, you want to capture the customer in a possitive light. ; )

By Chris Crum - Thu, 08/21/2008 - 8:49am.

RE: Brand War

Thank you Gail. Very well put.

SmallBusinessNewz