Comparision The Soul Of Advertisements - Is It True...

Comparative advertising is just one way of establishing your USP. Organization use the” CREATIVE ROUTE” of comparative advertising when they have very strong belief that nobody can match their product or services or want to prove a point that their product is different and better than other product available in the category.

Great amount of risk is involved with comparative advertising, people intend to check both the products in order to be rest assured that what is been said is right or not. People do not believe what they see, they believe by their experiences. 

Thus you would not see much campaign been executed in this format. Brands are build based on the promises made and kept, not on comparison. It is because different people have different requirement thus different product preferences.

I absolutely agree with shiuli that though comparative advertising is a tool it cannot be the soul. I for one vehemently oppose comparative advertising because in most cases you end up bringing the competitor into the limelight. Take the recent case of the rin vs tide fight. Today rin is well know in the hinterland than tide which is basically well known in the top metros. But by comparing Unilever has succeeding in bringing tide into the limelight. In other words it is free advertisement for Tide. Even if 10-20% of die-hard rin fans switch to Tide just to satiate their curiosity, tide has won.

Comparative advertisements work well for brands where the qualities are well establisehd and are itself comparable. Like the speed of a car or its milleage. Here the industry has got established norms so when comparison happens it is against a well set parameter but in the former example how can one compare whiteness or the safety of the product on the skin ? Here is where the opposition gains an image because you have succeeded in bringing forth the image of a product where the parameters are not definable.

the soul of advertising has always been the thought the brand stands for. and it will always be so. it is said that brands are resorting to comparitive advertisng. but winners are the ones who don't let the heat of competition cloud their views,  

Nay comparative ads take away the creativity from the copy and visuals. And advertisers would become mathematical and commence displaying tables. Besides, advertisers could get away with half truths - stating what is convenient for them and not necessarily declaring the whole truth. A corporate with higher advt budget could get away with such half truths.   

By comparision the company is loosing their product value so to my personal view the compay should adopt thier own personal views .for ex do you feel who will benefit i thnk so it will benifit another competitors 

Every Brand has its own individuality , and if they are clear about the individuality / USP , then comparison is not required. The Brand should be clear of what they want to sell , whom to sell and where to sell , if they are crystal clear about this then they know what ad to make to enhance and portray its own product and not its rivals product.

One other point of view is that when you start comparing your products with competitors products you are in a way accepting the competitors presence in that market space. You might be indirectly educating the customers on the alternative/complementary product present in the market which might prove to be disastrous. Also dont forget, the competitor gets 'free' advertisement leverage through your ad...

Thus, I am not for comparitive advertising. Project your product creatively. Be different.

Thank you Meena for the referral, but I woulk like to differ from you in this matter.  I agree that the rule of the game is "Survival of the Fittest" and we have to crush our competitors in the process. But, in the ad-world, "Creativity" still takes the trophy. Comparative ads are more based on duplication and they may initially impress the audience; but doesn't leave a mark.

Taking an example, Coca Cola launched "Sprite" by with ads that compared with "Pepsi". Till a period of time, all of Pepsi's ads were duplicatd with Sprite. But, Pepsi never bothered, as they were sure of the reaction. Today Sprite has gone to create their own creative ads and change their tagline from "Sprite bujhaye only pyaas, baaki all bakwas" to "Sprite - clear hai"

No,

Creativity still rules the roost.

Take any famous ad of our times...

Be it Zoo Zoo ad of vodafone, or Airtel emotional ads,

Thums Up or Mountain Dew, Maggi has been asking for 2 minutes for last 20 years.

Who has imitated the Happydent White Concept!

There are a flurry of ads that have made a lasting impression in our hearts, not because they were duplicated, but because they were creative.

Even today, and till the Marketing age exists, longer gestation period of promotion will be for the ads that were creative, and unique in their own way...

Comparision is a cowardly act which shows that the company has gone out of creativity. Companies should be creative enough to promote their brands/products in a better way. The legal issues involved in comparative advertisements are unambiguous. As per law, advertisements cannot compare brands without supportive evidence of concrete and verifiable facts and statistically valid data.

In the case of a couple of brands, advertisements made disparaging messages about competing brands without their brand names being said aloud, but only through the movements of lips.

So, just to increase a few percentage in the market share companies shouldn't go for comparative ads that hurts the markets of other brands directly. And I don't think that comparison is the soul of ads.