Do comparative ads help better brand building?

Even I think why u need comparitive advertising when you believe your product's quality and the second thing is by comparing with other brand you are marketing that product also and letting people know that you see your competitor as a closest threat

I am not a fan of competitive advertising. It reminds me of poorly done celebrity advertising—both are symptomatic of lazy creativity and lazier strategic thinking. It takes real effort and real study to arrive at a unique consumer insight around which to build a brand idea and a consumer proposition.

It’s easy to look at a competitor and poke holes in his product or services. It’s harder, but definitely more valuable, to plug the holes in one’s own offering and build real competitive advantages with which you can impress your customer.Of course, some brands want to build their images around controversy and ambush—in which case, it may still be strategically correct. Still, there is no research that shows consumers like a name-caller any more than they like a brand that seeks to connect with them in a positive way.

No. will not help brand building. Due to stiff competition company"s prefer comparative advertising to educate the customer. In general market is very sensitive on price and also it depends on the products quality and availability. 

K Rajagopalan  

A brand is a bundle of features, characteristics and benefits that a product or service is supposed to deliver. The operative word is "supposed to". More often than not, it is a matter of perception and not the reality. As an example, how many of us can measure or verify whether a Rolex or an Omega shows time more accurately than say a Titan or a Timex? How many of us can understand the difference between a 2.66 GHz and a 3 GHz processor? In the event, a brand becomes an aspirational state and reflects the stage at which we are in the Maslowian hierarchy. For someone at the self-actualization stage, a simple clock such as the one that Mahatma Gandhi used would be more than sufficient. On the other hand, for someone whose status and prestige needs are paramount, all the brands in the world may not bring satisfaction.

The problem with comparitive advertising is that an ordinary customer has no way of validating the claims and counter-claims made. For the information of the readers, comparitive advertising is banned in many developed countries. How then can it be justified in a country where illiteracy is rampant?

In fact, even without the complexities of comparitive advertising, we are often fed with information overload. Consider this: a vehicle promises to deliver 97 kms to the litre. There is a small asterisk. Please read the fine print. It is supposed to deliver 97 kms per litre if two people weighing a total of 130 Kgs cruise on a flat road at a constant speed of 45 kmph on a windless day and without breaking. Do such conditions exist in the real world? Why do you complicate the decision-making for the customer by making comparisons that cannot be validated?

If there were to be an independent body of unimpeachable integrity and with no business interests whatsoever, the findings of such a body may be worth considering. Some examples do exist particularly in the technology domain but their independence is questionable considering they depend on advertising support from the very products that they evaluate.

Therefore, comparitive advertising is misleading in its simplest form and unethical in its extreme forms.

A brand is a bundle of features, characteristics and benefits that a product or service is supposed to provide to customers. More often than not, it is a perception not the reality. For example, how many of us are sure that a Rolex or a Omega shows time more accurately than say a Titan or a Timex?. How many of us can understand the difference between a 2.66 GHz and a 3.00 GHz processor?. In many such cases, brands become aspirational in nature and connote where we are in the Maslowian hierarchy of needs. For a person who has reached the self-actualization state, a clock like the one that Mahatma Gandhi used would be more than sufficient. On the other hand, for someone whose prestige or status needs are paramount, an Omega, a Rolex, a Cartier, a Mont Blanc and half-a-dozen other brands also would not suffice.

Under the circumstances, when we are already overloaded with information, comparitive advertising does more harm than good. For the information of the readers, comparitive advertising is banned in many of the developed countries. How then can we justify it in a country where 2/3rds of the population may be illiterate?

The main problem with comparitive advertising is that there is no way an ordinary customer can validate the claims and counter-claims made. If you have an independent body that does not have any business interests, and whose integrity is unimpeachable, a comparitive analysis made by such a body may be useful. You do have examples of this particularly in the technology domain.

However, comparitive advertising by companies, that can neither be verified nor validated, and in many cases not even understood, is certainly misleading and bordering on the unethical.

Not always. For complex products like cars etc., the comparative ads work well. The basic for providing comparison is to reinforce the customers decision is right one and is going to be accepted in his/her circle. Recall, how many times you/me have asked about certain products in terms of features, suitability etc. For low involvement products like Cola's, comparative advertisement is going to well because they can not show much differentiation in features so they mostly rely on other tactics. So, i believe that if you have innovative product which disrupts the market direction then it will get enough brand awareness than it would have got by doing comparative advertisement.