Comparative advertising – who has a positive reaction?

In its latest campaign for the french fries, Wendy's again called out McDonald’s for allegedly offering stale french fries that no one wants. The entire persona of this brand is based on sassy, often cynical comments and calling out, which is why it is extremely popular on Twitter.

Calling out other brands has a long history in the US and Wendy’s is not original in this field, however, it seems to be among the first ones to shift the war into digital space and allow itself to sound like a person irritated by someone, more than a company highlighting its advantages over its competitors.

Comparative advertising is completely normalized in the USA, unlike some other countries where it is illegal (such as India) or is only seen as immoral slander of a competitor, which is why it is avoided (eg in Japan). In the United States, this type of advertising is encouraged because it is considered that consumers get more complete information about potential purchase options. Of course, all this is valid provided you do not make false claims. In the case of Wendy’s and McDonald’s, brands have chosen to become wittier and that their conflict mimics the conflicts of real people. Perhaps it could be said that it imitates "quarrels" of digital creators who aim to draw attention to both participants of the conflict, without this created drama actually harming anyone.

As far as we are concerned, the legal regulations here are complicated, and if you look at the Law on Advertising and its Article 14, which refers to comparative advertising, you will conclude that it is best not to resort to these solutions. The main reason why this can turn out bad for you is that there is no culture of comparative advertising in our country, so you can easily end up with a lawsuit, although it would be better for your competitor and his image to react with humor.

In cultures where this tradition does not exist, the consumer attitude is more negative when they notice it, however, studies show that such ads are more remembered even when they are irritating. If we go back to Serbia again, the assumption is that younger audiences who spend time on social media and know what's going on in the US with brands and are used to dramas between their favorite digital creators have the potential to react better to brand conflicts because they can entertain them.

The typical rules of the game in this type of advertising are that you do not attack someone smaller than you because the public does not like to be on the side of Goliath, as well as to choose the relevant flaws of the opponents you are comparing yourself to. Relevant means that potential consumers see the "problem" as important. If this does not happen, you will not be able to attract attention and present yourself as a better option, which is, after all, the goal of this type of advertising.

Author of the text: Natalija Jovanović, Senior Content Manager