Comparative Advertising is American. Not.

Often we think about the idea of comparison advertising as being a very “American” thing to do. Only the capitalist U.S. could pull off something so crude as to putting down other brands to attempt at capturing your audience.  Though illegal in some foreign countries, many brands use this tactic in America including brands like:

In many cases, the brand is either 1st or 2nd in the category. For example, brands like Pepsi and Dunkin’ find themselves second to Coca-Cola and Starbucks in the soft drink and coffee categories. On the other hand, brands like Apple and Verizon who top their category use comparative advertising to stay on top, providing their target audience with information about their closest competitors and why they are a better choice. 

Is comparative advertising really only a tactic used in the U.S?

Apparently not. Above is an ad found in Friday’s morning Metro newspaper distributed here in London. *FYI: Boots is the London equivalent to a CVS/Walgreens/Duane Reade/Rite Aid and Superdrug is another pharmacy-like and competitor to Boots. I was stunned when I saw this ad as I filled through the paper. I thought comparative ads that called out competitors was totally an American thing and that “classy” British brands would never stoop so low as the follow in the shallow yank’s footsteps. In this ad Boots highlights their price advantage over their competitor, claiming that their prices are so low that customers will love it but their competitors won’t. The target audience is without a doubt residents of England who are well aware of both brands. 

I can imagine that price advantage is a key factor for retail stores like Boots. It can be hard to achieve loyalty with consumers since many of the products purchased at Boots or Superdrug are things one needs for a specific moment and may not make the effort to specifically venture out to one store of the over. For example, this weekend I was away in Stratford-upon-Avon (about 1 hour and 45 minutes outside of London). I really needed an lotion and entered the first drug store I saw. Although I regularly got to Boots because there is a location near my flat and school I felt no NEED to seek out a location near where I was in Stratford. I instantly entered the first store I saw and was able to purchase what I needed. Even knowing I had a loyalty card for Boots and not Superdrug, it did not deter me from entering Boot’s main competitor. 

This ad certainly makes me away of the Boot’s price advantage but does not deter me from entering a Superdrug. That is the difference I feel with American comparative ads that is not achieved in the Boot’s UK ad. There is no sense of “sabotage” for lack of a better word. In American ads like the Verizon vs AT&T, Verizon straight up enterains reasons as why consumers should not only purchase Verizon but why they should not purchase AT&T. The same could be said about for the popular Apple ad campaign with PC vs Mac.