Perreault−McCarthy: Basic
Marketing: A
Global−Managerial
Approach, 14/e- Advertising and Sales
Promotion
Text © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2002456 Chapter 16
introduced a prescription drug to help smokers break the habit, it did pioneering
advertising to inform both doctors and smokers about its breakthrough. The ad didn’t
even mention the name of the drug. Instead it informed smokers who wanted to quit
that doctors could now help them overcome their nicotine dependence. Later, as other
firms put similar drugs on the market, Merrell Dow turned to competitive advertising.Competitive advertising—emphasizes selective demand
Competitive advertisingtries to develop selective demand for a specific brand. A
firm is forced into competitive advertising as the product life cycle moves along—
to hold its own against competitors.
Competitive advertising may be either direct or indirect. The direct typeaims
for immediate buying action. The indirect typepoints out product advantages to
affect future buying decisions.
Most of Delta Airlines’ advertising is of the competitive variety. Much of it tries
for immediate sales—so the ads are the direct type with prices, timetables, and
phone numbers to call for reservations. Some of its ads are the indirect type. They
focus on the quality of service and number of cities served—and they suggest you
mention Delta’s name the next time you talk to your travel agent.
Comparative advertising is even rougher. Comparative advertisingmeans mak-
ing specific brand comparisons—using actual product names. A recent comparative
ad for a Kia Optima implied that a Toyota Camry with the same features was a great
car but not as good a value as the Optima, which costs $5,000 less.
Many countries forbid comparative advertising, but that situation is changing.
For example, Japan banned comparative advertising until about 15 years ago, when
the restrictions were relaxed. Japan’s move followed an earlier change in the United
States. The Federal Trade Commission decided to encourage comparative ads, after
banning them for years—because it thought they would increase competition and
provide consumers with more useful information.
In the United States, superiority claims are supposed to be supported by research
evidence—but the guidelines aren’t clear. In one widely publicized case, a drug com-
pany sponsored university research on the effectiveness of its drug, but when the results
looked bad it did everything possible to keep the findings secret. When P&G’s Dryel
did not fare well in independent test comparisons with stain removal by professional dry
cleaners, P&G changed its ad claims. However, some firms just keep running tests until
they get the results they want. Others talk about minor differences that don’t reflect aComparative ads make direct
comparisons with other brands
using actual product names. For
example, the Baby Orajel ad
touts its fast relief compared to
Children’s Tylenol. The Microsoft
ad highlights the features of the
Pocket PC compared to its rival,
Palm.