Between 2002 and 2011, the Verizon brand spent billions in ad media accomplishing two things quite well: Keeping it in a competitive horse race with rival AT&T and burning the question “can you hear me now?” as well as the likeness and voice of their iconic horned-rim glasses “test man” Paul Marcarelli, into the national psyche. For nine years, the “can you hear me now” guy and the Verizon brand became one in the same.
Back when Verizon launched their campaign, cell phone coverage was a real issue (and still is to a certain extent), so the brand’s approach had definite consumer resonance. As a consequence, Verizon successfully positioned its brand as superior in coverage and, as of last year, was neck and neck with larger AT&T in market share (34% vs 32%) according to MarketRealist.com.
After the retirement of the “Can you hear me now?” Campaign and with his contractual obligations to Verizon concluded, the ever determined and roaming “test man” Marcarelli did the unthinkable … he roamed right into a Sprint store. This was just too good to pass up for the much smaller and distant third-place player. As a result, Sprint launched their “Yep, I switched” campaign a couple of months ago and an aggressive 50% off promotional incentive.
By using Marcarelli, Sprint is saying they are as good as his former brand (Verizon) and for less money. That’s why he switched and why you should, too.
This isn’t the first time a brand has appropriated the competitor’s assets to do battle in the marketplace, and it likely won’t be the last. Consider a few other examples …
- Taco Bell launches its breakfast menu by taking on fast food giant McDonalds. It films real customers (who happened to be named Ronald McDonald) providing glowing testimonials about the upstart’s new offering, waffle tacos.
- Regional burger chain Krystal actually portrays Ronald McDonald and the Burger King rushing to its restaurant in TV spots that aired in 2012.
- Pepsi airs its memorable BBDO “Delivery Man” spot during the 1995 Super Bowl, telling the story of a chance encounter of Coke and Pepsi delivery men at a diner, sampling each other’s product and the ensuing fracas when the Coke delivery man refuses to surrender the Pepsi that he is now in love with. In a brilliant move, Pepsi reprised the story, updated for 2010 by TBWA/Chiat/Day, complete with threatened cell phone video of the Coke deliveryman drinking a Pepsi Max instead of his Coke Zero. And the predictable fracas ensued once more.
In each of these examples, we’re asked as brand specialists is this a good idea? For the sake of “disruptive marketing,” are we not violating a cardinal rule by reminding our customer of the competition and giving the competing brand some free advertising … at our expense? What is the legal exposure for using someone’s trademark or brand assets without permission? And, do we do harm to our own brand in the process?
Respect For Trademarks
First a quick note regarding the legality of using your competitor’s trademark, brand assets or anything else that would be construed as part of the brand identification. In “fair use” instances, unauthorized use of trademarks can be allowable when making comparisons, references or assurances. We would always advise you consult your legal counsel before doing anything, however.
Comparison Strategy
All of this falls under the heading of the popular strategy of “comparison advertising.” According to a study conducted back in 2012, roughly half of all TV spots struck a competitive comparison to some degree, and out of those, about 5% called out the competitor by name. Obviously, political ads will routinely call out the competition, but so do many others, such as automotive, insurance, foods, beverages, credit cards, etc. And one can only guess that the comparison ad percentage is greater today than four years ago.
Using The Competition’s Brand Assets
The Sprint example as well as the others we’ve listed goes beyond mere comparison when they appropriate competitor’s brand assets to gain our attention. When this is done, it’s always the smaller brand that does the appropriating. You will never see the larger, dominant brand comparing itself to the smaller, weaker rival, much less using the smaller rival’s brand assets against them. Rarely, if ever, will you see the larger brand counter-attacking the smaller brand for the comparison campaign launched against it, in any large scale, meaningful way. By doing that, the larger brand would be giving legitimacy to the smaller brand, and allowing the smaller brand to essentially dictate the advertising strategy of the larger brand. Not smart. Wise, leading brands always play defense and must never play offense. On that note, this is how leading brands — including Verizon– should respond to a challenger brand like Sprint.
Pros And Cons
It is true; brands that use their competitor’s assets in marketing will gain some degree of attention. And yes, it will have a disruptive effect on the marketplace much like a sales promotion (which Sprint is doing) spiking interest and sales for a time. But this isn’t a long-term brand building strategy. And in fact, it can be an ongoing subtle reminder of the competitor. It is also a reminder that you are not the leading brand. Only solid, original brand building will hold and grow the short term gains that a promotion of this type will create. Over-reliance on using borrowed brand equity from your competitor runs the risk of diminishing the value of your own brand and forever type-casting it as the next best thing. And who wants to buy that?
Many years ago, Xerox ran a TV spot that beautifully illustrated the fallacy of this approach. In it, a succession of copier salesmen are shown pitching their copiers and each time saying “It’s as good as a Xerox” to which the announcer finally asks “Why not choose Xerox?” Good question.
If you’re considering comparison marketing and going so far as using your competitor’s brand assets first ask…
- Have you explored alternatives that are just as effective?
- How does your brand excel over your larger competitor and what are you doing to tell that story?
- Have you researched the exposure with your legal counsel?
- Can you build brand insistence without the reliance of this approach?
- Have you weighed the possible repercussions?
- Are your comparisons water-tight and documented by a third party?
- Is the asset and creative context strong enough to work more for you than for them?
The Blake Project Can Help: The Brand Storytelling Workshop
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Licensing and Brand Education
