Comparative advertising is best described as a necessary evil. Marketers hate using it -- it's their equivalent of the nuclear option. It's cheap, unimaginative, and universally weakens the customer's evaluation of the brand.
The issue is that it, like a nuclear bomb, it's incredibly effective. Customers remember comparative advertising better, digest it more effectively, and it helps disseminate cognitive information clearly. Ironically, customers internalize comparative advertising more often with regards to the product being denigrated (ie. "This product is worse!") than with the product being promoted (ie. "This product is better!") This is important with low-effort purchases like <$20 consumer goods.
(As an aside: I think the idea of making comparative advertisements illegal is absolutely absurd. What should be made illegal, though, are advertisements like this, which are blatantly false no matter what the fine print says.)
Comparative advertising is best described as a necessary evil. Marketers hate using it -- it's their equivalent of the nuclear option. It's cheap, unimaginative, and universally weakens the customer's evaluation of the brand.
The issue is that it, like a nuclear bomb, it's incredibly effective. Customers remember comparative advertising better, digest it more effectively, and it helps disseminate cognitive information clearly. Ironically, customers internalize comparative advertising more often with regards to the product being denigrated (ie. "This product is worse!") than with the product being promoted (ie. "This product is better!") This is important with low-effort purchases like <$20 consumer goods.
(As an aside: I think the idea of making comparative advertisements illegal is absolutely absurd. What should be made illegal, though, are advertisements like this, which are blatantly false no matter what the fine print says.)