|
Dated: 01 November 2002
Increasingly, Jamaican advertisers are pitting their flagship brands against those of their nearest competitor, even naming names, with a battle for both market and mind-share ensuing. Will consumers win, or should we all take cover?
It wasn’t that long ago that the Jamaican ad market was among the last bastions of gentility. Advertisers earnestly touted the virtues of their own brands, and strenuously avoided any hint of the competitor’s brand that might be lurking in the presentation and thus take the prospect’s mind off the all-important target.
Well, thanks to global influences, increased competition and the fragmentation of media among other factors, the gloves have clearly begun to come off. An established, if often controversial practice in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent Europe), comparative advertising is now gaining acceptance – at least among marketers – on our shores.
The distant rumbles could been heard as far back as 1994, when furniture and appliance seller Singer took aim at market leader Courts. In a cheeky reference to the Accumulator promotion then being run by Courts, Singer’s ads ended with the punch-line, “Why wait to accumulate?”
As in previous years, the main inhibitors to the increased use of comparative ads are the fear of litigation in respect of claims and counter-claims made by competing brands and, just as importantly, fear of alienating key segments of the consuming public, who still wield considerable purchasing power and tend to be more conservative in their appreciation of media, despite their generally higher levels of education. In plain language, the old money.
Still, those fears have apparently waned, and with the traditional industry giants facing real competition in their respective sectors for the first time, the tempo has unmistakably heightened. Following are few dispatches from the front lines of the new advertising battle zone.
This one has all the hallmarks of a classic Frazier vs. Ali match-up (you can sort out who’s who). In essence though, the plucky Irish caught their Imperial counterparts with their guard down (or you might say something else was hanging down) and scored with a near dizzying flurry of early blows.
In an effort to regain their equilibrium, the Empire sought to exploit the higher rates applicable to fixed line users (which the company currently monopolizes) who call Digicel mobile customers. One print ad shows a clearly flabbergasted caller with the caption, Me? Call You back? You Mad? Below the photo and a comparative listing of the Digicel-C&W rate vs. the C&W-C&W rate.
Patrick Waldemar, the creative honcho at Waterworks, which handles the C&W Mobile account, told Marketing News that feedback received in the initial stages confirmed that the rate differential is an important issue for consumers. “Between discussions I’ve heard amongst other people, and a number calls I’ve received from people who know we executed campaign, there’s a definitely a concern about it.”
C&W then set in motion a series regaling the virtues of its new low rates, especially their $18 per minute rate on overseas call from land lines. They boasted of their flat rate any time, anywhere in the world, but they still left themselves vulnerable in one area.
Not to be outdone, Digicel seized on this vulnerability and presented a counteration series, the most memorable of which asks cheekily, “When is $20 more than $18?” Of course, the answer to that question was somewhere in the per second advantage held by Digicel.
But, alas, the story continues, and the Empire has managed to strike back. In its latest salvo, Cable & Wireless has scored with the same weapon used by Digicel – you guessed it – per second billing on cellular calls.
C&W turned up the heat on its aggressive marketing and advertising campaign, replete with name calling and comparisons. Their glory, however, was shortlived. Digicel’s comeback was swift and sure. By slicing $2.25 off their $20 per minute rate, Digicel put a dent in the competition’s campaign. At $17.75, and with their much touted per second billing, they seem to have gotten the upper hand, at least temporarily in the all-important rates game.
No telling how impending de-regulation will impact on this one, but the humdinger is set to continue, with further strikes expected from both companies.
Having created something of a national mania with its house-and-car promos, furniture and appliance behemoth Courts has earned the attention of rival Khemlani Mart, part of the Issar conglomerate that sells everything from stereos to sweaters to soaps (through its affiliated brands, Lord & Lady and Public Supermarket).
Khemlani Mart makes clear its disdain for the giveaway approach popularized by Courts: “At Khemlani Mart,” the spot goes, “you don’t pay for dancing girls, cars you’re not likely to win and so-called freeí gifts.”
So far, Courts has remained on the high road, neither mentioning any of its competitors directly nor alluding to their claims. According to Courts Marketing Manager, Judith Forth Blake, “I really don’t believe we need to respond to every single claim made by our competitors. We really only respond to those claims that we think merit a response.
“You may recall earlier this year, for instance, one of our main competitors came out with ads claiming that they had the lowest rates on credit. That claim was totally false as our rates are without a doubt the lowest. In this instance we felt it was important to set the record straight, as persons could easily assume the claim to be true.
“We responded with a campaign called ‘Get The Facts’, which stated the facts about our credit prices. Shortly after, we launched ‘The Courts Price' campaign which assures all our customers that they are guaranteed to get the lowest price at Courts — cash or credit. I think that campaign also addressed Khemlani’s ads,” she told Marketing News.
Here again, a newcomer chose to go at the flanks of the established titan. Tabloid-size Observer sought to highlight its dimensions by casting perennial champ the Gleaner as difficult to carry and read. The other implicit statement was that broadsheet papers were anachronistic, given the Gleaner’s age. This latter assertion, however, is on shaky ground as all the established daily papers in overseas markets have remained as broadsheets.
Nevertheless, the Observer’s challenge was viewed by the North Street giant as serious enough to warrant a response. As part of its “Get Into Your Gleaner” campaign (Waterworks again), a model was shown wearing an outfit made up of copies of the Gleaner. Then another model (shorter, for added contrast), was shown trying in vain to achieve the same effect with the tabloid.
In addition to the size issue, the Gleaner response also sought to make a link in the consumer’s mind regarding content, or the comparative lack thereof on the part of its competitor.
The latest development in this acrimonious contest among the two lottery companies centres on the “drop-pan” model being employed by each. With its catchy initial ads for Cash Pot, upstart Supreme Ventures managed to put a major wrench (to the tune of six billion dollars in revenues) in the fortunes of established player Jamaica Lottery Company (Lotto).
Lotto, for its part, responded with “Three-Way Drop Pan” a variation of the model that had clearly proved popular for its rival. To boost its entry, Lotto took a page out of the Michael Powers approach used by beverage maker Guinness: it created a spokesman, Three Han Chan ( complete with mile-long beard and Chinese garb) to pitch the new product. The company even submitted a feature to the local press entitled “Who Is Three Han Chan?”
But Supreme Ventures apparently isn’t ready to throw in the towel. Its counter-campaign focuses on the authenticity, or lack thereof, of the three-way game. A recent spot showed a partial shot of a car wreck below the caption “Saying That #71 Means Accident must have been an Accident; #15 is the Safe way to play!”
The unmistakable assertion here is that Lotto’s number hierarchy is bogus and that Cashpot’s numbers are the only valid ones when getting into the drop-pan game (Interesting side-bar: how remarkable it is that an activity which once the province of thugs and racketeers is now nationally accepted).
Ironically, the local food and beverage industry has not sought to use targeted ad attacks as part of its marketing strategy. I say ironic, because, it is precisely this sector that has claimed the lionís share of attack ads overseas (telecoms and financial services are close behind). In the U.S., comparative ads have often been used by second-spot brands looking to wrest market share from the acknowledged leader. A particularly slick example of this was the spot Pepsi used in its famous ‘You Got The Right One Baby’ campaign featuring legendary soul/blues crooner Ray Charles.
Towards the end of the spot, before Charles reaches for his customary swig of soda, the audience sees that his Diet Pepsi has been switched for a Diet Coke. Upon tasting it, Charles instantly refuses to endorse it and waits until his preferred choice is replaced before belting out the signature line. The joke, of course, is that Charles is blind, which is the hook that Pepsi used to successfully battle against Coke in the lucrative lo-cal soda market.
While market share figures are not currently available, it would not be unfair to note that Pepsi’s success in re-imaging itself has caused some problems for its rival. Since the death of legendary CEO Robert Goizueta several years ago, the brand has struggled to find its legs. (Previous issues of Marketing News have chronicled this struggle). The immediate successor, Doug Ivester, was unable to hang on to the job, and questions are still hanging over the head of current CEO Douglas Daft (deed poll anyone?) as to his performance.
Did Pepsi’s targeted ad create the boardroom upheaval at Coke? Probably not, but they almost certainly contributed to it, and the case illustrates one of the primary advantages of comparative ads: if you can make your competitor’s apparent weaknesses more glaring, it may help to turn more focus to your own strengths.
It’s a kind of judo strategy, and like the Oriental martial art, it requires focus and flexibility, a combo that not many local marketing executives had been noted for … until now.
The dust, having been stirred up, is not likely to settle anytime soon, there’s just too much at stake. But two factors will be interesting to note: will attack ads become more commonplace in the marketing industry and who will gain/lose the most from them?
Stay tuned … but keep your heads down.
|
