No legal issues in just making a comparison or mentioning another brand, as long as you don't say intentionally damaging and false claims, like saying Michelob makes you a cannibal. Sometimes they simply don't want to advertise their competition.

A side note though, if you are the category leader, like say Coke over Pepsi -- you NEVER, ever mention your competitor. You are the champ, they are nothing to you, you don't mention them,

If you're not the cateogry leader, you can and often do call out others in the industry to say why your product is better than them. That is, Pepsi will say its better than coke, but Coke will never mention pepsi

Why spend money on ad time, and then give publicity to your competitors? Even if it's a negative comparison, you're still mentioning their name and helping their brand awareness.

Companies that use "leading brand" or "other products" are simply more risk averse (they don't want to get sued). Companies that name their competitor are not afraid of being sued. This could either be because they have proof of their superiority claim, or they are comfortable with the legal risk.

All large companies that advertise have legal counsel (sometimes external, sometimes on staff). Generally, a lawyer will assess the risk of a claim and advise the decision makers in the marketing department of the risk level - high, medium or low. A high risk claim has a higher likelihood of provoking legal action from a competitor, and has to be signed off by a more senior director or VP. However, if they have facts and data to back up the claim, and can defend it in court, they can run with it.

Networks will not allow commercials with superiority claims to air unless the advertiser submits substantiation backing up the claim. Local stations are less strict.

I'm an advertising producer, and I've worked with large advertisers that do the "leading brand" thing. Any time we did a side-by-side efficacy demonstration, I had to sign an affidavit that the demonstration was real, shot and edited without special effects. Companies do sue each other, and have even gone as far as sending a subpoena to view raw camera footage from the commercial shoot.

"Leading Brand" is ever-evolving, and some people will see the leading brand as something different.

Naming a brand specifically means you are stuck with a concrete reference point.

In your example of Miller Lite, if I don't like Michelob, comparing something to it isn't going to do anything for me. But comparing it to the 'leading brand' means you might be better than my preferred brand.

[removed]

Many items are pretty much equal to others they are competing against. So they will compare themselves to some weird off brand that watered down, cheap crap to say, we're soooooo much better than this leading brand... Its kind of a strawman argument.

Because they are paying big money to get airtime.

The MOST important thing that they are trying to accomplish is establishing name recognition. Nobody really remembers the rest of the commercial.

Why would they give more name recognition to their competitor for free?

(Name recognition. The effect that when you go to think of a product category, it's what pops into your mind first? Quick: think of an electric car company. Whatever you thought of - name recognition is why)

Brand wars, basically. A few major brands have taken open pops at their competitors in the past, and essentially it tends to create an expensive 'gloves are off' p***ing contest where each escalates, trying to put the other one in their place for a while, but ultimately achieving very little. These days it's mostly considered a very poor idea to do it. It's also looked down on by most reputable firms and ad agencies as lazy and talentless. They often feel you get much better (and more 'bloodless') results by emphasising your own strengths rather than taking a dump on your competitors.

Lots of confidently incorrect answers on here. When you specifically mention a competitor brand, you need to have legal proof of your claim, and that proof may need to be made publicly available to your competition which in turn may reveal trade secrets to them, e.g. the ingredient formula that allows you to make a claim that you have “better taste” or the brewing process that leads you to be “less filling.”

So it becomes a cost-benefit conversation. Is the proof behind your claim worth revealing to your competition?

[removed]

Often the "leading brand" is actually just the generic version and not the top name brand. It makes it easier to use a worse version of the same product without lying, which is illegal. In your example of Miller Lite and Michelob "more taste" is a subjective statement, so it can't be a lie and Miller Lite does have fewer calories than Michelob so that's not a lie either.

[removed]