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

I think anyone who drinks Michelob is likely a cannibal.

You see this with Putin and Trump. They play the part of ‘industry leader’ by never using opponents real names. This of course only makes them look insecure and frightened.

I don't think this is at all a good comparison. Politics and especially highly unusual people such as the ones you mentioned don't necessarily follow the same rules as generic branding and advertising concepts

Which is why I said it made them look silly. Trump and Putin are marketers. But the political product is different from soap and cars.

No. Its just a bad comparison that should not be used.

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.

Ok. Noted.

Anyhow, to expand in Trump and Putin’s practice if never properly identifying or acknowledging political foes…

As you can see, even supervillians are afraid of lawyers

TIL drinking Michelob turns you into a cannibal

[removed]

Now I kinda want to tour a Michelob brewery to see how it's made. But at the same time, I think that might be a bad idea.

If I had awards to give, this comment would get one.

I think Miller Lite got in trouble a few years back, for running an ad campaign warning that competitors contained GHT. This was just a joke about how they spelled light, but they were forced to pull the commercials.

A short advertisment

[removed]

> Pepsi will say its better than coke

Probably my favorite ad in recent years for how sneakily it does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD37_EHRXXE

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.

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.

Trump wouldn’t stop talking about his opponents. This is a terrible example.

They give out tours as you're the secret ingredient.

"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.

They also call out “leading brand” to obfuscate who they are comparing their product to.

Harbor Freight did (does?) this with their Hercules brand or Bauer brands (forget which). The comparison images on the package make you think they’re comparing them to Dewalt or Milwaukee. However, if you read the fine print, they’re actually comparing to their other low-end in-house brand.

Edit: https://youtu.be/3ZfYF9aIO7U?t=2467

(language warning, dude's pretty foul-mouthed).

"im a pc and im a mac" some people resonate more with brands that are willing to call out the competition. i dont think its always the right or wrong thing to do. just depends on the product/target market/etc

I believe this strategy of “name-dropping your competition” came around in the 80s-90s. Just like commercials with talking animals. It’s a polarizing approach. Some people love it and some hate it. But some brands can do it really well and some just come across as bitter.

>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,

Yup. I can't remember any Coca-Cola commercials with Pepsi even hinted at. At the same time, Pepsi has had tons directly aimed at Coke. Anyone remember the Pepsi Challenge campaigns?

PC isn't really a brand though. And as someone else mentioned, this sort of ad works best when you're clearly number 2 in a two horse race, such as coke and pepsi or in the 90s Nintendo Vs Sega.

yeah true people like to cheer for an underdog. nobody cheers for goliath lol

Another good one: https://youtu.be/GyY15Jkkg2A

You're thinking of Wendigo.

Marvel used to do this a bunch, but they were mostly doing it for fun. They referred to other brands of comics as, "The Distinguised Competition."

You will receive a letter from my lawyer

> like saying Michelob makes you a cannibal.

You will receive a letter from my lawyer. Unless you pay me 5 dozens of beer.

The tours are free and easy to take. But do you know anyone who's come back from one to tell you about it? Nope me neither.

Same goes with Apple and Samsung/the rest of the phone industry, apple often pretends they are the only company in the world, often comparing to themselves and not competition. Samsung on the other hand has made entire series on bashing apple

Michelob is people! IT’S PEOPLE!

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)

This reminds me how petty and desperate the Apple commercials were.

Have you tried their cactus lime, though? I've been sober for 2 years with no real ceavings, but I really miss one of those after a day of working outside.

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.

Well done. Two years is a monumental achievement.

While I appreciate it, it's not a monumental achievement for me.

I like to say that sober me is not an alcoholic, but tipsy me is. I have no problem at all not drinking, but if I start I have a hard time stopping. It's just easier for me to not drink than to try to practice moderation.

I say this to point out that I haven't faced the same struggles quitting that true alcoholics do.

Cannibal juice. And barley

> if you are the category leader, like say Coke over Pepsi -- you NEVER, ever mention your competitor.

One of my favourite ad campaigns ever is this from Pepsi v. Coke:

https://www.brandme.com.au/blog/2014/10/coke-vs-pepsi-a-scary-halloween-ad-campaign/

How old are you? If you’re still young keep an eye on that.

Always punch up never down

But seldom by name. Always by his own nicknames for them.

Soylent Grain

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?

Why not enjoy the experience of a great tasting beer without the hangover the next day? Why not savour the refreshing and crisp malt barley flavour as much as you want without worrying about having to get a taxi home? Michelob. Awesome beer. Alcohol free. (Warning, not suitable for vegetarians or people with haemochromatosis).

Fair enough. I went to rehab for drug use and have passed two years but it was terribly difficult at times and still can be. The people trying to deal with alcohol issues at the treatment centre I was at went through hell and I always feel for them and their struggle.

I just thought a good pat on the back might help as you worked through your recovery.

Glad you’re doing well either way.

yeah, but your conflating correlation with causation. Anyone who willingly drinks Michelob is already a cannibal.

[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.

I remember that and thought it was hilarious.

It would be your last idea.

I first became aware of advertising on TV in the 1960s. I remember ads for laundry detergent, for example, that had a box with the lettering "Brand X", but the colors and designs were clearly a box of Tide. I was so clever because I saw through their shenanigans and recognized the box of Tide my mom used.