Burger King or McDonald’s. Be it on a long-haul bus journey or in a slightly inebriated state late at night, it’s a conversation we’ve all had. Which side of the fence you fall may not define your entire character, but it certainly pigeonholes you in terms of chip preference.
Competition
amongst brands is now so ingrained into our consumer consciousness that we take
it as verbatim. We understand Burger King’s rivalry with McDonald’s as the fast-food
equivalent of Lex Luthor vs Superman. Adidas and Nike are the Saxons and
Normans of the sporting world, whilst the fight between Blackberry and Apple
seems as old as that between tortoise and hare.
Nevertheless,
these great brand battles are not organically born. Yes consumers will naturally
compare brands which produce similar products within a similar price range, but
it is clever marketing from the brands themselves which positions them as
mortal enemies. With a little careful manipulation, consumer preference can
become fierce allegiance and indifference turned to disgust.
In
the Metro this week, Ross McGuiness wrote an article documenting the
competitive marketing history of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. McGuiness traced the
rivalry right back to 1936, when a recession damaged Pepsi-Cola decide to take
a pop at its pricier competitor.
Almost
seven decades later, and it seems that the rise of social media and the
consequent multiplication of marketing platforms has only intensified the
Pepsi-Coke rivalry. Brand allegiance is now not only encouraged through
competitive pricing, but through fully integrated campaigns that use social
media to create comprehensive and contrasting brand images. Last month Coca-cola
announced a partnership with Spotify, whilst Pepsi introduced Pepsi pulse; an
entertainment curation platform built into the brand’s website.
So
far so good. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are by no means faultless brands, but at least
competition between the two seems focused on offering their consumers more.
Other
brands use competitive marketing less successfully though, and to the potential
detriment of their brand image. I see the recent guerilla marketing stunt,
staged in Australia by Blackberry makers, RIM, as illustrative of this. The
‘Wake-Up’ campaign sought to position the Blackberry OS 10 as a competitor to
the iPhone 4S through a sequence of flashmob protests, including one staged
outside the Apple store in Sydney.
Now
in my opinion this campaign had one very glaring problem: It demanded consumers
‘Wake-Up’ and abandon their allegiance to Apple and their iPhones, without
providing them any real incentive to do so. The campaign was so focused on
dismissing its competition that it seemed to forget its promotional objective
in the process.
Competitive
marketing is not a bad thing. It can turn a brand into a talking point, define
its positioning and turn consumers into faithful fans. Nevertheless, if the RIM
debacle can teach marketers one thing it’s this; competition is not the be all
and end all- it’s the competitor that counts.
By
Polly Robinson
No comments:
Post a Comment