Marketing seems to have entered a new era of attack ads.
Perhaps it’s the tight economy and the idea that the way to grow in a recession is at the expense of your rivals; maybe the presidential candidates have set the tone for TV advertising; or it could be the influence of those masterful and highly effective Mac vs. PC spots. Whatever the reasons, comparative ads — some of them pretty aggressive — are all the rage.
First there were the Dyson vs. Hoover ads, the Miller Lite vs. Bud Light spots (remember the Dalmatian leaping off a truck?) and Huggies vs. Pampers (delivering a literal brickbat with a spot showing a mom diapering a brick).
Now Time Warner has said it will go after Verizon in its new campaign, serving a counterpunch to its rival’s claim that Fios internet service is “10 times faster than cable.” In a seeming homage to the Apple ads, the Fios spots feature its installer humorously interacting with a hapless cable installer.
You can read more about this in a very interesting AdWeek article. The subject pointed here is very interesting. It seems that the number of ads in this field are continuously increasing. All these while in Europe and in most parts of the world this kind of ads are banned by market regulators.
The question which come up is obvious: How this kind of ads influence a brand over time?