Why don't corporate ad campaigns "go negative"?

November 1, 2006 6:51 AM

Why don't corporate ad campaigns "go negative" in the manner of political ad campaigns?

Is it simply that the goals and conditions of political ad campaigns are fundamentally different ( specific deadline, limited choice, desire to discourage action... ) from those of the corporate world? Fear of legal action? Why wouldn't (safety minded) car company "A" run an ad detailing the gruesome deaths of people who choose to drive cars from (less safety minded) company "B"?

posted by R. Mutt to Media & Arts (33 answers total)

Fear of legal action, absolutley.
posted by Netzapper at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2006

Throw in a little game theory (repeated vs one-off games) too.
posted by msittig at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2006

One probable factor is that the election campaigns are just trying to convince you to perform a single action on one occasion, while the goal of most product advertising is to build long-term loyalty.

Also, I think that negative campaign ads tend to be aimed at the undecided voter who is nevertheless planning to vote on election day. This is something that doesn't really have an equivalent when you're selling orange juice or furnaces.
posted by winston at 7:03 AM on November 1, 2006

The main objective of negative campaign ads is to keep likely voters for your opponent home, rather than win them to your side. Companies gain nothing by discouraging people from buying their competitors' products unless at the same time they can convince them to buy theirs.

That said, there are negative corporate ads, just not as vitriolic. Think of the recent Mac vs. PC ads run by Apple.
posted by justkevin at 7:08 AM on November 1, 2006

What always sticks best is the tone of the advertisement, not the product marketed. Too often I may like an ad, but simply don't know what company made them.

So, if you'd focus on the failures of product B, there's never enough room to stress the importance of your product A. And the message gets confusing.

But apart from that, ads go negative in a more general way. They are extremely negative about human intellect, or our health.
posted by ijsbrand at 7:09 AM on November 1, 2006

There are definitely negative corp ads. It just depends how coy they want to be. Think of the "leading brand" comparisons. Sometimes they get specific; sometimes not.
posted by dreamsign at 7:10 AM on November 1, 2006

Did you know that 85% of Coke drinkers die of AIDS?

Be safe, be healthy, drink Pepsi.

The above gedenkeneksperiment is provided in lieu of a direct answer to your question.

Read the above quotation. With your coursemates, discuss: what are the potential benefits and pitfalls of running such an ad campaign?
posted by Meatbomb at 7:11 AM on November 1, 2006

Mostly because the goal of corporate advertising is different from the goal of political advertising.

Both groups want to convince you to buy the product that they are selling (e.g., buy their product or vote for their candidate). To this end, they will make either a rational appeal to convince you that their product is the best/cheapest/most efficient/least likely to raise taxes/etc., or an emotional appeal that buying it will make you smarter/sexier/more popular/safer etc.

Both groups also want to convince you not to buy their competitor's product (e.g., not vote for the opponent or not buy the product). To this end, they will make either a rational appeal to convince you that their opponent is the worst/most expensive/least efficient/most likely to raise taxes/etc., or an emotional appeal that their opponent is dumber/uglier/less popular/wimpier/dangerous etc.

The difference: in politics its enough to convince someone to not vote for your opponent. Ideally, you want them to vote for your guy/gal, but if you can just keep them away from the polls, you have scored a 'victory' of sorts. And in a 2-party system, convincing them not to vote for the other guy/gal usually means that they will vote for yours.

In corporate marketing, its not enought to merely dissuade a consumer from buying a competitor's product. You also have to convince them to buy yours. And here's the crux: an ad whose overall tone is negative is unlikely to convince someone to buy your product, unless you are using fear of some other threat to do so.
posted by googly at 7:11 AM on November 1, 2006

To add to what others have said:

If you are convinced not to vote for candidate X, that's a win for candidate Y, even if you don't vote for them.

If you are convinced not to buy brand X, that's not a win for brand Y unless you also buy from them.
posted by Leon at 7:11 AM on November 1, 2006

There was an economics paper published this year that looked at why companies tack on hidden fees instead of educating consumers about their competitors' hidden fees. The cynical conclusion might be that whenever a company finds something worthy of a negative ad, instead of outing their competition they adopt the feature for themselves.
posted by revgeorge at 7:14 AM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

From what I understand, speaking negatively about your competition is considered brash and rude in the East. Thus, for globally minded companies at least, staying away from negative comments can do a lot to bolster opinions in other markets.

In looking for verification of this I'd happened across a discussion where they mention how the Japanese in particular try to offer a situation where workers don't get fired and companies don't go bankrupt.
posted by owenkun at 7:15 AM on November 1, 2006

One factor is that it's not a binary, or near binary choice. If Honda detailed the gruesome car crashes suffered by owners of Mazdas, any sales lost to Mazda might just as well go to Volkswagon or Toyota rather than Honda.

The other factor is that there's just really not that much difference between competing products. Honda's accident record probably isn't really much better than Mazda's. Tide's detergent isn't that much better than Sunlight's. It's pretty hard to go negative on product performance, and people don't care that much about the character of the companies they buy products from. Sure, you could do an ad campaign accusing WalMart of being evil, but the people who care already know that, and the people who don't care aren't that likely to start.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on November 1, 2006

Also: a high proportion of corporate advertising is aimed merely at getting consumers to switch brands, not buy products in the first place. So you say that Car A is very very safe, or its safer than its competitors B & C. If you run an ad that talks about how unsafe cars B & C are, you run the risk of turning consumers off entirely.

Again, political ads are also trying to get you to "switch brands," but they will accept turning you off to the product altogether as a close second.
posted by googly at 7:17 AM on November 1, 2006

Also, in corporate advertising, the last thing a company wants you to do is to think about the other product. Pepsi trailed behind Coke for ages and ages because it was constantly comparing itself to Coke in some way. It gave the impression that Coke was the gold standard and Pepsi was trying hard to be just as good.* Never admit another product is the gold standard.

Funnily enough, the Pepsi Challenge was the one that blew it for Coke. Coca Cola reacted to blind taste tests and changed the formula, ignoring the fact that they had more than the flavor of the cola going for them. If they'd ignored Pepsi, as they had been doing for decades, they could have avoided the New Coke debacle entirely.
posted by headspace at 7:17 AM on November 1, 2006

A point was made by a politician making a reasonably intelligent speech to a bunch of us younguns about 15 years ago. If airlines advertised the way political parties do -- attacking one another's safety records, for example -- no one would fly, because the ads would undermine the reputation of the entire industry.

In other words, if United ran attack ads on Continental, the effect would not just be to propagate the idea that Continental was unsafe or unreliable, but that flying was unsafe and unreliable.

Attack ads haven't exactly done wonders for the reputation of politics as a profession, or politicians in general, after all.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:21 AM on November 1, 2006

But to take off on what jacquilynne pointed out -- when there is a binary choice, corporate advertising will go negative just like political advertising. Around here, Verizon has a near monopoly on home telephone service. A local start-up has recently been running ads that essentially say, "Stop getting screwed by Verizon -- we're the cheaper alternative." Personally, I think this campaign just emphasizes the relative smallness of the competitor to Verizon, but there's a lot of resentment towards monopolies in the cable and telephone industries and I guess they feel they can capitalize on that.
posted by junkbox at 7:23 AM on November 1, 2006

If there were more than two political parties in the U.S., negative ads would be much less useful and therefore much less used.

The secondary reason is press bias - a press heavily biased towards Republicans means that Republicans can go much more negative without pushback.

Canada, which has four main political parties, has very few negative ads - nothing like the worst of the U.S. ads. Most products have more than one competing product, and thus negative ads are relatively less useful. In those few markets where there are only two competing products, yes, they do tend to run some negative ads against each other, pointing out that product B fails in some way where your product A succeeds.
posted by jellicle at 7:23 AM on November 1, 2006

justkevin's example of the Mac v. PC ads fits into junkbox's point--there must be a binary choice before ads get negative, and, even then, the effect is not always as desired. I, personally, have been turned off by smug superiority of the Mac ads, especially the one about making home movies--look, a guy in a dress! Comedy gold!
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:35 AM on November 1, 2006

And as you might expect, there are far, far fewer negative campaign ads up here in Canada, where elections aren't binary choices.

Do Americans see a lot of attack ads in municipal elections, which I assume aren't usually binary?

(I love the Mac ads because John Hodgman is great in them, which might not be what Apple wanted me to love.)
posted by mendel at 7:53 AM on November 1, 2006

That binary choice concept leading to negative advertising also appears in the US markets for digital TV service (satellite vs. cable) and broadband Internet (DSL vs. cable).
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:00 AM on November 1, 2006

Clear lack of direct competition. Although car manufacturers are rivals, there are very few direct competitions between only two cars. This is why you might hear phrases like "best in class" or percentages of improvement in advertisements.

The Mac versus PC commercials are a decent example of an actual two-product rivalry that seems to work to an an extent. Even then, there's some capitalizing on the fact that there are many companies creating PCs to exploit the ambiguity.
posted by mikeh at 8:02 AM on November 1, 2006

Although... The non-binary Texas governor's race this year has a lot of negative ads. I suppose that's just because it's the way US politicians do their campaigns.
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:03 AM on November 1, 2006

Suppose you know that your competitors product is objectively (say) worse tasting or less safe than yours. At first glance it might make sense to advertise this but the reality is often more complex. If your competitor is spending heavily on advertising then this may grow sales to the entire sector to your benefit (especially is you are making a higher sales margin than they are). Equally you might benefit from customers who start with their cheap product, realise it is rubbish, and then buy yours next time.

Also remember that there are ways other than advertising of getting out negative facts about your competitor products: a bit of smart PR that lands a favourable newspaper review for you at your competitor's expense could be much more valuable as a tool for winning people over.
posted by rongorongo at 8:07 AM on November 1, 2006

There are quite a few "our competitor sucks"-style ads out there, even for circumstances that aren't binary choices between two major competitors. They're usually vague enough to apply to ALL competitors instead of a single company. Off the top of my head:

* Pringles vs. greasy bagged chips
* Dove facial cleansers vs. ones that involve soap (and look how bad the soap is for this pristine white rosebud!)
* VW's "low ego emissions" campaign for the Passat
posted by vytae at 8:21 AM on November 1, 2006

I can't find it, but there was a series of ads between BMW, Audi, Subaru, and Bentley that was along the lines of...

BMW: Car Design of the Year
Subaru: Congratulations to BMW for winning Car Design of the year from Subaru, winner of Motor of the Year
Audi: Congratulations to Subaru for winning Motor of the year from Car of the year
Bentley: *insert picture of rich guy with middle finger extended here*
posted by SpecialK at 8:59 AM on November 1, 2006

I'd also say it's some cognitive stuff too. Every time Pepsi says it's better than Coke, you actually think about Coke in addition to Pepsi. If they had just said how awesome Pepsi was, you'd think of Pepsi only. But now, they've activated both Coke and Pepsi in your mind, so you A - you spend less thinking about one because you are thinking about both and B - the next time you hear Pepsi, your mind may also recall Coke since because of the way the info was saved into your memory.

Plus, political ads are one choice versus another. Rarely is it so cut-and-dry in the corporate world. There are multiple companies and substitute products (i.e. it's not just Coke vs. Pepsi, it's Coke vs. water, Coke vs. apple juice, Coke vs. coffee, Coke vs. no beverage). Going after your main competitor like that wouldn't mean you'd automatically get the spoils and rule the market, though it might help somewhat.

There are examples of subtle (Dove vs. the rest of the beauty industry) and not-so-subtle negative campaigns (Apple's Mac vs. PC, the original Pepsi taste-test commercials that led to the development of New Coke). To go with your post's example, I've regularly seen car companies say that they beat out a competitor's model XYZ in safety ratings. They're just not as overt/gruesome as you mention in your post.
posted by ml98tu at 10:28 AM on November 1, 2006

I think the real issue is that the end result in political commercials is "winner takes all." In "commercial" commercials getting to a 40% or 20% or even lower market share is often just fine. In politics (at least two-party plurality politics), 40% of the vote is as bad none. Spending money to decrease turnout (which is what a lot of negative ads are designed to do) makes sense in politics as long as more of the other guy's voters stay home. Decreasing the overall market for your product doesn't provide any benefit.
posted by jaysus chris at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2006

Besides Coke and Pepsi, Budweiser and Miller have really got into some nasty ad fights over the past few years. Much legal fighting has followed.
posted by JJ86 at 11:25 AM on November 1, 2006

jaysus chris is spot on.

When you do any ad campaign, you rarely focus on the competition (as we're defining it in this thread). Most times, the real competition is "not buying one" "Using what you already have" etc. The classic example is that Bally's doesn't compete with Gold's Gym, they compete with the couch.

Negative advertising has shown to have a strong negative effect on voter turnout. Turn people off to politics, they don't vote. Doesn't hurt a politician. Somebody wins, even if only 20% of the electorate shows up. And those are the people the two main parties are really, really good at appealing to.

In fact, they know really well how to play to and keep happy those people that typically vote -- old people. That's why the progressive candidates (no matter what party) have the most to gain from the Choose or Lose, turn out the vote campaigns. You don't see a ton of 'Rock the Vote" stuff when a progressive candidate is the incumbent.

In branding, we always say that a winner never mentions the competition by name. Coke has everything to lose and nothing to gain by saying "Pepsi." (Coke has never been anything but #1 in soft drink sales since at least 1900. But it's the fountain business, not the store shelves, that buoys them.) (Side note: Malcom Gladwell's Blink has a really, really good explanation of why Coke lost at the Pepsi taste test, even if people really did prefer Coke as their beverage.)

The ultimate, classic competitive advertising "We're #2. We try harder. Avis" worked to gain market share for Avis, but not at Hertz's expense. The number 3, 4, 5 and so on in the market were the ones who lost share because small business people (who book their own travel, vs. the bread and butter big business travelers that go with Hertz because that's what their company books) root for the little guy, so they decide to go with Avis over Dollar. Worked brilliantly to make a distant 2 a solid two and hurt everyone else.

It's illegal in many global markets to mention the competition by name, or even by implication. But in the US, it's legal as long as you can back it up.
posted by Gucky at 12:56 PM on November 1, 2006

They do go negative when it makes sense. Read the wikipedia article on FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).

On a site like MeFi it is very surprising to not find people mentioning Microsoft and Linux.

Microsoft went hard against Linux. They published dubious studies, had people say dubious things about Linux and went in and smeared Linux.
posted by sien at 2:21 PM on November 1, 2006

Because they might get sued for a Lanham Act violation or Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage or somesuch.
posted by footnote at 4:17 PM on November 1, 2006

"Hefty, Hefty, Hefty - wimpy, wimpy, wimpy"

"Where's the beef?"

Who says companies don't do negative? They just usually refrain from directly showing their competitors' products for the above stated reasons.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:00 PM on November 1, 2006

Also, political ads have a time limit - election day. If they are proven false, unethical, illegal or whatever, it usually won't be until after all the votes are cast and no one cares anymore. But Right-O Soda Company wants you to buy their high-fructose corn syrup product from now until you die, and even after that if possible.

In other words, politicians don't really have to worry about the consequences of negative ads because they are looking for your vote, which they will either get or not get by a specific date. If they are later found to have done something wrong in an ad, too bad. You don't get to change your vote, and any transgressions will be forgotten by the next election. Companies will still want your business a year later, when the investigations are finished, the FCC comes after them and the news about it hits CNN.
posted by Jaie at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2006