sociable8240bf456761d-kxabd

For as long as I can remember, there has always been some core “this or that” choices that seemed to dominate certain demographics. A good example is that Starbucks wasn’t around where I live until much more recently, leaving us only several Dunkin’s or local coffee shops to choose from. This made the “Starbucks vs. Dunkin” argument around here, pretty null and void. However, Starbucks have slowly begun to infiltrate the rural areas and pop-up in less busy locations, making it more possible to have that preference.

One of the biggest marketing techniques seen in almost any commercial brands is how they are “better” than their competitors, but is that a healthy approach? This tactic goes for anything from coffee to presidents and anything inbetween. Personally, I find it less professional to use others perceived shortcomings as a way to boost one’s own image. To me, that comes off as bullying, and I will usually actively avoid companies who use this strategy in their commercials, except for politicians, because that seems unavoidable.

In a well-known 2019 tweet, Pepsi said “We don’t have Pepsi, Coke okay? #SixWordHorrorStory.” While the company was using it to poke fun at the rival company, it hightlighted something bigger. When brands decide to poke fun, but not bully, it’s can actually be really good for the brand’s image. While this may not work in all aspects of competitive brands, like sports teams for example, it does show the other side of the coin where sometimes propping someone up is much less damaging.

In what’s called the Narrative Approach, rivalries are expected and oftentimes found to be playful like Burger King vs. McDonald’s whose characters may say some shady things about one another. The ongoing stories made between fictional characters like Burger King and Ronald McDonald are found to be a source of entertainment and neither will likely damage a customer’s loyalty to that company.

While not all comapanies use the technique of calling out other brands directly, oftentimes they may hint at ongoing issues as a point of contention and use it to prop up their brand. For example, Samsung once had an issue with chargers that caught fire when being plugged in and other brands posted on social media claims that their chargers do not burn when charging without calling out Samsung directly. This kind of shade throwing is typically well-received by users, and may increase loyalty with the “us vs them” mentality.

It is both true that a normal rivalry can be good for business and also damaging. While it can sometimes drive more attention to a brand for having a rivalry, not all people perceive this as a good thing. Alternatively, praising a brand’s strengths while staying true to their own vaules has a good response from consumers. If a brand can say good things about another company, it shows that they are confident and credible to their customers. Instead of showing animosity that can come off as jealousy of other companies, they show that competition is good. Doing so can affirm that they are less likely to act spontaneously about a company that may normally be perceived as a threat.

Instead of a company talking down on another company, acknowledging that they are a strong competitor can be much more appropriate in some situations. Companies that have a large rivalry between them may find it more effective to not bring up anything about their competition as it can be a highly touchy subject. When PC’s first became popular, there was a long standing Mac vs PC rivalry, but when smartphones became commonplace, Apple stopped making these types of public rivalry and it is thought that this change helps attribute to their unmatched customer loyalty.