AS the marketplace becomes more competitive on a daily basis, marketers look for ways to reach the consumer and outmanoeuvre competition. I side with Shunu Sen, CEO of Quadra Advisory, a strategic marketing consulting firm in India, who opines that the primary goal of marketing and positioning is to create preference, that is, choice. It therefore logically follows that the element of 'comparison' or 'comparative choice' is already explicitly or implicitly in-built.



Comparative advertising is described by the Federal Trade Commission (U.S. government's agency responsible for regulating matters such as deceptive and unfair business practices) as that which "compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information".

Such factual comparative advertising is good for consumers because it provides useful information, and guide in making their choice. It is also good for advertisers, as long as the comparisons are valid and relevant to consumers. Where evidence is non-existent, objective comparisons are not possible. It is therefore not a surprise that advertisers resort to tactics such as indirectly referring to competition through masked brand names, blurred product shots, etc. This way, the aggressive advertisers try to avoid being sued on the grounds that the results cannot be objectively verified.

Lately, the shape of our Guinness Stout bottle was modified for reasons best known to its manufacturers. However, the act proved to be a veritable platform for "knocks", courtesy of four versions of what observers refer to as a "controversial reaction", from Legend Stout. Worried that the latter's action might "brew" brand wars, which could, ultimately, embarrass the advertising profession, APCON, the industry's watchdog quickly terminated the advertisements.

Legend's approach shares similarities with the on-going advertising contest between America's Miller and Anheuser-Busch, which has grown intensely loud and harsh. While Miller declares itself "president of beers", due to the low-carbohydrate edge it has over Bud, Anheuser-Busch labels the latter the "king of beers". Bud Light is actually the best-selling beer in America. It is also interesting that Miller Brewing was bought by South African Breweries, which formed SABMiller, the London-based parent company.

Miller is fiercely challenging Bud Light and Budweiser's long-standing dominance of the U.S beer market, as it takes its blind taste test to Ship of Fools, a bar on the upper East side of Manhattan. The bar is regarded as a place where beer companies believe 21-to-28-year-olds form lasting brand allegiances. Situated on second avenue, Ship of Fools can be found among other bars and restaurants of assorted clientele. It is packed with 41 television screens and video games.

Overall, the Miller team has conducted blind taste tests involving more than 400,00 people and would have tested more drinkers in bars and restaurants in over 50 cities by the end of September 2004. While the Miller representatives tested for colour, aroma and taste, Anheuser-Busch, makers of Budweiser, dismissed the entire exercise. According to Mike Owens, vice president for sales and marketing in the latter company in St. Louis, what owners of Miller Lite are saying is that the beer has more taste, but does not taste better!

I agree that good-natured humour in advertising is permissible, e.g. Pepsi's 'Nothing official about it' campaign, which was a mild reaction to Coke's selection as the official drink for a cricket series in India. It is still considered one of the most memorable campaigns of India's advertising. So, in what ways has Legend Stout's "knocking" benefited the consumer or itself? Money spent on its disparaging advertisements should have been better and sensibly utilised. It would have even made more sense if blind taste tests were administered by owners of the brand.

I feel beer advertisers should complement APCON'S role by monitoring themselves, e.g. the Beer Institute, an American group comprising Miller, Coors and Anheuser - Busch, does have a marketing and advertising guide that contains suggestions for what should and should not be in advertisements. Also, the Union of Russian Brewers has a "Code of Honour", which guides its advertising.

Above all, the media should adhere strictly to their own standards on what to allow in their advertisements. Are Legend and Guinness willing to give fools a shot? I volunteer to be the umpire, all expenses paid.