Pepsi challenges German ad ban
The polemic over comparative advertising is peaking in Germany. EC guidelines may allow it but the German government is in no hurry to implement the changes. John Shannon reports. John Shannon is president of Grey International
Europe’s comparative advertising restrictions have long been the subject of fierce debate. Nowhere more so than in Germany, where the issue tends to polarise opinion. On one side are those who argue that comparative advertising goes against the grain of German business culture; on the other is the more reasonable and compelling position that current restrictions prevent fair competition.
The issue has recently resurfaced following comments by the newly appointed head of marketing at PepsiCo in Germany, Joachim Cederblad, whose case for lifting current restrictions represents the case for change.
Speaking recently to Germany’s advertising magazine W&V, Cederblad pointed out that while Pepsi performs well in taste tests with rival Coca-Cola, apparent product popularity is not reflected in brand performance. Because Pepsi is not permitted to publicise its taste challenge results, Coca-Cola, he argues, enjoys an unfair advantage. Market data appears to support his case – the Coca-Cola brand is well entrenched in Germany with an 85 per cent volume share.
Pepsi believes that if and when restrictions on comparative ad vertising are relaxed it will be able to draw attention to its claim that people prefer its taste.
It intends to be among the first to use comparative advertising.
But if Pepsi is impatient for change, any lifting of restrictions is unlikely to open the comparative advertising floodgates in a way feared by opponents of change. Most number two brands believe they would do better ploughing their own furrow. Wisely, they accept that distinctive advertising designed to reinforce an independent positioning is often more effective in retaining consumer loyalty than simply attacking the brand leader.
It may be that where a product is launched which is objectively superior to the existing brand, there is a case for making direct comparison. But such cases are few and far between. In most instances preference for one leading product over another is driven by consumer empathy with a particular set of brand values.
That said, Germany’s advertisers should have plenty of time to make up their minds about the merits or otherwise of comparative advertising.
Guidelines were published in Brussels in Nov-ember 1995 permitting compara- tive advertising naming competitors. The German government has some 30 months to implement the ruling from the date details are finally agreed.
That means any lifting of restrictions will not be due until the middle of 1999 at the earliest.
