By Anne Simons
Suing a competitor and issuing cease and desist orders on the basis of a competitors’ marketing claims isn’t new. What is new is the increased urgency of these legal skirmishes and their increased presence in marketing strategy.
This past Fall AT&T sued Verizon Wireless over Verizon’s “There’s a map for that” ad. The ad plays on Apple’s “there’s an App for that” slogan---but that’s not the problem. At issue is a map in the ad that shows that Verizon has 5 times more 3G coverage than AT&T, but doesn't show that the gaps in AT&T 3G coverage might be covered by AT&T's 2G network.
At issue, of course, is market share. When brand awareness levels are nearly universal, purchase cycles are several months long, and product differentiation is infinitesimal and fleeting, it’s a given increased market share has to come at competitors’ expense. Witness the spate of lawsuits as competing brands, including
Dominos is the most recent to enter the fray. Dominos is in the middle of an impressive “Pizza Turnaround” campaign, promoting a new, improved product. But earlier this evening I spotted a TV ad that touts their legal challenge to Papa John’s claims of “better ingredients, better pizza, and Papa Johns’ defense that the claim is simply puffery. The Domino’s ad rhetorically asks viewers, “What’s puffery?” and explains that the legal definition of puffery is a statement based on opinion, not fact.
One benefit of ads like these is that trash talking can fire up internal stakeholders, and that’s no small thing. But at the end of the day, you have to wonder how much notice consumers really take of all the legal maneuvering between brands. And if consumers take notice, you have to wonder how sustained is the benefit?
Brand strategy best practices suggest that the most effective way of spurring consumer switching is to meet their needs better than their current brand. That means establishing real differences in product features and benefits, an arduous task. It’s understandable that brands are looking at other ways of capturing marketing share, including lawyering up. But it’s hard to imagine that the legal maneuvering will make much of an impression on consumers – after all, what’s in it for them?
So, what do you think? Does this legal maneuvering help or hinder the growth of the brand?