Dialogue: Be careful when naming names

By MIKE HUTCHESON*

If advertising is the voice of choice it could be argued there is an implied, if not overt, element of comparison in every advertisement.

In some cases it's spelled out in detail, taking the form of bigger, brighter, better claims, showing one product's attributes against its competition. In others - as in advertisements that say, "Here-am-I, pick me", it's up to people to figure out the comparison for themselves.

You would think, in this context, that changes to trademark legislation that will allow advertisers to name competitors, rather than allude to thinly disguised Brand X, would be welcomed by an aggressive and competitive marketplace.

The truth is, though, that "it all depends". The rules of engagement in this area, as with the conduct of most human affairs, should be underpinned by good manners and common sense.

Before taking potshots at, or playing fast and loose with, another's intellectual property, one should ponder a long list of cliches and aphorisms. Here are a few:

1) They may shoot back.

2) Those who live by the sword risk getting shot by those who don't.

3) No one likes a blowhard.

4) It's a big wheel that doesn't turn full circle.

5) You don't make yourself look bigger by making someone else look smaller.

6) If you teach a bear to dance you'd better be prepared to keep dancing until the bear wants to stop.

7) You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

8) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

If you have ever wondered why we don't see more overtly comparative or imitative ads around, it's because most people have learned these lessons the hard way. Either that, or some wise mothers instilled their fundamental truths in the minds of nascent marketing managers at a very young age.

Unfortunately, the message didn't sink in with some influential people in the cola companies. When upstart %Pepsi attacked arch-enemy Coca-Cola %with the Taste Challenge, hoping that improved attributes would outweigh image, the contender came off worst.

Consumers may have liked Pepsi better in blind taste tests under controlled conditions, but they loved drinking Coca-Cola more.

Surprisingly, someone at Coke wasn't paying attention and came up %with a supposedly better tasting Coca-% Cola - the punters stopped buying the original in their thousands. Coke had to eat humble pie and restore the less liked but more familiar taste of the tried and trusted brew.

With brands, love and like aren't the same thing. You might like someone or something for reasons that can be explained but you love someone or something for reasons that can't.

This leads to another subtle yet more compelling reason not to pin hopes for marketing success on toe-to-toe battles based on logical benefits. That reason is that the heart is a stronger force than the head when it comes to buying decisions. In the long run, we continue to buy brands we know and trust.

Physical attributes can be superseded, negated or replaced, but brands occupy a place in the heart, much harder territory to capture. Try to convince a Harley Davidson owner that he should trade in his hog for a Suzuki because it's quieter and better value for money. Then let me know the hospital visiting hours.

How often do we plan to make a large purchase - say a car or a house - and list our purchase criteria?

Then, how often have we ignored the list completely because we've fallen in love with the colour, the clever little gizmo thingy, the view or the tree house in the garden? None of which were on our list.

So I say - bring on the new legislation. Regardless of the law, good ideas will always win through, just as good marketers will have to win hearts as well as heads. It's more about love than logic.

* Mike Hutcheson is the managing director of Saatchi & Saatchi Auckland.