The Scoop: Brands pull out the claws against rivals — is it too much?

Brands are increasingly turning to aggressive tactics to capture attention, with campaigns mimicking the blunt and sometimes hostile tone common on social media.

The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted how brands are taking direct shots at competitors in a bid to stand out.

A series of billboards describes Vrbo as Airbnb’s “hotter, cooler, friendlier long-lost twin that never has hosts.” The company placed one of the billboards near Airbnb’s San Francisco headquarters. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky responded by sharing a photo of the billboard on Instagram with a laughing emoji, while an Airbnb spokesperson dismissed the campaign as “desperate.”

Prebiotic soda brands Poppi and Olipop clashed on TikTok after Poppi delivered expensive vending machines to “well-to-do influencers” during a Super Bowl campaign, the Journal reported. Olipop joined other TikTok users in criticizing Poppi for in comments on several posts .

“PR boxes for real customers I say,” Olipop wrote on one post.

Why it matters:  The recent rise in aggressive advertising tactics mirrors the bold, unfiltered tone often seen on social media. Ashley Rutstein, who runs @StuffAboutAdvertising onTikTok, told the Journal that “The unhinged brand is just the norm now.”

But while sensationalism can generate buzz, it doesn’t necessarily do anything to build long-term loyalty or trust with consumers. In fact, these “negative advertising wars reduce demand for all involved parties,” said marketing professor Pinar Yildirim. She cited past research, including a 2022 report she authored on the impacts of negative marketing.

For example, the late 1990s, back-and-forth attacks between Unilever’s Ragu and Campbell’s Prego negatively impacted the entire product category, according to an article by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

“When you’re highlighting your competitor’s weaknesses, you can also bring to the mind of the consumer the similarities between yours and theirs,” Yildirim said in the Penn article. “Once companies start attacking each other, it ends up destroying the whole product category and the whole industry seems to suffer.”

Given the potential risks, it’s so important that brands tie all of their strategies to specific business goals. While hosting one of those aggressive campaigns may make sense in some instances, you need to have a strong business reason for it.

Editor’s Top Reads

• One example of a brand facing comparison advertising is Southwest Airlines. Competitors, including Frontier Airlines, have targeted the airline, sensing vulnerability after it introduced fees for seat assignments and checked luggage. Frontier launched a promotion offering a limited bundle that includes a seat assignment and carry-on bag at no extra cost. “Some airlines are walking away from what travelers love, but we’re running towards it,” Frontier CEO Barry Biffle said. With rivals sensing weakness, Southwest faces the challenge of communicating its unique value. “You don’t need a promo code to avoid change fees, cancellation fees, view in-flight entertainment or bring along two carry-on items on Southwest,” the company wrote in response to Frontier’s announcement. But this won’t be enough to win back or keep customers. Southwest needs to communicate what continues to set it apart from their competitors. Its statement highlighted things like an “unmatched network” connecting over 850 nonstop city pairs at 117 U.S. airports and 10 international countries. As Southwest noted, “We look forward to serving the new Customers attracted to fare above all else.” But it’s going to need to find more ways to reshape the identity that is now forever changed in the eyes of air travelers.
• News reports surfaced Tuesday that X had banned the band Dropkick Murphys over aggressive comments lead singer Ken Casey made about President Donald Trump and Elon Musk at a concert. In response to the report, Casey, a known MAGA critic, noted that the band left the social platform in 2022 and after someone else took their handle, Dropkick Murphys filed a legal complaint, which led to the account suspension. “Look, we pulled our account because we didn’t want to be part of that guy’s empire. But if we were still on there, I’m sure he would have suspended us by now,” Casey told Variety. This is a great example of a brand reclaiming control over a narrative. The band combated that narrative with a succinct, pointed statement that not only corrected the story but reframed the talking points surrounding it.
• Arizona’s Supreme Court recently introduced Daniel and Victoria, AI-generated avatars which will deliver court rulings and improve public understanding of legal decisions. The move followed criticism that the court hadn’t adequately explained controversial rulings, such as a high-profile abortion decision. The avatars, designed to quickly summarize rulings, have received positive feedback for making information more accessible. “We serve the public better by saying, OK, we’ve issued this decision,” Chief Justice Ann Timmer told the Associated Press. “Now, let us help you understand what it is.” However, the use of AI figures has raised concerns, with some saying the court needs to do a better job indicating that the “reporters” are AI given how realistic they look. Given the gravity of some rulings, presenting them through animated avatars could rub people the wrong way. Asheley Landrum, an associate professor at Arizona State University, suggested a format that mimics real dialogue would likely be more engaging than “an AI reading of a news release.

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.