The recent advertisement by BoAt, claiming supremacy over Apple, has undoubtedly stirred up a heated debate within the advertising world. The claims of this sort often lead to discussions pertaining to the boundaries of competitive messaging and the impact on brands. BoAt as a brand may leverage comparative advertising to position itself as a more affordable alternative without compromising on quality, contrasting with Apple’s premium pricing strategy. However, the line between legitimate competition and disparagement must be carefully navigated.
“As both Apple and BoAt vie for market share and consumer trust, striking the right balance between promoting one’s own brand and respecting competitors’ contributions is essential for long-term success,” underlines the industry watchers.
Competitive advertising is prevalent across various industries. The major examples being Pepsi Vs Coca-Cola, where the iconic rivalry has witnessed various ads where each brand compares its products to the other. Burger King Vs McDonald’s and the famous “Whopper Detour” promotion, where customers were encouraged to go to a McDonald’s location to unlock a discount on the Burger King app, highlighting
Burger King’s competitive pricing and digital innovation.
Boundaries of Competitive messaging
“Firstly, regarding the boundaries of competitive messaging, it’s important to understand that advertising is inherently competitive. Brands strive to differentiate themselves from their competitors and appeal to their target audience. However, there are ethical and legal considerations to be mindful of when making comparative claims,” underlines Kowshik Komandur, Associate Vice-President with OnMobile Global Limited and Brand Strategist.
In many jurisdictions, including the United States and India, where both BoAt and Apple operate, comparative advertising is permitted as long as it is truthful, not misleading, and can be substantiated by evidence.
According to Komandur, if BoAt can provide empirical evidence to support its claim of supremacy over Apple, it may not have crossed any legal boundaries.
“However, there’s a fine line between competitive messaging and disparagement. Disparagement involves making false or misleading statements about a competitor with the intention of damaging their reputation. If BoAt’s ad includes unsubstantiated claims or misrepresents Apple’s products, it could be considered disparagement and may have legal ramifications. Moreover, even if the claims made in the ad are technically true, there’s still the question of whether they are fair and ethical. Making sweeping statements about product superiority without providing context or acknowledging the strengths of competitors can come across as arrogant and may alienate potential customers,” he added.
“It is usually seen that competitive advertising happens between brands that are at par and the ones who are targeting the same target segment,” observes Narendran Damodaran, brand consultant and author of Amongst Monkeys and The PM Must Die.
Damodaran further added, ”One of the classic examples would be the Coke and Pepsi war. When we look at the boAt Vs Apple one should remind oneself that the former is operating in a price point segment which is much lower than the Apple price point segment, boAt’s target audience is more skewed towards GenZ plus Millennials whereas Apple’s would be skewed towards the Millennials. boAt is aware of the fact that the Indian market is price sensitive. What boAt is trying to add a bit of value at its price point by taking a dig at Apple as a brand. It is a very clever move, they are not trying to poach into the Apple user base, not trying to make a claim that it’s better than Apple. As a brand, boAt is trying to pitch itself on par with Apple that you can build a fortress around with its price point and value propositions, they can fight the highly competitive market.”
Impact on Brand perception
“The whole idea, regrettably, comes across as a poorly orchestrated hoax,” observes Baatul Turab, Founder of Chennai based ad agency- The Raven Claw.
She explains, “The objective of the BoAt campaign was not to target Apple customers, but rather to capture attention. This approach has become increasingly predictable, with brands often strategizing to grab attention almost arbitrarily. BoAt recognizes that competing directly with Apple is unrealistic; instead, their goal is to carve out market share from competitors like Noise and Boult.”
“From my perspective, the advertisement could have significantly benefited from a more refined art direction, particularly as it attempts to mock Apple. Low efforts taken in terms of crafting the Ad,” Turab added.
According to Komandur, While a bold and attention-grabbing ad may generate buzz in the short term, its long-term impact on brand perception depends on how consumers interpret it and whether it aligns with their existing beliefs and attitudes.
“For consumers who are already loyal to BoAt or have had positive experiences with the brand, the ad may reinforce their perception of BoAt as an innovative and confident company. It may also attract attention from consumers who are looking for alternatives to Apple products and are intrigued by BoAt’s claims of superiority. However, for consumers who are loyal to Apple or perceive it as a superior brand, the ad may come across as brash and disrespectful. It could even lead to backlash from Apple enthusiasts, who may view BoAt’s claims as baseless and offensive,” Komandur said.
According to him, In the long run, the impact of the ad on brand perception will depend on how BoAt manages the fallout from the controversy.
“If the company can back up its claims with evidence and respond to criticism in a respectful and transparent manner, it may emerge from the controversy with its reputation intact or even enhanced,” he surmised.
