The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Comparative Advertising

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Back in the old days of television there was something called "Brand X" -- the other guy`s deodorant, detergent, or whatever -- that always came out second best to Number One -- the product being advertised. But Brand X went away in 1972 after the Federal Trade Commission convinced the TV networks to let advertisers name names in their commercials, on the grounds that it would benefit the consumer.

It`s now called comparative advertising in the trade, and it`s everywhere. Dodge trucks are tougher than Fords and Chevys, Allegheny serves more cities than Pan Am, Ban Roll-On is better than Right Guard, and so on. It has all triggered a raging controversy within the advertising industry and elsewhere, and tonight, a look at that controversy and at some of the little combat episodes that really heated it up. Barbara Newman of National Public Radio is sitting in in New York for Robert MacNeil, who is on vacation. Barbara?

BARBARA NEWMAN: The controversy about comparative advertising really erupted in 1975, when Bristol-Myers launched Datril, a new product intended to compete with Johnson & Johnson`s Tylenol, a non-aspirin pain reliever. In what ultimately became known in the industry as the "war of the analgesics," the aggressive Datril marketing campaign actually backfired. Tylenol benefited from its mention in the Datril ad, lowered its price and moved from fourth to first place in the analgesic market. As Tylenol`s price dropped, Datril`s basis for comparison that it was cheaper had to be hedged:

FIRST WOMAN: Take aspirin: it can irritate my stomach.

SECOND WOMAN: Same here.

FIRST WOMAN: I take Tylenol for headache.

SECOND WOMAN: `I used to; now I take new Datril.

FIRST WOMAN: Tylenol is easier on my stomach and has no other aspirin side effects.

SECOND WOMAN: Same for Datril. It has the exact same pain reliever. No aspirin, just as effective. Same, so why switch? Compare. Datril can cost less. A lot less. You save when you shop for the best prices. Why spend more?

NARRATOR: Ask your doctor about Datril. New, from Bristol-Myers.

NEWMAN: In reaction to the Datril campaign, Tylenol became more aggressive. It hired a new ad agency and increased its advertising budget. In the process, according to Business Week magazine, its sales zoomed ahead of both Bufferin and Bayer aspirin. The war of the pain relievers broadened. Bayer put an ad last month in Time, Newsweek and other magazines accusing Tylenol of lying and of witholding information from the consumer. Bayer continues its attacks on Tylenol in magazines on the newsstands this week.

LEHRER: As I said, the outfit being given the credit -- or the blame -- for starting all of this is the Federal Trade Commission, the government agency responsible for policing advertising. Wallace Snyder is the acting assistant director of the FTC`s National Advertising Division. Mr. Snyder, your agency wanted comparative advertising because you said it would help the consumer. Well, five years later, has it in fact helped the consumer?

WALLACE SNYDER: I believe that it has helped the consumer. First of all, I think that we have gotten an increase in the number of comparative ads, somewhere today around ten percent. In the commercial we just heard, while I can`t pass on the truthfulness of the claims there -- we haven`t looked at them -- one result was the lowering of prices on those two products. This benefits the consumer, and I think it`s one of the real benefits from comparative advertising. Competition is fostered in the marketplace; oftentimes we get better products because one company says that they`re better than the other company and the other company then increases their ingredients or what have you.

LEHRER: Oftentimes, you say. Can you give me an example of when a product has been improved solely as a result of comparative advertising?

SNYDER: It`s my understanding that the S.0.S-Brillo pad controversy that occurred a year or so ago resulted in the one product improving its soap content so that it came up to the level of the advertised product. And I think that is a clear example of where the consumers have benefited because we have had a better product put on the market.

LEHRER: All right. The policing aspect of this -- you said you had not looked into the Datril-Tylenol controversy. Why haven`t you? These companies are accusing each other of all kinds of bad things; why hasn`t the FTC investigated the truthfulness of what`s going on there?

SNYDER: We have a monitoring apparatus at the Federal Trade Commission and we are aware of all the ad campaigns that are under way, and in that particular one we have not believed it necessary for us to step in. We have watched the content of both of the ads, and we believe information is being provided to the consumer about those two products -- that it is not necessary for us to take action.

LEHRER: All right. What procedures do you use to find out in Datril-Tylenol situations where you believe there might be a case of somebody shading the truth here and there? How do you work?

SNYDER: If we believe that there may be a deceptive ad, we will ask for the advertisements from the company that we`re questioning. We will also ask for their substantiating data. That is, we`ll ask for the tests that they base their claims upon, and we will have that information reviewed by experts in. that particular field. I might also say that we may have copy tests run as to the meaning of the ads as they go to consumers, and if we believe that the claim is not substantiated we will take action in the way of a formal complaint.

LEHRER: Have you taken any formal actions against anybody that involved comparative advertising?

SNYDER: Yes, we have. In the last three years we have taken action against three companies: General Motors for a mileage advertisement run on behalf of Cadillac; General Electric for a service claim based against Zenith and RCA; and also one against the Chrysler Motor Company for mileage claims against the Chevrolet Nova.

LEHRER: Did these come about as the results of complaints lodged by the offended company, or did you do that on your own?

SNYDER: I think that they really came about on our own, from our monitoring process. We do receive complaints from competitors, however.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Snyder. There have been a lot of cries of foul, complaints by those hit by comparative advertising. The Coca-Cola Company, for instance, got mad about a Pepsi-Cola commercial which showed people comparatively drinking Coke and Pepsi. Coke charged that the results were influenced by the use of letters on the glasses. The letter "M" is preferred as a letter over the letter Here`s the commercial:

PEPSI-COLA REPRESENTATIVE: You`re a Coca-Cola drinker, is that right?

MAN: Yep.

REPRESENTATIVE: I`m going to ask you to take a sip..

NARRATOR:. Recently, Pepsi went up against Coca-Cola in side-by-side taste tests. To be totally fair, only Coca-Cola drinkers were tested.

REPRESENTATIVE: Tell me what you think of that. (Pouring cola.) Taste that "Q" for me...

MAN: You`re giving me the same thing, aren`t you?

REPRESENTATIVE: No, no. I wouldn`t do that to you. What`s your preference?

MAN: Tim

REPRESENTATIVE. "M".

MAN: "M".

REPRESENTATIVE: I`m ready to show you now. Now...

MAN: I wish you would. I`m breaking out in a rash.

(Laughing.)

REPRESENTATIVE: (Laughing.) As a Coca-Cola drinker, you prefer "M.". And which was it you preferred?

MAN: "M", I guess. Pepsi.

NARRATOR: Just over half the Coca-Cola drinkers tested in the Dallas-Fort Worth area prefer Pepsi.

MAN: Well, I`ll be durned. You know, that`s interesting. I hope my wife ain`t gone off and left me out there.

NEWMAN: Sometimes comparisons are based on test evidence. General Motors paid for tests, found its Opel came out second to the VW Rabbit and said so. Volkswagen then reprinted part of GM`s ad to crow about its superiority. Print ads which were occasionally comparative in the past are now much more so because TV restrictions have been lifted. Now here`s another measured comparison.

NARRATOR: Louis Sherry cherry vanilla ice cream, versus Breyer`s. They`re both all natural. But as you will see, there`s a big difference between them.

Louis Sherry is loaded with cherries. An average of over fifty percent more cherries than Breyer`s. Going from fruit to nuts, Louis Sherry butter almond ice cream has an average of twice as many almonds as Breyer`s. Louis Sherry costs more, but Louis Sherry gives you more. More fruit and more nuts.

NEWMAN: A study done by Ogilvy & Mather, a New York-based advertising agency, concludes that honest comparative advertising is impossible on television because there is no way to be fair and truthful in a thirty- second comparative commercial. The 0&M study also says that comparative advertising will lead to the destruction of free enterprise because in the end consumers will not trust either advertising or business. Phil Levine is the research director of Ogilvy & Mather. He directed the study.I wonder, Mr. Levine, if you could tell us a little bit more about the details of it and the conclusions.

PHIL LEVINE: Yes. What we did is we interviewed three different samples of 150 consumers. One sample of 150 consumers saw comparative advertising. A second sample of 150 consumers saw ads or commercials for the same products, but they were non-comparative in nature; and the third sample saw a mixture of both comparative and non-comparative commercials. And what we were trying to determine from this study -- or from two studies now that we`ve done in this area -- was the extent to which comparative advertising in television can be effective. And what we did is we measured the effectiveness in terms of four parties: the consumer-- what did comparative television advertising mean to the consumer? Could the consumer make a better choice?

NEWMAN: What were some of the conclusions, aside from the fact that it wasn`t effective from the advertising...

LEVINE: Well, we found that contrary to what many people thought, that the consumer was not better informed by comparative advertising. In fact, there was information overload, if I might use that term, to some degree. They had a hard time with understanding what was being said to them. They had a hard time understanding who the sponsor of the commercial was.

NEWMAN: You mean they got mixed up, they might have thought that some of the negative things were about the wrong company?

LEVINE: Yes, that`s exactly right. And so they could not, in a number of cases, tell who was actually the sponsor of the particular advertisement or commercial that was being shown.

NEWMAN: Let me ask you this: another study on comparative advertising in television was done by the Gallup and Robinson marketing research firm in Princeton, New Jersey, and it concluded that it was effective to have comparative advertising, but not for the front runners, for the number two or three brands. Now, it`s said in the industry that Ogilvy & Mather represents a lot of front runners, so of course it isn t in the interests of your clients for you to think that it`s effective because they don`t want to invite criticism. What about that?

LEVINE: First of all, the Gallup and Robinson material that you talk about is really copy test material, and what they are doing is they are averaging what the comparative advertising scores are on a criteria which we call recall.

NEWMAN: You`re attacking it technically.

LEVINE: I`m saying that I have looked at the Gallup and Robinson scores and I really don`t think the differences that are attributed to or in favor of comparative advertising do exist, number one. The second thing -- and I think this is important -- the point I`m making is you really have to compare the commercials for both a comparative and non-comparative form to really understand whether or not one is better than the other. That`s not what Gallup and Robinson does. What Gallup and Robinson does is measure one commercial, a comparative commercial, and gets a recall score. That`s quite a different thing from the test we perform.

The second part of your question: I have to tell you that we play no favorites in our research. In our test -- in two tests now -- we also included second, third and fourth place brands. Ours was really to find out whether or not comparative advertising in television was effective. We weren`t trying to support any one position.

NEWMAN: Mr. Levine, I thank you very much. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Snyder, back to you for a moment here. You`ve heard what the 0&M results were. Have you analyzed those from the FTC`s standpoint, particularly from the consumer`s standpoint? He says that it confused the consumers rather than helped them.

SNYDER: We have looked at those results courtesy of Ogilvy & Mather, and looking at them I suppose we could have questions about the way the research was done -- technical questions. I`m not really the right person to go into that. I do believe, however, that there have been examples -- and I think that the Gallup-Robinson study showed that -- where consumers did get necessary information from comparative ads. And I think that there have been examples where they have preferred that type of ad because it has informational content.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. The other side to the comparative advertising argument does come from the agency that made this commercial about two luxury automobiles. They feel it is a bit different than some of the others we`ve seen.

NARRATOR: A Mercury Monarch challenges a MercedesBenz in a battle of precision-sized luxury cars. Fifty owners of American cars did the driving and the judging in a test of handling and driving comfort.

Can a car that`s less than half the price hope to compare with a Mercedes? Over a broad range of driving conditions this Monarch was judged easier to maneuver in city traffic by forty out of fifty. Thirty-six rated it easier to maneuver on the freeway, and an overwhelming majority judged the Monarch smoother and quieter in these tests -- and easier to park.

Mercedes-Benz is a fine automobile. Still, based on eight tests of handling and driving comfort on American roads, forty-one out of fifty rated Monarch`s performance superior all around. And at less than half the price, Mercury Monarch is an outstanding value.

At the sign of the cat.

LEHRER: The advertising agency responsible for that commercial is the firm of Kenyon & Eckhardt, and Stanley Tannenbaum is the company`s vice chairman based in Chicago. Mr. Tannenbaum, first, why is that a bit different than the others? What were you trying to accomplish with it? Oh, you`re having sound problems, is that right? Well, Mr. Tannenbaum cannot hear me. Barbara?

NEWMAN: I`ll have to serve as intermediate here, I think.

LEHRER: Right. The basic thing there is to explain the different point of view therein terms of that ad and then what his basic position is as to why comparative advertising works.

NEWMAN: Could you explain the point of view in that ad you saw and then your basic point of view in terms of what do you think makes advertising work?

STANLEY TANNENBAUM: I think there are two fundamental marketing forces at work today. One, I think we`re selling to the most intelligent consumer in the history of our country and we should all recognize that; and two, we`re living in a period of inflation. There`s a "show me" attitude among consumers. The consumer is looking for quality, performance, value benchmarks, and I think consumers are always comparing and they want help. And that commercial does compare and does help, and our research shows that it works and works very well. And more importantly, it`s sold the product.

NEWMAN: All right. Now, if you could give us a little bit about your philosophy on what do you think sells, generally -- general principles.

TANNENBAUM: If we`re talking about comparative advertising, I believe that, when done effectively and fairly and when you`re comparing things that are significant to the consumer and execute it in a way that the consumer will understand and believe and you don`t disparage the brand leader, I think it`s good, useful information that the consumer can use to make a good judgment and decision on and it`s a very effective selling tool when done right.

NEWMAN: Do you see comparative advertising as a clean break from the past in terms of advertising practices, or what`s different about it -- what`s so revolutionary, what`s the...

TANNENBAUM: It`s not revolutionary, it`s been done for years.

NEWMAN: Without naming the...

TANNENBAUM: Oh, even naming names. It was done in print advertising for years. It`s just that recently -- I guess about seven years ago -- the FTC urged the networks to accept it on television naming names and in an effort to get more information to the consumer. I think it`s been used effectively; it`s been misused as well. I do think it`s an excellent selling tool and a service to ... in a way, it is a lot like consumerism, if you will: it`s giving more information, demonstrating to people why your product is superior to the brand leader.

NEWMAN: But that`s if the information you`re giving is accurate and if it`s effectively regulated.

TANNENBAUM: I, believe that it`s regulated; you couldn`t get it on the air if it weren`t accurate, and I believe an American business wouldn`t be dishonest. I really believe in the...

NEWMAN: But they can be fooled.

TANNENBAUM: And I don`t think they can fool the consumer. The consumer`s too smart.

NEWMAN: What was it the founder of Ogilgy & Mather said? Don`t think that the consumer is stupid...

TANNENBAUM: It could be your wife. Right. That`s this gentleman on my left`s agency.

NEWMAN: So you really think basically that we`re making an issue out of something that isn`t an issue because it`s...

TANNENBAUM: I don`t think it`s an issue in the consumer`s mind, I really don`t. I think the advertising industry is making some sort of a fuss about it. I think you can`t fool the consumer with bad advertising or dishonest advertising. He sees right through it. If you test a bad commercial it`s going to test bad; if you test a good commercial it`s going to test good. And I don`t think we can deceive the public in this day and age; and I don`t think we can get dishonest advertising on the air, and there are too many regulatory bodies that will prevent us from continuing if they ever did get on the air.

NEWMAN: Intruding bodies that will slap your hands to keep you...

TANNENBAUM: Oh, the industry has a self-regulating body that seems to work, and the FTC is always there with a club.

NEWMAN. Thank you very much. The demands of comparative advertising often lead to strange relationships between companies. A humorous example of comparative advertising shows products dueling. Dueling was once the answer to affronts to one`s honor. It survives in the battle of the soap pads.

PINK PAD: Hey! Big Blue!

BLUE PAD: Huh?

PINK PAD: This town`s not big enough for two soap pads, so get lost!

BLUE PAD: Look, excuse me -- Pink Pad?

PINK PAD: Um-hum?

BLUE PAD: I`m S.O.S. I got longer lasting soap. If anyone leaves town...

PINK PAD: Don`t cross me. Longer lasting soap. Hah!

BLUE PAD: I`d hoped it wouldn`t come to this.

(Pads duel with squirt guns.)

PINK PAD: Hey!I`m losin` soap!

BLUE PAD: Seems you`re kinda washed up in this town, Pink Pad. Uh, maybe you could move to Mexico.

PINK PAD: Thanks.

NEWMAN: Brillo, otherwise known as the Pink Pad, asserts in this comparative print advertisement that it has ten percent more steel wool than S.O.S. The claims we`ve just seen in the S.O.S and Brillo ads and earlier in the Tylenol-Datril-Bayer ads all raise questions about the effectiveness of comparative advertising, for the companies involved and the consumer. Francis Pollock teaches consumer journalism at t e Columbia University School of Journalism. He formerly edited the now defunct magazine, Media and the Consumer. Mr. Pollock, I wonder if you could give us your opinion on the effectiveness of Federal Trade Commission regulation of comparative advertising on television.

FRANCIS POLLOCK: I think it could be stronger, but the Federal Trade Commission has done a very heartening job so far. And under the new chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Michael Pertschuk,

I think we`re going to see a lot more.

NEWMAN: What makes you say that we`re going to see a lot more?

POLLOCK: Well, comparative advertising is a problem. There are so many plusses and so many negatives as well, as we`ve seen here tonight already, that certainly the government, if not the advertising industry itself, has to stay very close to the issue.

NEWMAN: Well, you say theoretically that the Federal Trade Commission has to stay close because there could be problems, but what makes you think they will?

POLLOCK: I think on the one hand we have the study by one gentleman`s agency saying there`s no way to be fair and truthful in a thirty-second commercial -- at least, in terms of comparative advertising. That`s a very telling statement because the television screen is cluttered with thirty- second commercials all day, many of them being comparative commercials. So there is a problem, just by definition.

NEWMAN: Let me ask you this: if you think in the absence of regulation, is it worth it to have this kind of comparative advertising on television, or really does it lend itself to inflated statements?

POLLOCK: As long as you have someone to puncture the balloons in the inflated statements, whether it`s a competitor suing the company for making a disparaging remark that is untruthful and deceptive, that`s one good thing. So long as we have the Federal Trade Commission looking at it, that`s another good thing. Those are stimulants to improve the quality, the truthfulness and the meaningfulness of comparative advertising.

NEWMAN: But in the absence of these, the absence of regulation or oversight, what would be your statement?

POLLOCK: Well, we hope that in the long run the public will see through it. The comparative approach is useful, is educational, does help the public in the long run, even, I suppose, by exposing the comparisons that are nonsense or not truthful or misleading. That does help the public as well.

NEWMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pollock. Jim?

LEHRER: Our commercial-viewing session would not be complete without a beer commercial. This one is a particularly unique example of comparative advertising. See if you can figure out what makes it different.

NARRATOR: Recently these regulars at a well-known inn out in Bucks County decided to compare Schmidt`s, our easy beer, against famous Coors, the legendary beer from the West. And may the best beer win!

BARTENDER: Okay, fellas. Which one did you like the best?

FIRST MAN: I like this.

SECOND MAN: This is the one for met BARTENDER: Seven Coors and nine Schmidt`s.

How about you, Leo? Can`t you make up your mind?

LEO: I`m thinkin`...I`m thinkin`.

NARRATOR: Schmidt`s does it again. You compare Schmidt`s and Coors. We`ll take our chances.

LEHRER: Well-traveled beer drinkers surely picked up the point that Schmidt`s made its comparison with a beer it does not compete with in most markets. Both Coors and Schmidt`s are regional beers.

That may be one way to do comparative advertising. Mr. Levine, you are outnumbered. Let me come back to you first. The other three gentlemen say that your study turned up actually wrong results, that comparative advertising is a nifty thing, itgoing to be self-corrective and everything s wonderful.

LEVINE: Well, first of all, I don`t think that`s what they did say at all. Certainly my friend Stanley Tannenbaum didn`t say that, and I don`t think the other gentlemen said that either. I guess what we`re saying -- and we must be very clear about that -- is that we think that it is very, very difficult to effectively do comparative television advertising that names names. And that`s a very...

LEHRER: Mr. Levine, excuse me. That`s what you`re saying. That`s not what the other men said.I`m sorry; if you object to my characterization I`ll take them one by one. You said that your study said that it confused the consumer and it did not give the consumer good information. Mr. Tannenbaum, you feel differently, right? You think this is consumerism at its best, is that right?

TANNENBAUM: I didn`t say that. What I said was that under certain circumstances, if not done properly, comparative advertising will not work. If done properly -- and I believe our agency has done it properly -- it works. That`s what I said.

LEVINE: And I guess what I`m saying is that it is very difficult to do properly on television and that yes, there are probably some comparative television ads on that do work, but they are very limited; and in fact, I might add, they are not very successful in giving the consumers the very information that the consumerists would like the consumers to have. We`re giving them that information anyway in commercials.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Tannenbaum?

TANNENBAUM: Yes and no. I believe that the only way a television comparative commercial can work is if you compare against a brand leader on a point that is significant to the consumer, that will influence his purchase -- something that`s very important. We have worked up some disciplines for comparative advertising, and I think that number one and most importantly, you have to compare meaningful attributes. It must be meaningful, nothing peripheral or trivial. You`ve got to get to the heart of the product and what the consumer wants from the product and compare it visually as well as audio. Too many comparative commercials are just mentioning the other brand name and they tend to confuse the consumer and leave them with the audio impression of the name. And I find that if you do it visually, in a side-by-side demonstration, then you avoid that problem, or tend to avoid that problem. It is a problem. You should, we think, compare only against the leader. You should never, never disparage a competitor. You should praise him. You should build him up -- and then knock him down.

LEHRER: Mr. Levine, let me ask you. Do you feel that comparative advertising is a fad that will die out as a result of opposition, as a result of your study and your company and others, or do you think it`s a permanent part of advertising that will be refined as it goes along?

LEVINE: My own feeling is that eventually it will fade away.

In fact, I suggest it may be plateauing already and may begin to fade away as we go along. I think the whole issue of comparative advertising that names names on television is an advertising industry issue. It really isn`t a consumerist issue, as far as I am concerned. I mean, the advertising industry is very, very careful about the claims and the kinds of things that it is saying to consumers. And I don`t really think that forcing, or encouraging, if the word is, the industry to do comparative advertising does in any way help the consumer make better judgments. And I guess if that`s one of the major reasons why it`s been encouraged, it just doesn`t do that.

And I want to say, Jim, if I might...

LEHRER: I`m sorry, we are out of time. Gentlemen in New York, thank. you. Good night, Barbara. Mr. Snyder, thank you. Tomorrow night, other news permitting, we`ll be back with a look at the problems of Bert Lance, the President`s friend and Budget Director. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.