Whittakers vs Cadbury

Yesterday’s post about a brand’s natural enemy got me thinking about Whittakers vs Cadbury. I find this example really interesting. I’d been wondering whether there was a valid brand strategy in essentially picking a fight – whether you could create a natural enemy for your brand.

I really liked the comparison campaign – liked the simplicity of it, the directness, the almost deliberate absence of art direction.

And, puzzlingly, I think Cadbury made the mistake of responding with something that just looked dreadfully ‘advertising’.

They tried to write a clever headline (A Glass and a Half of Facts) and they over art-directed. It’s not that the ad looked bad. It’s just that it looked, and read, exactly like an ad. Which positively screams to people that you’re trying to sell something, when in fact Cadbury should have been trying to explain something.

I’m interested to see whether Whittaker’s might have another trick up their sleeve. This first salvo was essentially a product-to-product comparison. I wonder whether there’s a more significant philosophy-to-philosophy comparison on the way. Another from-the-heart, no-kiwi-would-ever-do-what-Cadbury-done statement from Brian and Andrew Whittaker and it might not just be Dairy Milk that takes the hit. If I were the brand manager for Moro or Crunchie I’d be feeling very nervous about now.

Whittakers vs Cadbury

One thought on “Whittakers vs Cadbury

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s