I was pretty surprised because some of these commercials, the company would tear other competing products to shreds. Each company has its own way in describing its products through advertising. Of course, every company wants to bring out their uniqueness and differences through those advertising. "This strategy of comparison with competitors within the context of advertising is called comparative advertising". Commercials that do not specifically mention the names of competing products and use blank, white or censored products are known are indirect comparative advertising.
Most Americans can accept comparative advertising as long as these commercials are telling the truth. But for me, I definitely don't like the fact that you can chew out a company's products directly just like that, with little consequences. For example, companies that are attempting to make fun of Apple and its products are only giving Apple free brand impressions and also free advertising. And Apple loves it! They are saying "Thank you!"
In Malaysia, there is a code that sets out guidelines and good practice standards for those in the multimedia and communications industry. This "content code" regulates comparative advertising provided that the basis of comparison is the same for all the products being compared; and the advertisement clearly states or shows that “like is being compared with like” (in other words, “apples are compared with apples” as opposed to “apples compared with oranges”). Apparently, if any company has issues with advertisements that include the company's name or brand products, they can actually file a complaint.
So here, you have two different soda products. With Pepsi doing the indirect comparative advertising. We all know that is a Coke product in the red can. But the actual name isn't on it. Can they file a complaint for that? Not if Pepsi didn't directly reference Coca Cola, and use words such as "all other brands".
