madcomments

Was there some sort of law until recently that prohibited companies from comparing their products directly with other brand names?

Whatever happened to the good ol’ days of voiceovers stating “better whites than the other leading manufacturers”.

Well, I think that comparisons are ok as long as the products compared are similar (as in: level of range et al). The comparisons have to be made on something tangible too (like here) and not simply a “our lemonade tastes better” which is simply very subjective!

It would be interesting to know what the laws really are regarding comparative advertising.

I don’t mind that ad, as for example, I will indeed rather buy a lemonade with natural flavourings than not, especially if they’re the same price.

It’s enough to leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

I don’t really have a problem with comparative ads so long as they are comparing apples with apples… or, as here, flavoured sugar waters (health consequences noted).

So I am unsure how there is greater moral high ground from restricting oneself to ‘only’ saying one has lots of (if not that clearly defined and hence of questionable relevance without working the website - which is quite something - very thoroughly) lower prices vs. pointing out that there are natural ingredients vs., one presumes, non-natural ones in an identically-priced, 2 litre plastic bottle of something that has near sod all to do with actual lemons.

Actually the same prices header claim seems a stretch given the Tesco numerical advantage (at least as claimed) across the board. So I guess that can only apply when the prices are on par, at which point the ‘value’ benefit needs to be tangible and ‘better’, in this case real vs. artificial flavouring. As pointed out, this is indeed pretty selective on a narrow basis.

But I’d really, really love to see anyone try and get away with ‘bullying’… Tesco!