Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
How should you handle a negative marketing campaign?
A competitor of ours has started running a negative marketing campaign directly targeting my product. They have published whitepapers of why they beat our product along with ads on industry web sites. Many of the claims they are make are half truths, unsubstantiated, or just not relevant to the buyers needs. Does anyone have experience on dealing with negative marketing campaigns that can provide advice? Thanks.
Events
- Dos and Don'ts of Small Business Marketing May 29 @ 11 am PT
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
3 Answers
Just run a campaign, that uses whole truths, backed up by research that you make available (hopefully on someone else's website). Ask independent industry journals to review your product.
If you need to compare, don't mention the other competitor or competitor's by name, use what you see on TV, Brand X doesn't do this, but we do, not Brand X claims are wrong, that's negative.
Stay focused on why you have the better product, service, warranty, reputation and that focus is on your company/product, no other company. You'll win more than you'll loose...
Good luck
No experience with products, but did have a few locals individuals making negative remarks in social media,. Maintain your values first and foremost. Taking their negative path is not good for you or your business.
Common sense suggests stay the course through a positive campaign where you have truth back by research as noted previously.
Yes some people will react to such a campaign, however in time, others will see the individual or individuals for what they are. And if you can, reach out to them after the initial wave of negativity.
Recognize that first and foremost a negative campaign is a dual edged sword; it can make the other party appear untrustworthy. Your response depends on the effect. If the campaign is working then you have to dull the attack and allow it to reflect on the attacker. Realize that just by responding you create drama and create attention so if it isn’t resonating ignore it. If it is resonating, then attack it at the roots with facts from trusted sources. For instance during the massive proxy fight at HP a few years back Carly Fiorina attached Walter Hewlett’s background, he responded by having the head of Stanford University attest to his background and the attack failed. Unfortunately so did Walter’s effort but that was because he really didn’t have much of a plan. This speaks to the other problem; if the attack is in fact grounded you can’t ignore that grounding and must address the core if it exists. In other words, destroying the credibility of the attacker may not be a successful strategy if you do have a major problem. Recall Ralph Nader and GM (Unsafe at Any Speed), GM pounded on Nader’s pedigree but the problem he surfaced was real and the Corvair died, ironically after the handling problem was corrected.
So the process is to first determine if the attacker has influence and whether the attack is based on fact. Eliminate the influence but make sure the problem that has been surfaced is either false or being corrected. If the attacker has influence and the problem is real, it might actually be cheaper to pull the product and fix it then in fighting a visible fight where the odds are against you. That’s the lesson GM learned the hard way.
Answer This Question