Which one of these tactics do you think would compel you to trust one company over the other? For example, if it was a food product would highlighting why yours is so good be more effective or trying to convince people say the other company’s product are so unhealthy? I was looking at some examples and for the most part it seemed like the fear tactic of showing people why something is bad seemed to generate the most buzz.
I think the key thing that I got out of it too was how the competitors themselves tried to back out from looking like the ones who were doing the mud slinging, so to speak, and instead relied on or hired third party researchers to release the data. Therefore, it came across more as a general study as opposed to a marketing tactic. Kind of a sneaky way of doing things huh? In general I think it is better to focus more in highlighting why you are better as being negative usually implies that you are say bitter of something. However, getting someone else to say the negatives for you is definitely sneaky I must say until someone starts putting the pieces together in terms of association.