Mom, the brands are fighting again

Attack ads, of course, are almost as old as advertising itself. But the back-and-forth, and often taunting edge of today’s online discourse is increasingly seeping into advertising, both in its digital and traditional forms.

Home-rental company Vrbo, for example, this month put up billboards describing itself as “Airbnb’s hotter, cooler, friendlier long-lost twin that never has hosts." One of the billboards was placed within view of Airbnb headquarters in San Francisco.

The ads were an escalation in a continuing Vrbo campaign that showcased uncomfortable rental properties with standoffish hosts—but hadn’t previously called out Airbnb by name.

The ads addressed frustrations that travelers associate with all vacation rentals, not just Airbnb’s, according to a spokesman for Vrbo, part of Expedia Group.

Whether the ad made an impression on consumers or not, Airbnb noticed. CEO Brian Chesky shared a photo of the billboard on his Instagram account along with an image of a laughing face.

“Vrbo just spent millions on ads that appear to be as confused as they are desperate," an Airbnb spokesman said when asked for comment, “even giving Airbnb more visibility than their own name."

Attack ads have a long history. From early 20th century tobacco sellers to the makers of personal computers more recently, companies have battled for market share by trading insults through paid media, according to Pinar Yildirim, professor of marketing and economics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and co-author of a 2022 report on the effects of negative campaigns.

Famous examples include the long-running “Pepsi Challenge," begun in 1975, which depicts consumers choosing Pepsi over Coca-Cola in blind taste tests, and the “Get a Mac" campaign in the 2000s, which portrayed Apple computers as cooler and more powerful than their nerdy PC competitors.

Attack ads can help newcomers establish a presence by associating themselves with a better-known name—even if it’s in a negative way, said Yildirim. The practice might be intensifying as brands work harder to reach consumers in digital spaces, though it comes with reputational, financial and, in some cases, legal risks, she said.

Last year, for instance, Mondelez International sued Dutch chocolate brand Tony’s Chocolonely for violating its intellectual property rights by mimicking the Milka brand’s signature purple wrapper in a campaign insinuating that other, larger chocolate makers use underpaid cocoa farmers.

A Hamburg court granted a preliminary injunction, and the two companies later reached an agreement to resolve the suit, according to a Tony’s Chocolonely representative.

But the brand didn’t drop the issue. In January, Tony’s Chocolonely mocked a “Made to Share" campaign by Mondelez’s Cadbury by again implying that the packaged-food giant profited from exploitative practices in the cocoa industry.

In challenging its larger rivals, Tony’s Chocolonely aims to raise awareness of key issues in the cocoa industry, such as forced and child labor and deforestation, according to the representative. Mondelez didn’t respond to requests for comment, but has said that “No amount of child labor in the cocoa supply chain should be acceptable."

Attack ads are more heavily regulated in Europe than in the U.S., where the Federal Trade Commission states that “the use of truthful comparative advertising should not be restrained by broadcasters or self-regulation entities."

Elsewhere in the world, attack ads can descend into viral free-for-alls. Last month, McDonald’s China went after market leader KFC with a campaign for “CFC," or cage-free chicken, insinuating that McDonald’s chicken was more ethically raised and of higher quality. Like Vrbo in San Francisco, McDonald’s China placed its “CFC" ads directly outside KFC locations.

KFC fought back, with social-media posts underscoring the K in its name to reinforce its own brand. But dozens of companies in unrelated sectors, ranging from cars to toothpaste, quickly jumped in with their own twist on the campaign. Subway China, for example, posted “NFC = no fried chicken" on RedNote, a Chinese photo and video app similar to Instagram.

History shows that extended fighting between brands can damage consumer perception of entire categories, according to Yildirim. Building on past research, her study found that “negative advertising wars reduce demand for all involved parties," since consumers grow weary of battling brands with similar products.

Advertising tear-downs in the U.S. have come to more closely resemble the contentious comment threads that often accompany social-media posts and online news articles, according to Chris Danton, co-founder of brand consulting firm In Good Co.

The shift reflects “the normalization of social-media behavior, where people tend to kind of go after one another and be nastier than they might be face to face," Danton said.

Sometimes it means literally sniping in the comments.

Rival prebiotic soda brands Poppi and Olipop had a social-media brawl last month after Poppi delivered vending machines to some TikTok creators as part of a campaign timed to coincide with the Super Bowl. A number of TikTok users knocked the campaign for focusing on well-to-do influencers, while Olipop criticized Poppi in comments on several posts, with some claiming that the machines cost $25,000 each.

Poppi co-founder Allison Ellsworth swiftly took to TikTok, describing the comments as “misinformation being spread out there by one of our competitors."

“The unhinged brand is just the norm now," said Ashley Rutstein, a freelance creative director who runs the popular @StuffAboutAdvertising account. “It’s not novel anymore, and for younger generations I think is the expected tone for brands. They like the honesty."

Some advertisers are asking AI to do their dirty work.

Allegra, an antihistamine from Opella, in January released a “Drowsy Prompts" campaign built around TikTok clips of celebrities asking ChatGPT to describe the side effects of competing products such as Benadryl, sold by competitor Johnson & Johnson.

The AI obliges, telling Broadway actor Mary Kate Morrissey a detailed story about “a blur of surreal moments and unintentional comedy" as exhaustion takes over.

By letting the AI develop copy on its own, the Opella team hoped to give Allegra more personality and avoid the tedious language of traditional pharmaceutical marketing.

“It’s about making sure we’re breaking through the clutter," said Alberto Hernandez, chief growth officer at Opella.

One small brand even took a shot at a household name that isn’t a competitor. Hatch, a maker of bedside devices designed to help people sleep, this year went viral on TikTok for its billboards blaming Apple iPhones for unwanted late nights.

One ad noted that the new Hatch Restore 3 “Doesn’t have your ex’s number," then, with an arrow pointing at a nearby iPhone billboard, says the other device “Will let you text your ex at 2 AM."

Hatch’s goal was less to attack Apple than to define its own brand in a concise and conversational way, said Executive Creative Director Rinee Shah.

“If we’re doing a challenger campaign, who is the enemy? The enemy is phones and doom-scrolling, because it’s very detrimental to sleep," said Shah. The video has racked up more than nine million views on TikTok since January.

Hatch succeeded in raising its profile by highlighting an issue all too common among anxious sleepers without going truly negative.

More marketers will attempt to strike this balance, according to Danton of In Good Co.

“A brand’s ability to cut through is pretty minimal these days," Danton said. “They can’t do it without being sensational."

Write to Patrick Coffee at patrick.coffee@wsj.com.