Call-out culture in advertising: The new marketing shortcut or a risky gamble?

Advertising has always loved a good face-off! The challenger taking on the market leader, the underdog throwing a punch at the giant, brands telling consumers why they should pick them over the other. But lately, brands seem to be taking the call-out a little more literally.

From the Gillette–Bombay Shaving Company case to the Beco–HUL matter, recent advertising disputes have put competitor call-outs in the spotlight. And as brands hunt for sharper ways to cut through an increasingly crowded ad space, naming names can look like an easy way to get attention.

Except, there’s a catch!

Call out a rival and you might make your own message sharper and more memorable. Or you might just end up putting the competitor’s name in front of consumers, using your own media money to do it. So where does the line sit between a smart comparison and a costly shout-out to the competition?

The rulebook: what ASCI says
Naming competitors isn't off-limits in advertising. But there are rules around how brands make that comparison. "Comparative advertising is a legitimate form of advertising and can help brands communicate a meaningful product difference to consumers. Under Chapter IV of the ASCI Code, advertisers can make comparisons, including naming competitors, as long as the comparison is fair, factual, capable of substantiation and does not mislead or disparage," said ASCI Secretary General and CEO Manisha Kapoor.

But naming a rival raises the stakes on execution, she noted. "The use of a competitor's name can make a comparison more direct, but it also places greater importance on how the claim is framed and the overall impression created by the advertisement. A comparison can become problematic where differences are exaggerated, information is selectively presented, or claims are not adequately supported."

Importantly, Kapoor pointed out that the rules cut both ways. This isn't just a challenger-brand tactic.

"This applies whether a challenger is comparing itself with a market leader or an established brand is questioning a newer entrant." Her point sets up the central question that marketers are grappling with: "Ultimately, the focus should be on communicating a genuine product difference rather than gaining an unfair advantage through a competitor reference."

The marketers’ case for naming names
For marketers, the debate is less about whether competitors can be named and more about whether doing so actually strengthens the brand proposition.

Saket Choudhary, National Marketing Manager at Hisense India, puts substantiation at the heart of that equation. "Comparative advertising can be a powerful, legitimate tool but only when it's rooted in verifiable facts. The line is clear: if a claim can be substantiated with data, be it screen technology, price-to-performance, or product specifications, it strengthens consumer trust and industry transparency. The moment a comparison shifts from factual differentiation to disparagement or unverifiable claims, it stops being advertising, and starts being a liability, both legally and reputationally."

For a challenger brand such as Hisense, he sees a more strategic role for comparison. "Transparent comparisons can work in our favour when they give consumers a clear, fact-based reason to consider us alongside more established names. At the same time, comparative advertising isn't about borrowing a rival's spotlight for its own sake. It works when the comparison ultimately reinforces the brand's own value proposition, rather than the competitor's."

Manmeet Ahluwalia, CMO of EaseMyTrip.com, shifts the focus from the claim itself to the way the comparison lands with consumers. "Comparative advertising is a perfectly legitimate marketing tool and, globally, a fairly established practice. It can be particularly powerful when a brand has a genuine point of difference and wants to make that distinction clear to consumers."

The distinction, he argued, is between comparison and confrontation. "There is a clear difference between comparing your proposition with a competitor and taking potshots at them. The former can sharpen the brand proposition; the latter can make the communication appear petty and, in some cases, give the competitor more attention than the brand itself."

That makes the consumer takeaway critical. "When a brand chooses to name or reference a competitor, the communication should be strong enough to stand on its own. The comparison should be relevant, the claim should be substantiated, and the brand should remain at the centre of the message. There is little value in mudslinging or taking unnecessary digs at the competition."

For Suta Co-Founder Sujata Biswas, however, the appeal of comparative advertising is particularly relevant for smaller brands trying to make themselves heard against larger incumbents. "We don't think there's anything inherently wrong with naming a competitor. If you're confident about your product and genuinely believe that what you're offering is better for a particular consumer need, comparison can be a perfectly fair way of communicating that. Especially for a smaller brand, taking on a bigger player can be a powerful way of saying, 'Hey, we're here too.' There's always something interesting about an underdog punching above its weight, and you see new-age brands doing this across categories today."

But Biswas also flags the central danger of giving the rival too much of the spotlight. “there's a fine balance. You can very easily make the competitor the most memorable part of your ad. If people walk away remembering the other brand but not yours, then you've essentially done their marketing for them."

Her bottom line is perhaps the simplest way to frame the marketer's case: "The competitor should be the reference point, not the hero. The thing people should remember is what your brand brings to the table."

On risk, Biswas added, "there are legal risks involved. If you're making a comparison, the claims have to be factual and defensible. We don't think being provocative simply for the sake of getting attention is good marketing. But we also wouldn't want brands to become so worried about the risks that they stop being brave with their communication. If the product is good, the difference is real, and you can stand behind what you're saying, then we don't see a reason to be scared of naming the competition."

The counterview: Why some brands would rather not
Not everyone is convinced the trade-off is worth it at all. Saurabh Munjal, Co-Founder & CEO of Archian Foods Pvt Ltd (Lahori Zeera), framed comparative advertising as fundamentally a self-inflicted cost. "Spending your own media money to build salience for somebody else is an inherent risk in comparative advertising. You're guaranteeing them attention at your cost."

He allowed for exceptions. "That said, if an incumbent has conditioned consumers to accept a certain price, ingredient, format or behaviour, a challenger can question that convention. But the communication should ultimately bring the consumer back to one question: what do you stand for, and why should I choose you?"

But Munjal was clear about where his own brand stands."For us, it's not a route we'd take at Lahori Zeera. We've never seen ourselves as competing within a category. We set out to be the category."

For Rajat Tuli, Co-founder, Ustraa & Happily Unmarried, the deciding factor isn't just substantiation, it's fit. "In my view this only works if done well and is in sync with the overall brand personality. If the brand tone is cheeky and irreverent then yes, do it but be clever. Pepsi has done this brilliantly against coke in the past."

But he was sharply critical of how the tactic often plays out in practice. "In a lot of cases it is just rival executives aiming potshots at each other the customers don't care. I see a lot of that happening now. Companies are talking to each other instead of talking to the consumer."

The real question: is it worth it?
Because ultimately, it comes down to one thing: who does the consumer remember? Naming a competitor can certainly make an ad sharper, cheekier and harder to ignore. But if the rival ends up being the most memorable part of the campaign, the joke may be on the brand that paid for it.

For some challengers, taking a swing at a bigger player can be a way of announcing that they have arrived. For others, the better bet may simply be to let the product do the talking. Either way, the comparison only really works when the conversation comes back to the brand making the ad. Because at the end of the day, consumers aren't watching an ad to see two brands settle a score. They are trying to figure out what's in it for them.

And that may be the real test of call-out culture: not whether you can name your competitor, but whether you can do it without making them the reason people remember your ad!