Should brands be as obsessed with their competitor as Burger King are with Mc Donald's?

In yet another "we're not McDonald's" stunt, this time with the iconic Big Mac being mentioned all over their own menus, Burger King doubled down on their history as the "not McDonald's" brand. Judging by the chain's performance over the last few years, most recently beating expectations with a 3.8% growth, there seems to be reason to embrace the strategy. With overall footfall going down, Mc Donald's CEO himself made it clear that "it’s just a market share fight overall", the game being about stealing share from your competitors. From this point of view, one can see why the King would want to go after the Clown.

But as a marketer, while I have to salute the daring creativity behind Burger King's campaigns, I can't help cautioning brands to give into the temptation of such relentless comparative advertising. Anchoring your brand as a challenger against a much bigger enemy can have beneficial effects, but I'm not sure it's a sustainable strategy for many brands, and I'm not sure Burger King, who is not a small player, will keep enjoying the sweet sunday ice cream it's "whopping" for (boom tish!). Taking the fast food chain's example, there are three aspects in particular that I'd question:

1/ It keeps increasing your competitor's SOV, for free

I'm always very weary of advertising my competition for free. While this kind of strategies speaks well to people who care more heavily about the category (the people out there who will define themselves as a BK or McD consumer), in general it ignores that ultimately the fight for supreme leadership will be fought on the battlefield of those who don't give much of a damn. Not only are these consumers likely to misattribute communications a few weeks later, but we also know that in general buyers tend to have more of a repertoire approach to their consumption. By giving extra share of voice and share of mind to its competitor free of charge, there is a good chance a brand is simply making it easier to reinforce the leader who will still reap rewards among the buyers that make or break market shares. Let's remember that Avis showed brilliantly that this little exercise can be done without paying too much tribute to the the assets of your competitor.

2/ It heroes the #1 all the while making it the victim to root for

By going after a leader in such a blatant "we're not the leader" kind of way, brands tend to reinforce the message that the other is still the market leader. And this can do two good things for this market leader. For one, people's desirability bias means they often tend to gravitate towards leadership, because on a day where any burger will do, I know the market leader probably won't be the worst option out there (otherwise, they wouldn't be market leader, would they?). It's not about firmly held beliefs, just basic heuristics. And not only this, but it can backlash by turning the attacked into the victim, triggering a more passionate response that no, that leader isn't anywhere as bad as one might claim. For example, I doubt Apple would be able to run the same campaign they did a few years ago now that they are such a dominant (and debated) brand.

3/ It might lead you to pick the wrong enemy

Having McDonald's or even Wendy's in their marketing crosshair is practically Burger King's communications' signature now. Considering they are (by far) the top 3 brands, scale dictates they are where most of the buyers are at. But they are playing in a complicated category whose competition is not entirely in the rearview mirror anymore. They have seen capable burger (and non burger) joints growing with mythical origin stories that lend themselves very well to the challenger position they're trying to fill. But above all, there is a real question around the relevance of the fast food chain experience as we know it, a much bigger threat than whether someone decides to go for a Big Mac or a Whopper. Trying to steal share from your direct competitor can only get you so far when your overall category is facing this kind of existential problems, and it's no surprise to see a sizable part of BK's growth being attributed to the investments it makes in its restaurant experience. When picking a fight of this magnitude, make sure you're playing the right opponent.

As others have pointed out, one must salute the originality and audacity it takes to run some of the campaigns Burger King have been launching. But if I were in McDonald's marketing shoes, I can only say that I'd be perfectly content watching this fictitious war from afar, and would rather focus my efforts on defining what the future of this category will be about instead of comparing myself to the kings of the now.