Scroogled: The SEO Benefits of Bad-Mouthing a Competitor

Bing still has a long way to go to when it comes to the competition with Google. While this campaign brought some short term attention, it’s doubtful that it will really change people’s search habits. Google is still king.

We do see this kind of stuffs often on the web as well as on the television where one big giant tries to bad-mouth the competitor giant with a motive to either get into a controversy and become a hot topic of discussion, with this, the bing can achieve a good number of visitors to its site and also a good click through for the campaign, it is the strategy used to increase over self creditability and trying to fade out competitors reputation.
Good Going Bing. Waiting to see Google’s response for this campaign. :)

i love the scroogled campaign. how do they think this stuff up.
the other thing they did recently was “Bing it on!”.
so funny!

Hi Casie,

Awesome post! I’m surprised a controversial topic like this hasn’t gotten more comments, so I’m going to take a moment to play devil’s advocate.

It’s interesting to read about how effective calling out a competitor can be on the one hand and then your making the disclaimer that you don’t condone that tactic. If it works, it works – and all is fair in love and business. But your footnote underlies the nagging sense that trash talking is a dirty tactic, so it could be opposed on ethical grounds. Rather than trying to have our cake and eat it too, I wanted more evidence.

Attacking a competitor reminded me of mud-slinging in political campaigns. In the lead up to last month’s election, I remember reading and hearing research about how the American public feels about political attack ads. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, personally, but what does that affect on an action level? Is a voter less likely to support a candidate who has engaged in such a campaign? Or is there another effect at play?

Dr. Ted Brader authored “Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work” and in an interview (http://insight-magazine.org/2012/featured/political-mudslinging-does-it-work/) he said:

“Fear ads get a bad rap. They’re seen by many as sinister, but in fact fear ads are not unsavory,” he says. “They break people out of their political habits and make them pay attention to what’s going on around them.” He explains that when attention is focused on a potential danger—as in the daisy ad—voters engage in a more effortful process of gathering information that can inform their choices in the polls. “When there’s nothing to fear, there’s no reason to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular decision. It’s easier to stick to the habits you already have,” he says.

This is the effect you explain in this post, and in this context, I see a noble utility in pointing out weaknesses in a competitor.

On the other hand, I can get behind this Post Advertising article (http://www.postadvertising.com/2012/01/when-political-ads-attack-everyone-loses/) when the author compares attack campaigns by politicians to those by brands (same exercise I’m performing here) and sees a net loss, especially for the party doing the pointing:

You’ll find the potshots taken across the board. Car companies have struck blows across the bow on thousands of occasions such as this commercial from BMW attacking Audi. And while many times you’ll find that the brands are able to get their messaging across, it’s often at the expense of their competition. The best way to advertise is to advance your brand’s story by demonstrating why your product is the best on the market, not at taking cheap shots at companies you’re up against. The best advertising doesn’t involve kicking your competitors but, instead, defining who and what your brand is and why consumers learn more about your services. In other words, let your products speak for themselves.

I guess what it comes down to for marketers is how comfortable they are with mud-slinging, but more importantly, if that’s a behavior that fits their brand. Will it alienate potential new customers? Will it darken their brand reputation? Because the truth is that while voters and consumers will say they devalue brands and politicians who engage in manipulative, salacious campaign strategies, psychologists say they work.

Another one of life’s hard choices. Thanks for bringing it to light, and like those dirty ads, forcing us to face our personal position.