# Comparison Ad — Format

> "Us vs them" advertising. Direct competitor positioning. Risky but powerful.

## Format basics

- Length: 30s - 60s
- Aspect: 16:9 or 9:16
- Side-by-side or sequential comparison
- Clear differentiator focus
- Legal compliance critical

## Structure

```
0-5s    SETUP / SHARED CONTEXT
        Common scenario
        Both products implied

5-20s   COMPETITOR DEMONSTRATION
        Generic / nameless competitor
        Pain point / limitation shown
        Neutral framing

20-40s  YOUR PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION
        Same scenario, your product
        Solves limitation
        Visible improvement

40-55s  KEY DIFFERENTIATOR
        Specific advantage stated
        Why this matters
        Proof point

55-60s  CTA + BRAND
        Logo
        Where to choose better
```

## Sample 60s comparison ad

```
TITLE: "Karavan vs Generic — 60s Comparison"

INT. SAME APARTMENT KITCHEN - MORNING (0-5s)

WOMAN (32) at coffee maker. Morning routine.

ON SCREEN TEXT: "Two mornings. Same coffee maker."

INT. SAME - "Other coffee" morning (5-20s)

She uses an unbranded "other coffee" — package shown but logo blurred
(generic instant or supermarket bag).

She brews. Pours. Sips.

Her face: blank, "okay."

ON SCREEN TEXT: "Roasted: unknown date. Origin: 'blend.'"

CUT TO HER LEAVING for work. Looking at watch. Tense.

V.O.
Other coffee gets you out the door.

INT. SAME - "Karavan" morning (20-40s)

Same routine, but with Karavan bag.

She brews. Pours. Sips.

Her face: pause. Notice. Smile.

ON SCREEN TEXT: "Roasted: 12 days ago. Origin: Ethiopia + Brazil, single farms."

She sits with the coffee. Reads a book. Has time.

V.O.
Karavan starts the day.

DUAL SCREEN COMPARISON (40-55s):

LEFT: Other coffee package + tasteless graph
RIGHT: Karavan + tasting notes graphic

ON SCREEN COMPARISON CHART:
- Roast date transparency
- Single-origin
- Subscription convenience
- Cost per cup

V.O.
Karavan: roast date on every bag. Single-origin. Subscription delivery.
Same price as your supermarket coffee.

CUT TO Karavan branding (55-60s):

Karavan logo. URL.

V.O.
Karavan. Why settle for okay?

karavan.az
```

## Key principles

### Don't name competitor (legally safer)
- "Other coffee"
- "Generic brand"
- "What you're using now"

Naming competitor opens legal exposure (false advertising claims).

### Show, don't trash-talk
- Visual demonstration of difference
- Avoid putting competitor down explicitly
- Focus on YOUR advantages

### Specific, substantiated claims
- Numbers, dates, sources
- Verifiable facts
- Avoid vague superiority

### Same conditions
- Same scenario / setup
- Same user / context
- Only the product changes
- Fair comparison

### Differentiator clarity
- ONE main differentiator (not five)
- Easy to remember
- Important to audience
- Demonstrable

## Sub-types

### Side-by-side
- Split screen
- Same moment, different products
- Visual comparison

### Sequential
- One then the other
- Same character experiences both
- Transformation shown

### Chart-based
- Feature comparison chart
- Clear winner
- Specs side by side

### Customer comparison
- "I tried X, then I tried Y"
- Personal story
- Authentic switch

## Compliance considerations

### Legal restrictions
- Can't make false claims about competitor
- Must substantiate advantages
- Country-specific regulations
- "Best" claims need proof

### Industry restrictions
- Pharma: heavily regulated
- Financial: disclosures required
- Telecom: detailed comparison rules
- Auto: specific claim limits

### Best practice
Always have legal review before airing comparison ads.

## When to use

- Clear differentiator vs competitors
- Established competitor to position against
- Audience considering switch
- Quality difference visible/demonstrable
- Regulatory environment permits

## Risks

- Competitor lawsuit
- Audience sympathy for "underdog"
- Looking petty
- Inviting competitor response
- Validating competitor by mentioning

## Alternative: implicit comparison

Less risky:
- "Coffee with roast dates" (implies others don't)
- "Premium without the markup" (implies others overcharge)
- Audience fills in the comparison

## Common mistakes

- Naming competitor (legal risk)
- Vague claims ("better")
- Unfair comparison (different conditions)
- No specific differentiator
- Trashing tone (alienates)
- Forgetting your own brand
