2016

Comparative Advertising
Brand Wars

BRANDS TAPAL VS. LIPTON

SUBMITTED BY:
SYEDA SUMBUL MISHAL
AYESHA ALI BALOCH

INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
INTERVIEW # 1
Date: 18-4-2016
Time of Interview: 6:15 pm
Place: IECC Office Shabaaz Commercial
Interviewee: Ayesha Afzal (Intern)
Interviewer: Syeda Sumbul Mishal
Gender: Female
SCRIPT # 1:
Interviewer: Do you remember any brand war scenario lately?
Interviewee: Um yes, the one between Lipton and Tapal that happened recently.
Interviewer: Can you recall that for me?
Interviewee: To be honest it was a really funny scenario. In Tapals ad even when they were trying to
blur the other product it was pretty obvious that it was Lipton that they were showing. So in my opinion
they didnt even need to blur the product so (Laughed a little) that what I remember.
Interviewer: Ok um do you think that brand war scenario/ what do you thing the brand war scenario
ethically? As in one brand attacking another brand is it ethically right towards mass advertising or its
wrong?
Interviewee: I think in one way it is right because it is increasing competition right. And increasing
completion mean that they are going to be an increase in their production quality, products quality
sorry.
Interviewer: Ok, Do you think that you should be revealing the brands name in the ad?
Interviewee: (Laughed a little), No I dont think that they should do that. That is
Interviewer: then how can you actually say that its right ethically that um to do brand war scenario
and all?

Interviewee: Look in Liptons ad they didnt, I dont think they showed the Tapals brand right. They
were attacking through words so I think that was ethically right. Thats how an ad should be but in
Tapals ad they actually showed the Liptons product and even if they tried to blur it, it was pretty
obvious that that it was Liptons product that they were targeting at. So that is ethically wrong in front
of me.
Interviewer: Okay, Um how did it affect your attitude towards each brand? Was it positive or
negative? After watching both ads.
Interviewee: It was positive, I Liked Tapals ad and it made me laugh and Liptons ad was also good.
Interviewer: Okay what do you think of their claim believability? As in who makes the better tea?
Interviewee: Well, I like Lipton, I havent tried Tapal Yet.
Interviewer: would you try Tapal after watching the ad?
Interviewee: Not really, No.
Interviewer: Ok that means it didnt appeal you that much?
Interviewee: No it didnt.
Interviewer: It was just a funny way to..
Interviewee: Yes..
Interviewer: Okay, Um do you find brand wars informative? Or in your opinion do you think they are
manipulating the audience?
Interviewee: I think they were manipulating, they were wasnt informative to me. They were basically
entertaining to watch it.
Interviewer: Okay so in other words they were actually creating awareness about their brand names
not their original product?
Interviewee: Yes thats right.
Interviewer: Okay, Thank you very much.
Interviewee: Youre Welcome..

INTERVIEW # 2:
Date: 21-4-2016
Time of Interview: 12:45 pm
Place: At Ayeshas House
Interviewee: Zainab Ali Baloch
Interviewer: Ayesha Ali Baloch
Gender: Female
SCRIPT # 2:
Interviewer: Do you remember any brand war scenario lately? (Brand awareness and recall)
Interviewee: Yes I've seen the war of Lipton and Tapal, I remember the advertisement of Lipton in
which Hamza Abasi was there and in that advertisement they were pointing out Tapal Brand.
Interviewer: What do you think of brand wars scenario ethically? (i.e.: one brand attacking the other
explicitly in mass advertising)
Interviewee: It is absolutely incorrect to attack the other brand in front of mass advertising, every
Brand has its own brand image and no one has right to attack the other brand publicly, yes competitors
are good motivators. They motivate the brand to do it's more best to stay competitive or gain that
competitive edge but it doesn't mean that competitive has right to hurt the image of the other Brand.
So it's one of the major unethical practice.
Interviewer: How did it affect your attitude towards the brand? (Negative or positive)
Interviewee: I am a loyal customer to Tapal, as this tea is used in our home and my all family members
are Tapal tea lovers so it does not affect my attitude or it doesn't mean that I'll see anything Against
Tapal and switch the brand because I am loyal customer to Tapal and my attitude is same towards it.
Interviewer: What do you think of their claim believability? (i.e: who makes better tea?)
Interviewee: Of course! Tapal is making the best tea because I'm Tapal lover.
Interviewer: Do you find brand wars informative or in your opinion they are manipulating the
audience?

Interviewee: What I think they are manipulating the audience, yes such advertisements are used to
manipulate the customers, so it's not that much informative but they are just manipulating the people.
These both are established tea brands so no one has right to hurt each other's image because both are
doing well to stay competitive.
Expressions:
(She was interested and was answering the questions in a good way, she has enough info about the
advertisements and she is a loyal customer of Tapal Danedar)

INTERVIEW # 3:
Date: 18-4-2016
Time of Interview: 11:50 am
Place: Dolman Mall Office Seaview
Interviewee: Rauf Khan
Interviewer: Syeda Sumbul Mishal
Gender: Male
SCRIPT # 3:
(Interview taken in 2 Languages Urdu and English)

Interviewer: Do you remember brand war scenario lately?

Interviewee: Yes
Interviewer: can you recall that for me?
Interviewee: Lipton and Tapals brand war.
Interviewer: what was the war about?
Interviewee: Lipton was saying its better then Tapal and Tapal was saying it was better than Lipton.
Interviewer: Okay so what do you you think of the brand war scenario ethically? That both completion
are degrading each other. And they say that one brand is better than other. Do you think this is right or
wrong?
Interviewee: It is wrong. Everyone should do their own work.
Interviewer: Okay so how did it affect your attitude towards the brand? As in after watching both ads
would you prefer buying either of the brand or would you switch to another brand
Interviewee: No I drink an imported Chai. Lipton and Tapal I dont drink that. I buy it from Imataaz
imported brand. Earl Gray from London.
Interviewer: okay um so in other words both ads didnt appeal you at all?
Interviewee: Oh no it didnt. I only see it for enjoyment. Sometimes I laugh at it while seeing.

Interviewer: So it would be like an entertainment for you?

Interviewee: Yes its entertainment.
Interviewer: Do you find the brand wars informative as in it looked informative to you or was it
manipulative for the audience?
Interviewee: It was not informative. They are doing fun (MUSTI) on TV.

INTERVIEW # 4:
Date: 18-4-2016
Time of Interview: 9:15pm
Place: Office at Zamzama
Interviewee: Faran Khan Bhatti (working in marketing department at IBEX Global)
Interviewer: Ayesha Ali Baloch
Gender: Male
SCRIPT # 4:
Interviewer: Do you remember any brand war scenario lately?
Interviewee: Yes! I remember many wars happened previously in U.S between different brands and I
remember recently about the war of two brands between Lipton and Tapal. Lipton was targeting Tapal
directly. So I remember few wars which were going on Tv screens recently.
Interviewer: Ok um do you think that brand war scenario/ what do you thing the brand war scenario
ethically? As in one brand attacking another brand is it ethically right towards mass advertising or its
wrong?
Interviewee: Well, I think it's perfectly alright, because nowadays the brand making companies, the
advertising agencies are trying their best to come up with some new techniques and ideas, so by doing
this the viewers get to see something interesting and something unique. So therefore I think it's
perfectly alright for me.
Interviewer: Ok, Do you think that you should be revealing the brands name in the ad?
Interviewee: no the name of the brand shouldn't be revealing because every brand has its own brand
image so it's not right to hurt the others brand image.
Interviewer: Okay, Um how did it affect your attitude towards each brand? Was it positive or
negative? After watching both ads.
Interviewee: It was positive, i liked it. It actually bought up a new thing in the Ad, for me it's very
interesting and unique. So it was something which made me laugh and happy.
Interviewer: Okay what do you think of their claim believability? As in who makes the better tea?

Interviewee: I am a regular and very old customer of Tapal, I'm a loyal customer of Tapal so for me
It is making the better tea.
Interviewer: would you try Tapal after watching the ad?
Interviewee: I'm a loyal customer of Tapal so whether they show the negativity or positivity about
anything, I will still try this Brand because I am and will stay loyal customer of Tapal.
Interviewer: Ok that means it didnt appeal you that much?
Interviewee: No it didnt.
Interviewer: Okay, Um do you find brand wars informative? Or in your opinion do you think they are
manipulating the audience?
Interviewee: For me I think it's pretty good for the consumers and it's good for the audience to see
something new on the Tv screens and to open up the mind of the consumers. Well, all I have to say
that it was manipulating the audience but in other words it was good for the consumers.
Interviewer: Okay so in other words they were actually creating awareness about their brand names
not their original product?
Interviewee: Yes thats right.
Interviewer: Okay, Thank you very much.
Interviewee: Youre Welcome..

ANALYSIS:
In Script#1, the interviewees perception was pretty much to get entertainment by watching the ad and
not taking both brands seriously. While the interview was conducted the participant had a joyful
expression while remembering the both ads and in the end the perception towards the ad was only part
of entertainment nothing more or less. It didnt motivate her to go and try another brand after watching
the ad. She is a loyal customer of Lipton.
In Script#2, the interviewee was interested and was answering the questions in a happy emotions, she
has enough information about the advertisements and she is a loyal customer of Tapal Danedar.
In Script#3, the interviewee wasnt interested in either brands but have seen the ad and found it
entertaining. He had knowledge of both brands. After watching both sides TVCs it was more of an
entertainment for him and didnt motivate him to buy either of the brands.
In Script#4, the interviewee found the ads interesting and unique in their own way whicj made him
laugh and happy while seeing both ads. He is a loyal customer of Tapal. He will not change his
preference on the basis of advertisements.

MEASURES
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE BRAND
In script#1 the interviewee attitude towards both the brand after watching both ads was positive. But
in the end it didnt motivate her to switch brands. She took both ads for entertainment and not seriously.
In Script# 2 the interviewee thinks both brands are well stablished and there is no need for them to go
on a brand advertisement wars. But in the end the ad doesnt change her perspective to switch it was a
means of entertainment for her to watch the ad. She will remain Tapal Lover.
In Script#3, the interviewee was only interested in watching the ads of the brand but not the products
of the brand. In other words the advertisement were only appealing in terms of entertainment only.
In Script#4, the interviewee is a loyal customer of Tapal. He found both ads appealing. It gave him
entertainment. But he will not change his preference on the basis of advertisements. Will remain aloyal
customer of one brand.
PERCEIVED INFORMATIVENESS

In script#1 the interviewee believed that the brands message was not informative, not useful and was
superficial. The interviewee did not take both ads seriously.
In Script# 2 the interviewee believed the message in the ads was not useful as being a loyal customer
of one brand doesnt change the perspective easily.
In Script#3, the interviewee believed that the brands message was not informative. The brands were
having fun by degrade each other in TVCs.
In Script#4, the interviewee believed that the message that brand gave was not informative but
manipulative towards the audience. But then again it was good for capturing the audience attention.
CLAIM BELIEVABILITY
In script#1 the interviewee believe that the claim made by both brands in the message was not so real.
And in future would not switch from Lipton to Tapal on the basis on this brand War scenario.
In script#2 the interviewee, as being a loyal customer will remain loyal to Tapal regardless of any
brand war comes in future.
In Script#3, according to the interviewees perspective the message claimed in the TVC appealed him
but not that much that he would go and try it out. He liked to brink another teas brand rather than
Lipton and Tapal.
In Script#4, the interviewee claims that he is a loyal customer and will remain loyal as it is making a
better tea according to his preference.
MANIPULATION CHECK
In script#1 the interviewee believed that the both ads were manipulated. Even though she preferred
Lipton she wouldnt go for Tapal on the basis of an ad in which other people describe the quality of
the product. She believed that brands should not talk negative characteristic of another brand. The
characteristics of two brands were compared in the message is a good technique to capture the audience
attention.

In Script# 2 the interviewee believed that the TVCs were all manipulative towards audience. Each
brand had its own established image and there was no need for them to hurt each other. She believed

10

that focusing on building own image is better than talks about the negative characteristic of another
brand.
In Script#3, the interviewee believed that the TVCs were all manipulative in terms of entertainment
(Musti). The brands were having fun with each other. They should mind their own business not in
others.
In Script#4, the interviewee believed both brands were manipulative towards the audience. It was a
good way to capture the audience attention this way. He took the TVCs perspective in an entertainment
ways. Even though he believed it was wrong to talk about negative characteristics of another brand.
He believed the brands being compared was a good technique it did capture the audience attention.

11