posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 12:43PM

I think it's actually a pretty good idea considering the economy and the fact that a lot of people are being more careful about their purchases.

and it's hardly a 'direct attack' - look at half the ads on tv and in magazines, look at coke and pepsi, and all of the fast food chains - they all say things against their leading competitors - it's a very common marketing strategy.

posted by rachael

Aug 05, 2009 12:45PM

in all honesty....the purple covergirl mascara is WAY better than the lancome version. I used to be an avid lancome user, and now only use covergirl mascara. Its also better than the chanel version.

It does seem to be a little ridiculous to compare like that, especially when in reality they do have a better product.

http://alittlesomethingshiny.blogspot.com/

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 12:46PM

Semi-related is car ads. They also alluded to their competitors, but recently they have been showing competitors models and saying their names in their ads.

Yes, they are making the point of saying "ours is just as good," but think of it as free advertisement for the other brands. And I think it's pretty safe to say that if someone is willing to pay for the name they will continue to pay for the name - even if just as effective, yet cheaper versions exist.

posted by nycshoegal

Aug 05, 2009 12:55PM

you know, studying advertising in college it amazed me how many brands actually resort to this sort of ad technique.

any brand that has to bash another in order to advertise has always bothered me. I know no one is bashing anyone here but still.... i think one's ads should only concentrate ones own brand. creativity is power. plain comparison? meh

posted by nycshoegal

Aug 05, 2009 12:59PM

"i think one's ads should only concentrate ON one's own brand"

posted by etoilee8

Aug 05, 2009 1:01PM

I think it's a bit lame when brands bash each other, to me it screams "we're cheaper than they are", which might be necessary for some people to buy the product but if your product is great, shouldn't the quality speak for itself? I've never been an expensive mascara girl (I got Dior show for xmas from my sister) and I hate to admit it but I hardly see a difference between my Maybelline and Dior show. I think they both serve a purpose and will continue to use both.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:11PM

I can see how since this is a new cosmetic advertising tactic it can be shocking, but if you think about it, most industries already compete like this. Like the commenter above mentioned, car ads compare to more expensive models saying how they are comparable in quality, but cheaper. I don't think there is any problem with saying 'we are just like this more expensive item, we are cheaper, go with us.' Isn't that the basis of cost-focused advertising?

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:15PM

I had no idea that brand comparison was something novel...isn't Olay famous for this type of advertising? Getting department store quality for affordable cost?

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:15PM

Charlie Gasparino has his own mascara out? Whats next? Michelle Cabruso Cabrera deodorant?

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:29PM

one thing to be aware of is that most makeup and beauty brands are owned by one larger brand. often times the luxury brand (lancome) is actually owned by a less expensive brand (l'oreal). proctor & gamble owns covergirl, as well as luxury brands like SK-II. so products are more likely to be similar when they're owned by the same parent company. in terms of marketing, obviously l'oreal would never put out this ad, when it *owns* lancome.

my point is, this likely has less to do with the actually differences between drugstore and luxury brands, and more with the different parent companies going after each other. it's up to us as consumers to be aware of this and use whatever product we actually think works best.

(also, guest @1:15, olay is also owned by protor & gamble, who owns covergirl, so...)

this is a great article if you're curious about who owns what brands: http://www.makeuptalk.com/forums/f148/beauty-industry-who-owns-what-57013.html

posted by textile_queen

Aug 05, 2009 1:44PM

Another thing to note is that this ad is likely not even aimed at Lancome shoppers. It's aimed at those who already by drug store makeup. The drug store shopper sees this ads, thinks "wow, CG is just as good as Lancome," and then goes out and buys a Cover Girl mascara instead of a Mabelline, Revlon, etc. mascara. Basically it's like they are name dropping to have a better association with a high-cost (which infers better-quality) product.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:59PM

that's what advertising is.

If they can offer a comparable product at a lower price, they should say so. I mean, that is the basis of consumer-driven capitalism.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 1:59PM

to textile_queen: it's also possible that the ad is aimed, not at drugstore makeup shoppers, but at the prestige users who use lancome and dior, etc. in light of the current economy, cover girl might be going after ppl who usually buy the higher-end brands, and not trying to steal consumers from maybelline or other drugstore brands.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 2:28PM

Personally, I am not a fan of either of those masacara's they both are not really that amazing. For a drug store brand i prefer rimmel with lycra, or clinque high defination lashes. I personally mix up drug store brand, and high end brands all the time especially when i am short cash.

And the best tip go to the outlets where there is makeupstores and you can get stuff so cheap. I got a mac skin finisher for 12 dollars instead of the usual 25. A big bottle of ralph lauren perfume $#25

posted by mrsPILATI

Aug 05, 2009 2:50PM

#12 is right on with his/her theory. I for 1 SWEAR by lash blast. It is amazing what it does for my lashes. 1-2 coats and I look like I have amazing thick falsies on.

posted by nadienne

Aug 05, 2009 3:26PM

You know, at least they're being honest about it. Although it does remind me of those imitation perfumes that say things like "Like Clinique Happy? You'll love our Joyous!" which isn't necessarily a good association.

Also, I'm not usually a big fan of Drew in the Cover Girl ads, but she looks great here.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 3:58PM

exactly! it's not so much that CG is so much more affordable, or even better. that's not it. it's the fact that they pinpoint specifically the brand of their competitors. i've never seen that for any coca cola commercial before, saying, "try our soda, it's better than pepsi!" there are no "names" involved.

i don't know if it's a DIRECT attack, but it sure as heck is a slap in the face for lancome and dior.

eh, whatever.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 8:51PM

Right or wrong, it got all of you talking about CoverGirl, didn't it? Mission accomplished!

posted by guest

Aug 06, 2009 10:46AM

actually 18, recently the soda companies have been pinpointing their competitors. It used to be the faded logo that could mirror the opposition, but in the past few months, you see direct mentions.....

perhaps cosmetics is taking the leap to play with the big boys