When you can name a competitor in Philippine ads

Naming a competitor in a Philippine ad is bounded but possible. The ASC Code allows direct, branded comparison in a defined list of product categories. Outside that list, you can still compare — but only indirectly, with strict qualifiers, and with third- party substantiation that holds up to scrutiny.

Direct vs indirect comparison

Direct comparison identifies the competitor by name, brand, or visually unmistakable cue. Indirect comparison describes a competitive position without naming or visually identifying any specific competitor.

Both are allowed under different rules. Direct comparison is restricted to specific categories. Indirect comparison is permitted broadly with the right substantiation and qualifiers.

Where direct comparison is allowed

Article V Section 4(b) of the Code allows direct, branded comparison only in categories with clear, definite, measurable technical benchmarks:

• Automotive vehicles (excluding automotive products like lubricants).
• Consumer durables — appliances, audio-visual equipment, electronic gadgets.
• Airlines' aircraft and shipping lines' ships.
• Musical instruments and entertainment devices/equipment.
• Mobile products — cellular handsets, tablets, laptops, netbooks.

Outside these categories, direct comparison is generally not permitted. A shampoo brand cannot run "Brand X is 30% more moisturizing than Brand Y" with Brand Y identified. A snack brand cannot show a labelled competitor pack on screen.

Even where direct comparison is allowed, the rules tighten

When direct comparison is permitted, the Code still requires:

• Clear identification of both products without disparaging or degrading the competitor's logo, slogan, or registered marks.
• For "before / after" comparisons: truthfulness, factual accuracy, no exaggeration, and prominent citation of the specific time elapsed between the two situations.
• Substantiation from third-party data, not internal testing alone.

Indirect comparison: the broader path

Indirect comparison is allowed across all categories provided it does not use features that could identify a competitor. Visual or auditory cues, colours, symbols, slogans, titles, or statements that consumers would associate with a specific brand are off-limits.

Where a competitor brand could be identified despite indirect framing (the orange and yellow palette of a category leader, a distinctive sound), the brand making the comparison would need to submit an independent third-party consumer study showing the association did not in fact occur. That is a difficult standard.

The qualifier matters

Indirect comparative claims must be properly qualified as to what the comparison is against. Examples from the Code:

• vs another brand
• vs previous formulation (limited to one year from launch of the new formulation)

"Cleans better" alone fails. "Cleans better vs another leading powder detergent" with third-party research backing the claim succeeds. The qualifier sets the comparator the consumer can understand and the committee can verify against.

"Vs non-use"

Where the comparison is to non-use of the product (rather than another brand), no "vs non-use" qualifier is required —unless the category has high penetration (defined as "ever tried"), in which case "vs non-use" is not allowed. Toothpaste cannot claim "whitens 3x more than non-use" because nearly everyone uses toothpaste.

Substantiation: the standard

Comparative claims need third-party data. Acceptable forms include:

• Quantitative consumer research from an accredited research firm (not your own brand tracker).
• Clinical, scientific, or laboratory tests by accredited third parties.
• Retail volume and value data from independent panels for sales-based claims.

Qualitative research is not accepted as substantiation. Focus groups, ethnographic studies, and in-depth interviews can shape the brief — they cannot back a comparative claim.

What disparagement looks like

Even where direct comparison is allowed, the Code prohibits denigrating, ridiculing, or unfairly attacking competitors, competing products, or distinguishing features (layout, copy, slogan, visuals, music, jingles, sound effects). Humour that disparages another brand, product, or service is not allowed.

The line between a sharp comparison and disparagement is contextual. The committee looks at tone, framing, and whether the comparison communicates information or merely belittles.

Showing competitor packaging

Showing a competitor's product or packaging requires either consent from the competitor or visual anonymisation. "Anonymised" means the product is unrecognisable — brand colours masked, logo removed or blurred, distinctive bottle shape obscured. Half-anonymisation (mosaic over the label while the silhouette is still recognisable) usually fails.

Hashtags and digital

Comparative hashtags (#BetterThanBrandX, #1, #LeadingBrand, #UnlikeTheOthers) carry the same comparative-claim treatment as the ad copy. Where a hashtag carries a must-screen claim, the hashtag itself is subject to ASC pre-screening when used in a branded post.

A practical decision tree

1. Is the category one of the five where direct comparison is allowed? If no, go indirect.
2. Is the comparator clearly identifiable (visually, by colour, by slogan)? If yes, treat as direct comparison — get consent or anonymise.
3. Do you have third-party quantitative research backing the comparison? If no, don't make the claim.
4. Is the qualifier present in the creative ("vs another brand," "vs previous formulation")? If no, add it.
5. Is the tone informative rather than belittling? If no, rework.

AdScan flags comparative-claim risks when you upload creative. Try it on your next ad.