Competitor Composition Attack

“A can of condensed milk is about half milk and half sugar. The sugar is added — from 40 to 50 per cent — both to cheapen and preserve it. Paying a Double Price for Sugar.”

A 1900s milk advertiser breaks down a can of a rival's condensed milk to show how much of it is added sugar.

Why it’s this techniqueThe move dismantles the rival product into its constituents, reporting that a can is 'about half milk and half sugar' and that the filler exists 'both to cheapen and preserve it,' so the buyer is 'Paying a Double Price for Sugar.' The indictment lands on what the thing is made of, not on its brand or its advertising. The structural tell is the composition audit itself: the copy quantifies the makeup and treats that ratio as the charge, converting an ingredient breakdown into an accusation that the competing product shortchanges you on the thing you actually want.

“Some hamburger places give you a lot less beef on a lot of bun. At Wendy's, we serve a hamburger we modestly call a single. And Wendy's single has more beef than the Whopper or Big Mac. At Wendy's you get more beef and less bun.”

A burger chain measures its patty against named big-name rivals to expose how much of their sandwich is bun.

Why it’s this techniqueThe copy builds its case by measuring its own product against named rivals on a single physical dimension, meat volume: 'Wendy's single has more beef than the Whopper or Big Mac.' It first frames the competitor product as deficient, 'a lot less beef on a lot of bun,' then plants its own item directly on top of that gap, 'more beef and less bun.' The structural tell is the explicit naming of competing products, the Whopper and Big Mac, coupled with a like-for-like quantity contrast rather than a general boast about quality. The whole passage is engineered around the rival comparison; the modest 'single' framing only sets up the punch that follows.

“do you think your razor needs a vibrating handle, a flashlight, a back scratcher and 10 blades?”

A subscription razor brand mocks the pile of gimmick features loaded onto expensive brand-name razors.

Why it’s this techniqueThe move itemizes what the rival product is made of and lets the inventory indict it. Reading the razor as a stack of 'a vibrating handle, a flashlight, a back scratcher and 10 blades' recomposes it as a pile of gratuitous parts, so its bloat becomes self-evident without an explicit insult. The structural tell is the escalating component list bolted onto a single object, each entry more absurd than the last, ending on the tellingly inflated '10 blades'. The rhetorical-question wrapper ('do you think your razor needs') only stages the reveal; the persuasive load sits in the itemized composition itself, which is what the copy is built to expose.

“"Made with beef" can mean just 3% beef.”

A fresh pet-food brand reveals how little real meat a 'made with beef' label can legally contain.

Why it’s this techniqueThe copy quotes a rival's own label language, '"Made with beef,"' then detonates the gap between the phrase and its floor, 'can mean just 3% beef,' recasting an appetizing claim as near-empty. the structural tell is that the attack targets what the competing product is literally built from, its formulation, and turns the ingredient boast into an indictment by exposing the percentage the label conceals. It does not attack price, service, or reputation; it dismantles the recipe itself. The preceding line, 'Foods can hide behind misleading bags,' sets the frame, but the move the copy is built around is the composition reveal that follows.

“They'll give you - and I'm not exaggerating-as little as ONE TENTH of the amount you need to get any improvement or protection, and they have the nerve to call their formula a 'vision solution.'”

A supplement mailer accuses rival eye formulas of dosing the active ingredient at a fraction of the useful amount.

Why it’s this techniqueThe copy assaults a rival product's makeup by quantifying its shortfall: it delivers 'as little as ONE TENTH of the amount you need to get any improvement or protection,' then jeers that they 'have the nerve to call their formula a vision solution.' The strike lands on the composition itself, the dose inside the bottle, not on price, service, or brand name. The scorn in 'they have the nerve' could pass for plain ridicule, but every barb rides on the underdosing charge, making the attack on what the competitor actually puts in the bottle the move the copy is built around.

“Many bottled water brands are just processed municipal tap water in plastic bottles.”

A canned-water brand tells buyers that many bottled waters are just repackaged municipal tap water.

Why it’s this techniqueThe move indicts the whole rival category by exposing what it is allegedly made of: 'Many bottled water brands' are recast as 'just processed municipal tap water in plastic bottles.' The word 'just' shrinks the category to a cheap substrate, reframing rivals as repackaged tap water rather than a premium product. The structural tell is that the attack targets the competitors' composition and sourcing, not their price, ethics, or founder. It names an entire class of brands and reduces them to their ingredient and packaging, so the reader distrusts the category before any alternative is offered. That composition-level teardown is the beat the copy is built around.