Like Brands, Only Cheaper

Read the campaign story

Aldi’s Like Brands campaign began in 2011, using ordinary people and straightforward comparisons between familiar brands and Aldi alternatives. Prolific North’s retrospective confirms the launch year and McCann Manchester’s role. Marketing Week’s contemporary reporting documents the well-known tea execution, in which a woman explains her husband’s preferences before revealing that she personally prefers gin. The joke sits inside a clear value proposition.

The format did not require a polished celebrity endorsement or an elaborate setting. Two products established the comparison, and the speaker’s unexpected final preference gave the scene personality. Repeated executions could vary the person and category while preserving the underlying structure. This platform is distinct from Aldi’s later Kevin the Carrot storytelling, which uses a different character world and seasonal role.

Editorial reading: Simplicity can reduce the perceived risk of considering an unfamiliar own-label product. A familiar comparison supplies orientation, while a human aside keeps the message from sounding like a price spreadsheet. The humour works because it briefly departs from the expected sales script. That departure should support memorability without making the comparison itself vague or misleading.

Comparative advertising requires current substantiation. Products may differ in quantity, formulation, quality or promotion status, so a low price alone does not establish equivalence. Any adaptation should state the basis and date of comparison clearly. The gin joke also demonstrates the need to consider audience interpretation: the contemporary article reports complaints and their rejection, but that historical ruling is not blanket permission for unrelated alcohol messaging.

A small retailer can test a fair comparison between two genuinely comparable offers. Show the relevant specifications and price basis, then add a modest human observation that does not distort the facts. Ask viewers what they believe is equivalent, what differs and which price they remember. Revise if entertainment causes them to infer a broader quality guarantee than the evidence supports.

The sources establish the campaign’s continuity and a specific execution, not a controlled sales effect. Later revival details are used only to corroborate the platform’s history. The useful lesson is to combine a clear, evidence-based comparison with a recognisable human voice. A repeatable format can make value easier to discuss, provided the underlying facts remain accurate as products, prices and audience expectations change.

Substantiate equivalence

Compare like quantities and relevant attributes.

Keep humour secondary to clarity

The joke should not distort the offer.

Refresh comparison facts

Prices and products change over time.

A small test for another brief

Editorial reading of the challenge: how to combine a clear substantiated comparison with an ordinary human voice and a small comic deviation.

Accurate price and attribute recall.

Stop if the comparison is outdated or implies unsupported quality equivalence.

• Verify comparable offers and current prices.
• Write a plain comparison with a modest human aside.
• Test what equivalence viewers infer.