“The wider world tends to have allergic reactions to ‘controlled opposition’”—I am unsure. In Poland, one of the most popular marketing campaigns is when one grocery chain is trashing the other—obviously this has been agreed, and Lidl is not suing Biedronka, or Biedronka Lidl, and people really love it :) BMW vs. Audi, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola—also did well globally. So I am unsure if what you say is correct.
Regardless, the underlying competition in these adversarial advertising campaigns is genuine: Pepsi and Coke (e.g.) want each other’s market share for themselves. Here things seem more like two parties A & B collude where B poses as a competitor to A, intending the subsequent playfight between them to be in both A & B’s mutual advantage (at least that is what Farmkind intended, notwithstanding they flubbed both the ‘collude with A’ and ‘mutually advantageous playfight’ steps of the plan).
I think most countries antitrust regulators (etc.) would raise an eyebrow at this sort of thing. I am sure it is generally regarded as a dirty trick in the marketplace of ideas (cf. I pay a fellow vegan to build up a media presence as an anti-vegan advocate, only to sandbag in a public debate with me where I trounce them, and publicly convert (back) to veganism).
“The wider world tends to have allergic reactions to ‘controlled opposition’”—I am unsure. In Poland, one of the most popular marketing campaigns is when one grocery chain is trashing the other—obviously this has been agreed, and Lidl is not suing Biedronka, or Biedronka Lidl, and people really love it :) BMW vs. Audi, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola—also did well globally. So I am unsure if what you say is correct.
Given Lidl literally sued Biedronka to get bailiffs to seize advertising billboards by Beidronka against them in 2024, and the price war between the chains, I don’t see many signs of agreement or kayfabe in this competition.
Regardless, the underlying competition in these adversarial advertising campaigns is genuine: Pepsi and Coke (e.g.) want each other’s market share for themselves. Here things seem more like two parties A & B collude where B poses as a competitor to A, intending the subsequent playfight between them to be in both A & B’s mutual advantage (at least that is what Farmkind intended, notwithstanding they flubbed both the ‘collude with A’ and ‘mutually advantageous playfight’ steps of the plan).
I think most countries antitrust regulators (etc.) would raise an eyebrow at this sort of thing. I am sure it is generally regarded as a dirty trick in the marketplace of ideas (cf. I pay a fellow vegan to build up a media presence as an anti-vegan advocate, only to sandbag in a public debate with me where I trounce them, and publicly convert (back) to veganism).