The Direct Response Playbook

When direct response is the right choice

Direct response means meeting a competitor's move head on, on the same ground. It costs effort and invites a reply, so it should be kept for situations where all of the following are true:

• The move is in your core. It touches products, services or searches that bring you a meaningful share of revenue or enquiries.
• Customers compare you directly. Buyers weigh the two of you side by side, which you can confirm from sales conversations, lost-deal notes, reviews or comparison searches in Search Console.
• You can compete credibly. On the dimensions buyers care about, you are at least as good for a clear group of customers. If you cannot honestly say that, differentiation is the better playbook.
• There is evidence of impact, or a clear deadline. A rival page now outranking you, a launch customers are asking about, or a campaign aimed at your customers.

If any of these is missing, one of the other two playbooks usually fits better. When the rival is moving somewhere you do not want to follow, or trying to win on something you cannot match, the differentiation playbook applies. When the move is unproven or off your core, the ignore playbook applies. Choosing direct response by default, for every alert, turns your marketing into a running argument with one company.

The moves in the playbook

Direct response is a small set of moves, not a single tactic. Pick only those that fit the threat.

Most situations call for two or three of these, not all six. A new rival page outranking you might need only the stronger contested page. A launch aimed squarely at your customers might need a comparison page, staff briefing and retention outreach.

The rules on comparing yourself with a rival in the UK

Naming a competitor in marketing is lawful in the UK, but it has to meet conditions. In broad terms, a comparison should:

• not be misleading, including by leaving out information a buyer needs;
• compare products or services that meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose;
• objectively compare features that are material, relevant, verifiable and representative, which can include price;
• not discredit or denigrate the competitor, its trade marks or its products;
• not create confusion between you and the competitor, or take unfair advantage of its reputation;
• not present your product as an imitation or replica of a product under a protected trade mark or name.

These principles come from the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 and are reflected in the CAP Code, which the Advertising Standards Authority applies to marketing on your own website as well as to adverts. Consumer protection law also applies to claims made to consumers; the unfair commercial practices rules in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 replaced the earlier 2008 regulations in 2025. Using a rival's trade mark to identify its product in an honest comparison is generally treated differently from using it in a way that suggests a connection. This is not legal advice. For claims that matter commercially, take advice from a solicitor or use the CAP advice service.

Building a fair comparison page

A good comparison page helps a buyer choose, even if the choice is the rival. That honesty is what makes readers trust the rest of the page, and it keeps you on the right side of the rules.

Structure that works

1. A short, direct summary. Two or three sentences saying who each option suits best. Readers and AI assistants both tend to use this part.
2. A dated comparison table. Features that buyers actually care about, with plain values. State the date the rival's details were checked.
3. Where each option is stronger. Include at least one genuine point in the rival's favour. If you cannot find one, you probably do not understand their customers yet.
4. Price explained fairly. Compare like with like: the same plan level, the same billing period, with or without VAT on both sides.
5. What switching involves. Honest detail about time, cost and effort.
6. Sources. Link to the rival's own pricing and feature pages so readers can check.

A fair comparison table

<table>
  <caption>Harbour Books and Rival Ledger compared (checked 28 September 2026)</caption>
  <thead><tr><th></th><th>Harbour Books</th><th>Rival Ledger</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr><th>Monthly price, 3 users, ex VAT</th><td>£24</td><td>£19</td></tr>
    <tr><th>Phone support</th><td>Weekdays 8am to 6pm</td><td>Email only on this plan</td></tr>
    <tr><th>Bank feeds</th><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
    <tr><th>Best for</th><td>Firms that want phone help</td><td>Lowest monthly cost</td></tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

Both businesses in the example are fictional. Notice that the rival wins on price and the table says so plainly. That is what makes the support row believable.

Where to publish it

• WordPress: a standard page, not a blog post, with an address such as /compare/rival-ledger/, linked from your pricing page.
• Shopify: a page under Online Store, linked from the footer or relevant collection, so it does not interrupt the buying flow.
• Custom or static sites: a dedicated route with the table in the server-rendered HTML, not injected by script.

Alternatives pages without the thin content

An alternatives page targets people who already use, or are considering, the rival and are looking for other options. It is legitimate when it genuinely helps those people, and it becomes a problem when it is a thin page whose only purpose is to appear for the rival's name.

• Start with why people look for alternatives. Common reasons, drawn from public reviews and your own sales conversations, give the page substance.
• Be specific about fit. Say which of those reasons you address well, and which you do not.
• Consider listing more than yourself. A page that honestly lists two or three alternatives, including you, is more useful and more credible than a page that lists only you.
• Avoid a page per rival with swapped names. Near-identical pages with only the competitor's name changed look like doorway pages to search engines and to readers.

The fix, step by step

Brand search cover and retention in more detail

When a rival bids on your name

Advertisers can generally bid on a competitor's brand name as a keyword. Google's trade mark policy restricts the use of trade marks in ad text in response to a complaint from the owner, but in the UK it does not generally restrict their use as keywords. You can check what appears for your brand name by searching it in a private window from a UK location.

A brand campaign of your own means your paid result appears above theirs. Whether it is worth paying for depends on how much of that traffic you would win anyway through your organic listing. Test it: run the campaign for a few weeks, then pause it for a similar period and compare total enquiries from brand searches. If total enquiries barely change, the campaign is mostly buying clicks you already had.

Keeping customers the rival is targeting

• Talk to your most valuable customers first, before they receive a switching offer.
• Ask what would make them consider leaving, and fix what you can.
• Remind them of what they would lose, such as history, integrations or a named contact, without disparaging the rival.
• Offer something specific and earned, such as training or a longer contract at a fixed price, rather than an unconditional discount.

Common mistakes that turn direct response against you

• Comparing against an old version. The rival changes prices and you do not notice. The page is now misleading.
• Choosing the flattering comparison. Comparing your top plan with their cheapest, or a monthly price with an annual one.
• Hiding the rival's strengths. Readers notice, trust drops, and the page converts worse.
• Attacking the company. Comments about the rival's staff, finances or reputation add risk and no value.
• Treating every alert as a battle. Direct response is expensive. Most alerts belong to the ignore or differentiation playbooks.
• Launching without an owner. Comparison pages need upkeep. If nobody owns the review date, the page will go stale.