One-off? Or here to stay?

In today's digital environment, it is impossible to fool consumers with tall claims. Try doing this and your brand will face the music on the social media platform. I see the recent tug of war between Reckitt Benckiser and HUL-both of which are leaders in different categories-as fodder for entertainment so far as the consumer is concerned, and not as great advertising strategy. By and large, consumers do not like brands that adopt an offensive tone or denigrate rivals, especially when this is done as part of the launch strategy. It is not a good idea to be aggressive or combative in your launch commercial. While a brand engaging in such tactics may see a spurt in sales for a short period, no long-term sales and brand building objective will be achieved. It is worse when two market leaders engage in such brand wars and wash dirty linen in public. Look at what has happened in the case of Dettol and Vim. Both these brands are used in Indian households as germ fighters. Comparing the two brands is like drawing a comparison between Sachin Tendulkar and Mahendra Singh Dhoni who excel in different things but share a common passion for cricket. There should be solid ground for brand communication. Comparative advertising can never be part of long-term brand strategy. At the same time, reeling under the constant pressure of delivering numbers, marketers feel compelled to use such tactics for eyeballs. Even while advertising their products, marketers have to do what is legal and what is morally correct. Comparative advertising should always be in right taste. If one has to engage in comparative advertising, it is best to make one's point and leave. For instance, in a bid to steal the show from Coca-Cola, the official sponsor for cricket World Cup 1996, Pepsi launched the 'Nothing official about it' campaign. This is one of the best examples of guerilla marketing. Then in 2000, Pepsi received a lot of flak over its commercial, depicting Shah Rukh Khan defeating his opponent (a Hrithik Roshan look-alike) to win over a girl. (In this case, Pepsi ended up attacking the rival's ambassador and not the rival brand.) Earlier, if one toothpaste brand had clove as the main ingredient, it took quite some time for the competitor to replicate the product benefit. These days, technological innovations by a category leader in product or packaging can be replicated by the competitor quickly, at times even overnight. So it is important to know what your brand stands for. Consumers are not simply looking at the brand but trying to understand the role it can play in their lives. They prefer a brand that is close to their value system. Tata Tea comes to my mind when I think of brands with values. It is not the brand's flavour or colour that is highlighted in its ads. The long running Jaago Re campaign urges every Indian to stand up and make a difference. If you extend the logic to the ad industry, you will see that every agency has a custodian for its creative product-they all have chief creative officers or national creative directors. The creative head's personality is reflected in the agency's value system and that is its key differentiator. KV Sridhar NCD, Leo Burnett The latest tug of war between Dettol and Vim establishes that comparative advertising has become part of the marketer's brand-building strategy. Today, the fine line between tactic and strategy is blurring. In fact, some brands

are actively incorporating such combative tendencies into their DNA. Let us try and understand this by studying what happened recently between Reckitt Benckiser and HUL. Dettol kitchen dishwash launched the first salvo and attacked segment leader Vim by claiming it gets rid of germs more effectively. It was a wake-up call for HUL, the maker of Vim, which probably did not anticipate any threat from a rival brand. Reckitt Benckiser poked the market leader and was lucky to get an instant response from it as HUL moved court. It also retaliated on television and in print. In fact, HUL chose to hit back at its rival by deploying another brand from its portfolio - Lifebouy. Claiming to have been issued in public interest, the ad stated that according to tests by an independent laboratory, the soap is a more effective germ protector than the rival's antiseptic liquid brand, Dettol. To demonstrate this, the ad showed a dish divided right down the middle. The half that has been cleaned with Dettol has more residual germs. Various asterisks lead to a footnote that said that the comparison relates to effectiveness when used in bathing "as per dilution norms specified on the Dettol antiseptic liquid bottle: 1 teaspoon in a bucket of water". My point is, the whole talk of public interest is a big farce. Conscience is irrelevant in marketing in India. The aim of marketing is to create brand persona and franchise. My hunch is that after the controversy, HUL has doubled its media spends. By abstaining from further combat, Reckitt Benckiser has been able to control its media budget. HUL will not gain much if it continues on this path. Of course, the chain of incidents explained above has resulted in category expansion. Brand wars are fought on two fronts: back-end (court rooms) and front-end (consumer homes). Had HUL not responded with a counter communication strategy, Reckitt might have stopped harping on its claim. It is better to punch and run away than hanging out to take on more. The executives at HUL are in a Catch-22 situation. If they had not reacted, people would have accused them of weak brand management. However, now that Reckitt has created awareness about its dishwash brand, the company should look for a bigger communication plank. It is crucial for companies to take lessons from what has happened, especially companies with philosophies that prevent them from indulging in brand wars. During my stint at HUL, the company's marketing function was divided into two parts: brand strategy and brand activation. While the brand strategy team looked into long-term objectives, the other team took care of fulfilling short-term marketing goals. The consumer is promiscuous and marketers cannot afford to repulse her with boring advertising. On the other hand, taking the rival head on is not always a great idea. The marketer runs the risk of alienating the die-hard consumer. My suggestion would be that since consumers are switching brands constantly, marketers need to make fundamental changes in their communication strategy, think long term and avoid costly skirmishes. Harish Bijoor Brand expert & CEO, Harish Bijoor consults