http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.

com/2010-03-02/news/27605814_1_p-g-s-tide-rin-tidenaturals

Rin washes rivalry linen with Tide in public through new TV ad

Omkar Sapre & Rajiv Banerjee, ET Bureau Mar 2, 2010, 03.03am IST

PUNE/MUMBAI: The gloves are off, and it seems a bare-knuckle fight between consumer product majors Hindustan Unilever and Procter & Gamble is inevitable in the market. HUL has landed the first punch on Cincinnati-headquartered P&G on air, in front of millions of viewers on primetime television. In the first move of its kind by HUL, the latest on-air communication of homecare brand Rin has openly taken on rival P&G's Tide, without the typical airbrushing or pixellation to hide the rival brand name on TV. The Rin washing powder commercial, which went on air on Friday, claims to be a better quality product in comparison to Tide. The visual clearly shows a variant of Tide, Tide Naturals, shown against Rin with the audio saying 'Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin' (Rin gives better whiteness than Tide). Within a day of its going on air, the campaign has landed up in court. A source at HUL said its rival has gone to court and everyone at HUL has been asked not to speak about the ad. "I have not even seen the advertisement," said a person in the sales team handling Rin's marketing. "But we have been told not to comment on anything."

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-04-22/news/27577390_1_rin-hulcontempt-petition

Now, HUL files contempt plea against P&G

Namrata Singh, TNN Apr 22, 2010, 08.37am IST

Tags:

y y

P&G | HUL

MUMBAI: What started as a bitter laundry advertising war between arch rivals Hindustan Unilever (HUL) and Procter & Gamble India (P&G) has now extended way beyond that turf. HUL has moved a contempt petition in the Calcutta High Court against Procter & Gamble (P&G), alleging that the latter made ''incorrect'' and ''misleading'' interpretation of the court's order in a media release dated March 5, 2010. In the contempt petition moved on March 30 a copy of which is in TOI's possession HUL has said that ''the contemnors (P&G) despite having knowledge of the true purport of the order dated 5th March, 2010, have made false and incorrect statements that the order states that the Rin advertisement is misleading and the comparison made by HUL in their Rin advertisement is false and incorrect.'' The Rin commercial, which was launched on February 26, directly hit out at P&G's Tide Naturals with a claim that Rin was better than Tide. The ad was pulled off air eight days later, after the Calcutta high court issued an ad interim order restraining the company from airing the commercial.

According to latest news report, the Calcutta High Court has restrained HUL from airing the controversial campaign against Tide. HUL has been given 72 hours to comply with the order (Source)

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-03-20/news/28477375_1_tide-naturals-rin-hul

Rin advertisement stings Tide with high viewership

Namrata Singh, TNN Mar 20, 2010, 11.08am IST

MUMBAI: The verdict is out on the impact created by the controversial Rin television commercial which directly compared Rin and Tide on the audience. It seems to have achieved what it set out to do in the first place. According to the latest data from TAM, which measures television viewership, the Rin commercial clocked 1,431 GRPs (gross rating points) during the eight days when it was on air. This, according to industry experts, is outstanding when compared to what a product commercial would clock on an average in a week's time. During this period, GRPs registered by Tide (and Tide Naturals) was 181. Telecom which attracts highest GRPs, typically clocks somewhere around 300 per week.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-03-04/news/27570227_1_tide-naturals-lemonand-chandan-rin

Tide Naturals contains no 'natural' ingredients: P&G

Ratna Bhushan, ET Bureau Mar 4, 2010, 12.34am IST

Tags:

y y

Unilever | Procter & Gamble

NEW DELHI: Call it a low tide; just days after its main rival Hindustan Unilever unleashed an open 'Rin is better than Tide' campaign, Procter & Gamble (P&G) has had to admit that its low-priced detergent brand Tide Naturals contains no "natural" ingredients. In a simultaneous development, P&G is learnt to have filed a case in the Calcutta High Court against HUL's ad campaign. In an affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court recently, P&G said that its entry-level detergent brand contains only natural fragrances (lemon and chandan) and no natural ingredients as suggested by its name.

"One of the features of 'Tide Naturals' is the addition of synthetic compounds to bring out the fresh smell of lime and sandal," said P&G in th e affidavit submitted in response to a suit filed by HUL on February 25.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-03-04/news/27582653_1_tide-naturals-rin-adlemon-and-chandan

HUL, P&G row over detergent ad hots up

PTI Mar 4, 2010, 07.08pm IST

NEW DELHI: The war between FMCG giants Hindustan Unileverand Procter & Gamble intensified with the two seeking legal redressal alleging foul play on detergent powder advertisements. ( Watch ) HUL, which has been asked by advertising watchdog ASCI to respond to complaints of "disparaging" the rival product Tide in its Rin ad, got a boost from an order by Madras High Court directing P&G to modify its Tide ad. Meanwhile, P&G moved Calcutta High Court yesterday against HUL for putting out a "disparaging" advertisement against Tide. "We are aware of the disparaging advertisement on air against Tide Naturals and have filed a case against the same," a Procter and Gamble spokesperson said.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.co m/2010-04-30/news/27619947_1_tidenaturals-lemon-and-chandan-hulspokespersonDelete parts of Tide ad: HC to P&G

TNN Apr 30, 2010, 08.52am IST

Tags:

y y

tide| Procter & Gamble

MUMBAI: The Madras high court, in an interim order pronounced on Thursday in an open court, has directed Procter & Gamble (P&G ) to further modify its Tide Naturals television advertisement by deleting scenes that depict that the product contains natural chandan (sandalwood) and lemon. The scene in question shows a woman grinding sandalwood and cutting lemon. After prolonged hearings over the past few days, the high court also asked P&G to carry a disclaimer in all frames of the commercial that it 'does not contain lemon and chandan'. The court has directed P&G to implement these modifications in the ad by May 3. Based on a March 1 order by the same court,

P&G had modified the commercial to add a disclaimer that the product does not contain natural ingredients like lemon and chandan. A P&G spokesperson said in a statement: '' We are pleased with the interim order of the Madras high court that has not accepted the contention of HUL (Hindustan Unilever) to modify the Tide Naturals brand name or packaging in any way. The interim court order further allows us to continue the airing of our Tide Naturals commercial with certain modifications.''

The high decibel comparative ad of Rin generated huge buzz in the market. The direct comparative campaign evoked mixed reaction across the media. That single controversial ad generated crores worth of buzz about the brands in question.

The current high profile aggressive stand of Rin has a background story. There was a proxy war going on between Rin and Tide since December 2009. During December, P&G launched the low priced variant of Tide branded Tide Naturals. Tide Naturals was priced significantly lower to the Rin. Tide Naturals was launched at Rs 50 per Kg , Rs 10 for 200 gms and Rs 20 for400 gms. Rin was priced at Rs 70 per Kg at that time.

The reduced price of the Tide variant was an immediate threat to Rin. Since Tide already has an established brand equity, Rin was bound to face the heat. Although HUL had another low priced brand Wheel priced at Rs 32/Kg, Tide was not in the same category of Wheel.

Rin had to cut the price to resist the market share erosion. As discussed elsewhere in the blog, HUL was facing a steady erosion in the market share in most of the categories. In the detergent category itself, the brand faced a market share fall of

2.5% in December 2009. With P&G starting a price war, HUL had to react and it did by cutting the price of Rin by 30% to Rs 50 per Kg. (Source ) .

HUL also reacted to the Tide Natural's price war in a ' Guerrilla Marketing ' way. It took P&G to the court regarding the Tide Natural's advertisement. The contention was that Tide Naturals was giving the impression to the consumers that it contained natural ingredients like Sandal. The court ordered P&G to modify the campaign and P&G had to admit that Tide Naturals did not contain any Natural ingredients. ( another example of a brand swaying over to unethical marketing practices).

While P&G opened a war in the price front, HUL retaliated by opening two war fronts. One was the direct comparative ad and other through the court order asking P&G to modify Tide Naturals Ad and to admit that Tide Naturals is not ' Natural'.

I think that it was Rin which won the Round 1 of this war. It generated enough Buzz about the brand with all the media talking about the campaign. Rin was also able to neutralize the aggression of P&G to certain extent.

Tide chose not to respond because further fuel to the fight can highlight the fact that Tide Naturals does not contain any 'Natural Ingredients " which may negatively affect the brand's standing in the consumer's mind. So it is better to play the role of a " poor" victim at this point of time.

P&G can celebrate because of the free advertisement it got for Tide Naturals because of the comparative ad of Rin.

It is interesting to see the academic angle of this concept called Comparative advertising. From my little digging of information, it was evident that the academic research is also clueless about the effectiveness of comparative advertising. There are

enough evidence to prove that comparative ads work better than non-comparative ads and vice versa. So academicians are as clueless as the practitioners in this regard.

According to academic literature, Comparative ads are those ads which involves directly or indirectly naming competitors in an ad and comparing one or more attributes in an advertising medium ( Alan T. Shao, Yeqing Bao, and Elizabeth Gray,Comparative Advertising Effectiveness:A Cross-Cultural Study Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Fall 2004)

There are two broad types of comparative ads. One is the Direct comparative ads which compares the competitor in more than one attribute. The second type is the Indirect comparative ad which projects the brand as the Leading Brand rather than comparing on certain attributes.

In the marketing world ( globally) comparative ads are commonly used across categories. Some of the relevant observations regarding comparative ads are given below.

Comparative ads are perceived to be beneficial to the consumers since more information is provided to him by the competitors. Comparative ads are encouraged in certain markets like USA by the regulators because it increases transparency and provides more information to consumers.

The comparative ads generally result in counter arguments which often creates such a noise that it discounts the original argument/information. Consumers tend to discount the claims by both the competing brand because of the arguments.

Comparative advertising strategy is more effective for smaller brands rather than established large brands. By challenging a larger brand through comparative ad , the small brands tend to derive more acceptance and awareness than the larger brand.

Comparative ads are found to be more effective for categories where consumers tend to use their analytical mind. Comparative ads tend to fail where consumers use imagery while evaluating the brands. For example, products like automobiles use comparative ads extensively and with effectiveness. There are also studies which shows that male consumers are more attracted towards comparative ads compared to female consumers.

Although Indian marketing world have seen lot of comparative ads, the current Rin Vs Tide is a rare case of direct comparative ad where the brand has t aken the competitor brand's name and challenging it head on. That is the main reason behind the media noise about the campaign.

P&G India always was a laid back competitor in the FMCG market . Despite having the product portfolio and market strength , it never realized its potential. The company was happy with their minuscule market share in the various categories in the FMCG business . I am not sure whether P&G will react aggressively to the current HUL onslaught and if at all they did ,will it sustain th e fight for long.

This is the first time that HUL has directly compared Tide with Rin. The ad even have the tagline " Rin offers better whiteness than Tide".

According to ET, P&G has took HUL to court over this ad. The ad was timed to coincide with the long weekend so that HUL could play the ad before the Court hearing.

HUL is currently under severe pressure from its aggressive competitors. The market share of most of HUL brands has come down drastically over the last few years. The brands are facing pressure at all price points. Along with the domestic pressure, HUL is facing the heat from the parent Unilever. The Indian operations is under direct scrutiny by the Unilever CEO Paul Polman.

Last year, HUL tried to restructure its brand portfolio and increased the adspend on most of the core brands. But it could not arrest the decline of the shares of some key brands to the competitors like P&G , Godrej and ITC.

This desperation has clearly manifested in the latest ad for Rin. What on earth do a brand like Rin get into a direct comparative spat with its competitor. The ET report mentions that the ad was created because HUL executives feel that Tide is slowly neutralizing the whiteness (point of difference) USP of Rin. Hence Rin is trying to tell the consumers that it has more whitening property than Tide using a direct comparison.

In my personal opinion, Rin chose a wrong way of telling its superiority to the consumer . Last time I saw a direct comparative ad war was between Horlicks and Complan. Horlicks started the direct comparative ad and got a very very aggressive reply from Complan. The current status is that Horlicks stopped the comparative ad and Complan is continuing its aggression against Horlicks. It was an unnecessary move from Horlicks which woke up a laid-back competitor like Complan. I think that in that ad war, Complan won over Horlicks ( not in sales terms but in share of noise ).

The same thing is going to happen with Rin. It is going to lose this war primarily because there was no need for a direct comparison with Tide atleast in the ads. . If you observe the ad, 22 seconds of the 30 second ad is dedicated to Tide alone. That means in around 75% of the time, the ad talks about Tide. Interestingly the ad even mentions the USP of Tide as " It has fragrance and has whitening property". Then the rest of the 8 seconds talks about Rin. So if HUL has blasted some 30 lakh in the current promo, 22.5 lakh of it was spent on promoting Tide. Why should you ever mention your competitor in your ads ???

Watching the ad, one homemaker commented " I never knew Tide and Rin was from the same company, otherwise how can they show these two brands together in the same ad ? " .

The current campaign lacks any long term objectives. The brand is chosing a shortterm path when the issue was a long-term competitive threat.Instead of spending such money on this crap ad, HUL could have run some serious sales promotional campaigns which could have prompted consumers to opt for Rin . It could have filled the retail outlets with Rin POPs. It could have run retailer campaigns to fill the shelves with Rin rather than Tide. HUL still has a huge distribution reach and strength compared to P&G, it could have won the war hands down had it capitalized on the retailer support alone. If Rin was too worried, it could have bought back Big B as the brand ambassador which could have added punch to the tagline " Chamakte Rahna".

Now the outcome of the ad war will be that HUL will be retrained by ASCII or the Court from further playing the ad . It means that Rin had adapted an unethical means against the competitor which will cause an unwarranted blemish on the brand reputation. Second outcome is that it will encourage Tide to be more aggressive in the market. Tide now has been officially and publically acknowledged as the competitor for Rin. Third outcome is that an ad war will start which will benefit the respective advertising agencies and the media.

HUL's Rin versus Tide TV commercial may be headed for the courts. If the case does wind up in litigation, it would be interesting to see how Indian courts react to comparative advertising, says trade mark attorney, Navpreet Panjrath Chance is always powerful. "Let your hook be always cast; in the pool where you least expect it, there will be a fish". It appears that FMCG major HUL has incorporated Ovid's quote in its advertising strategy. The tussle between the big two - P&G and HUL - has been causing ripples in the industry since the launch of its Rin versus Tide comparative advertisement. HUL has been under pressure since quite some time due to the launch of similar products backed by aggressive advertisement by its competitors. The latest conflict appears to have started when P&G introduced its brand Tide washing powder (in orange packaging), which ate into the sales of HUL's Rin washing powder. Observers say HUL tried restructuring its brand portfolio and reduced prices so as to attract middle-class consumers. In order to retain its market share, a couple of months ago P&G introduced a low-cost detergent, Tide Natural, claiming in its ads that it provided "whiteness with special fragrance". The product was positioned against HUL's Rin and Wheel. HUL retaliated with an aggressive two-pronged strategy.
y

First, it challenged Tide's claim of whiteness with special fragrance in the Chennai High Court, which passed an order on 25 February 2010 (CS 189/2010), directing P&G to modify the advertisement since it was not really able to substantiate the claim of "whiteness with special fragrance". The court has granted an injunction and directed P&G to respond within three weeks. Three days later on 28 February, HUL launched an aggressive TV campaign aired during prime time, showing two mothers waiting at a bus stop for their children returning from the school. While waiting together they glance at each other's shopping baskets. One woman's basket has a packet of Rin detergent powder, while the other has a packet of Tide Naturals.

The Tide lady boasts confidently about Tide's khushboo aur safedi bhi (fragrance combined with whiteness) the theme on which the Tide Naturals campaign was based. The Rin lady does not show any reaction but has a beam on her face. Thereafter, the school bus stops and drops off the two children. The child of the woman carrying Tide is wearing a visibly dull shirt, while behind him a boy comes out wearing a spotless white shirt, who runs across the shocked Tide lady towards the mother carrying the Rin packet. Making the advertisement more aggressive, the boy asks his mother, "Aunty chaunk kyun gayi?" ("chaunk" or startle has been used in P&G's earlier punch line) as the ad concludes with a voice-over that Rin is 'behtar' than Tide, when it comes to whiteness and at a chaukanewala price of Rs25.

Contested issue This particular advertisement campaign has provoked debate on comparative advertising. The moot issue is whether HUL's explicit TV commercial of Rin being superior to P&G's Tide amounts to disparagement or is a permitted form of free speech protected under ''commercial speech'' as part of
freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Among different legal tools that govern comparative advertising, the Monopolies of Restrictive Trade Practices, 1984, (MRTP Act) and Trade Marks Act, 1999, (TMA) provide the basic structure for such advertising. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, has incorporated provisions relating to comparative advertising under Sections 29(8) and 30(1). Comparative advertising is permissible subject to certain limitations as to unfair trade practices. The latter is defined under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices, 1969. Though the Act now stands repealed, its provisions continue to stand. Section 29 (8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides certain limitations to comparative advertising, according to which advertising infringes on a trade mark when it:
y y y

takes unfair advantage and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or is detrimental to its distinctive character; or is against the reputation of the trade mark.

Section 30 (1) of the Act read as: ''Nothing in Section 29 shall be preventing the use of registered trademarks by any person with the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the

proprietor, provided the use:

y y

is in accordance with the honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and is not such as to take unfair advantage of or to be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.''

Section 36A of the MRTP Act lists several actions to be an 'unfair trade practice'. For instance, Section 36A (1)(x) reads: ''36A 'unfair trade practice' means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provisions of any services, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation, which (x) gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.'' ASCI's stand The Advertising Standards Council of India has also laid down a specific code of conduct for self-regulation in advertising, with the sole aim of regulating the content of advertisements. Chapter 1 of the Standards of Conduct not only deals with the honesty of representation, but also deals with misleading advertisements as well. It lays down the following criterion: 1. Advertisements must be truthful. All descriptions, claims and comparisons which relate to matters of objectively ascertainable fact should be capable of substantiation. Advertisers and advertising agencies are required to produce such substantiation as and when called upon to do so by The Advertising Standards Council of India. 2. Where advertising claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. 3. Advertisements shall not, without permission from the person, firm or institution under reference, contain any reference to such person, firm or institution which confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised or tends to bring the person, firm or institution into ridicule or disrepute. If and when required to do so by the Advertising Standards Council of India, the advertiser and the advertising agency shall produce explicit permission from the person, firm or institution to which reference is made in the advertisement.

4. Advertisements shall neither distort facts nor mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Advertisements shall not contain statements or visual presentation which directly or by implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer about the product advertised or the advertiser or about any other product or advertiser. 5. Advertisements shall not be so framed as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. There are two debatable issues in this advertisement:
y

The advertisement clearly shows a packet of Tide Naturals, which has green packaging and is a cheaper extension of Tide, which orange packaging) whereas the woman in the commercial says 'Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin' (Rin gives better whiteness than Tide)- Does this amount to misleading the public as per the Indian Law? At the end of the advertisement, a line is displayed on the bottom stating that ''this claim is based on laboratory tests done through globally accepted protocols in independent third-party laboratories' and Schematic representation of superior whiteness is based on Whiteness Index test of Rin Vs Tide Naturals as tested by Independent lab" . The challenge is whether the present statement(s) can be substantiated by way of evidence and if yes, whether such tests if conducted by any independent laboratory continue to be the same.

Though P&G might seek a legal remedy, HUL appears to have enjoyed its share of colorful Holi by taking advantage of the long weekend during which its commercial was aired. If the case does wind up in litigation, it would be interesting to see how Indian courts react to this form of advertising. As a lawyer, my view is that any judgement by a court will be critically important when weighing the prospects of successful trade mark infringement action against comparative advertisements. It appears that P&G views its rival's latest commercial as a great lie and is acting like a big fish on dry land; it may fret and fling and make a frightful bother, but it cannot hurt you. You have only to keep still, and it will die of itself. (The author is a Delhi-based trade mark lawyer with intellectual property rights firm, K&S Partners, Gurgaon)