Savlon : Heals Without Hurting

Brand : Savlon
Company : Johnson & Johnson
Agency : Lowe Lintas


Brand Analysis Count : 369

Can a brand ,which was proved by laboratory tests as better than its competitor, backed by one of the most reputed business houses in the world, having many product advantages over its competitor, have any chance of failing in the market ?

If your answer is no , then think again ....


Savlon which was clinically proven to be a better antiseptic than Dettol ,backed by Johnson & Johnson ,having advantages like better scent and non-stinging properties miserably failed in the Indian market.

Why ?

Frankly I am also clueless. That is why Marketing as a subject is so intriguing... it is full of surprises. Philip Kotler once said " Marketing is a subject that is easy to (pretend to )unders tand but difficult to practice ".

Looking at Savlon, I wonder whether the success of a brand is depended on sheer luck... Is luck the only reason why out of 100 brands launched, only 5 succeed ?

Is Savlon an unlucky brand ? or Did Johnson & Johnson failed in building this brand ?

Savlon was a brand owned by a pharmaceutical MNC ICI ltd. Later ICI's OTC brands was acquired by Johnson &Johnson . Savlon was relaunched in Indian market in 1993. The brand was expected to give the market leader Dettol, a run for its money. But even after millions of rupees spent , Dettol still rules the antiseptic lotion market.

Savlon had lot of advantages over Dettol. According to media reports, some lab tests indicated that Savlon is an effective germ killer than Dettol . Savlon is effective against both Gram Positive and Gram Negative germs.

Another advantage about Savlon was that it does not sting while being applied on wounds. Dettol used to give a stinging sensation while applied on wounds. Savlon also had a better scent compared to the more clinical smell of Dettol.

Armed with these properties, Savlon went into a direct attack on Dettol . The product was positioned as an antiseptic that does not hurt while healing. The main differentiators for the brand was its no-sting property and better smell. According to media reports, during the relaunch, J&J spent heavily on promoting the brand.
The relaunch was a success and consumers tried out the new product . But the story did not continue like that.

Dettol confronted the frontal attack from Savlon in a different manner. It tried to attack one of the most valuable brand of J&J - Band -Aid by launching Dettol plasters.

This move got J&J defensive. It never expected Dettol to attack another brand in retaliation. Dettol plasters had the potential to attract consumers because of the brand equity commanded by Dettol Antiseptic.

J&J scrambled to protect Band-Aid by launching a series of variants in the medicated plaster segment. In doing so, resources was spent on defending Band-Aid rather than in advancing Savlon.

Savlon suffered heavily because it lost the support interms of investment in brand building. Dettol had a brand equity built over more than 50 years (at that period of time) and it is not an easy task to break into that equity. It needed painful long term sustained investment.

How ever Savlon was pushed to a back burner after Dettol introduced the plaster. Savlon never re-emerged.

During 1998, a funny incident happened. I deliberately used the word funny because it is funny.
In 1998 HLL acquired the rights to launch Savlon Soaps from J&J. While the rights for antiseptic lotion remained with J&J, the marketing alliance was for soaps.

HLL was worried at the success of Dettol soaps. Armed with a strong association with antiseptic property , Dettol soap became a huge success and cornered a significant chunk of the premium medicated soap category. HLL, who wanted to rule the entire soap category ,wanted to arrest the rise of Dettol soap.

Instead of trying to develop its own brand of soap, HLL looked for an easy solution. Thus came the idea of marketing alliance with Savlon. With much fanfare, Savlon antiseptic soap was launched. J&J was happy because it got some cashflow by giving the rights of Savlon.The marketing alliance lasted only for 4 years.

According to reports, HLL put Savlon soap in dustbin in 2003 and repositioned its Lifebuoy brand to fight against Dettol.

So where did Savlon went wrong ?

There are marketing experts who say that the positioning of Savlon was not correct. No-stinging and sweet scent are not important for a consumer looking for an antiseptic lotion. What they look for is effectiveness. Hence Savlon was trying to differentiate on attributes which are not considered to be important by the consumers.

More over, consumers tend to believe that the stinging sensation is a side-effect of the effectiveness of the antiseptic.So if it does not hurt , it is not effective. Dettol has taught them that way.

I believe that Savlon did not achieve its desired success because J&J was not able to support it interms of investment. Somewhere along the way, the company disowned the brand. One reason can be that antiseptic lotion is a small market that does not warrant such heavy investment. But if that is so, the the company shouldn't have introduced a brand in such a category.

Savlon now occupies a negligible part of the market. It is a popular brand in the institutional market but in the consumer market, it is a no-brand.

Related brand
Dettol

Best Marketing Practice : Take- Back Campaign by Nokia

Nokia recently announced a green marketing initiative in India. From January 1, the company is taking back used mobiles and chargers from the customers for recycling. The campaign titled as Take-Back campaign is a unique social responsibility initiative by this market leader.

Under this campaign, the company is encouraging the mobile users to give their old, unused, broken mobiles and chargers for recycling. The campaign is initially launched in Bangalore, Delhi, Gurgaon and Ludhiana and will be expanded to national level in coming months.

Nokia has installed 1300 recycled bins at the Nokia Priority dealers across these pilot markets. Nokia also promises to plant one tree for every mobiles dumped. Another interesting fact is that the company accepts mobiles of any make.

This is a best practice because the brand is addressing an issue proactively. E-waste is going to be one of the worst environmental hazards in years to come. Mobiles contribute heavily towards this waste. India being the fastest growing mobile market in the world, this issue is going to be of mammoth size in the future.

The Take-Back campaign is aimed at educating people on the necessity of reducing e-waste through recycling. The concept of recycling is not popular in India and Nokia wants to set an example.

The campaign is also proactive because Nokia is the indisputable market leader in India with a share of 70 % in the mobile phone market. So the brand is responsible for contributing to the piling e-waste with regard to mobile phones.
Although Nokia says that the recycling will help the company in acquiring fresh raw materials, the new campaign is more of a social responsibility initiative rather than a business one.

By launching such an initiative, the brand is also giving an important lesson to other marketers. The lesson is about long term investment on brands. This take-back campaign is not going to generate any short -term benefits for the brand. Ofcourse it had given some positive PR for the brand but nothing more and nothing less. Indian consumers are not very thrilled by green marketing initiatives because of lack of awareness/concern. Second this campaign is also expensive because Nokia has to built an infrastructure to support this take-back. The benefits will come may be in future when consumers realize that the brand have foreseen such an environmental crisis and took proactive measures to reduce that . Now, How many brands will ever think of such an investment ?

In future companies will be made responsible for such accumulation of wastes . In developed countries, strict rules are now in force to check the proliferation of such wastes. India too will move to such a regulated regime in near future.

Hence it makes sense for a market leader to initiate such a campaign. It increases the brand equity ( in future) and also prepares a robust green logistics infrastructure for the future. Green logistics is denotes the logistical infrastructure to collect back the products from the customers for recycling or repair.

Cadbury Bournville : You Have to Earn It

Brand : Bournville
Company : Cadbury India
Agency : O&M

Brand Analysis Count : 368

On October 2008, Cadbury relaunched its Bournville brand of dark chocolates in India. Relaunched- because the brand has been in Indian market for over 30 years. But this brand was neglected . From my personal experience, I do not remember seeing this brand before it being relaunched.

Bournville is the name of a model village in England. This village has a strong association with Cadbury. According to Wikipedia, the village was set up by Cadbury when they relocated their chocolate factory there.

Dark Chocolate is a type of chocolate which is made by adding fat and sugar to cocoa. This is the type of chocolate where milk or milk additives are not added. Dark Chocolates are otherwise called Plain Chocolate. According to European standards, a chocolate must contain minimum of 43% cocoa to be considered as dark chocolate ( source :aalstchocolate .com)

In most of the global markets, dark chocolates are one of the fastest growing category . The growth is attributable to the health benefits of dark chocolates. Recently there were researches which stated that chocolates contain anti-oxidants and if taken in right quantities can be beneficial to health. Chocolate marketers took a marketing festival out of these research findings.

In India Cadbury relaunched Bournville brand for two reasons . Opportunity and Competition.

Mimicking the global trend, Cadbury also see a major opportunity in developing a new category of chocolates i.e Dark Chocolate Segment. In a market where 70 % share is owned by Cadbury, it feels that it is the right brand to develop the category. More over, the research findings about the health benefits also gives an additional marketing reason to develop this category.

Another reason for the relaunch is the competition that Cadbury face from the imported brands. Cadbury has lost its hold on the premium chocolate segment to imported brands. Now most of the retailers are stocking global brands like Ferrero Rocher, Mars etc. Customers are also preferring these global imported brands over the more familiar Cadbury brands.

Most of the global chocolate brands like Hershey , Ferrero etc are planning their entry to the lucrative Indian market. Recently the Mars group launched their brand Snickers in the Indian market.
This threat has forced the market leader to take a proactive defense strategy by creating new categories. By creating the new category of dark chocolates, Cadbury have the first mover advantage and also will be able to bring in freshness to the Cadbury umbrella brand.

Bournvilla is being positioned as the finest dark chocolate. The brand is currently promoted as the category innovator.
Watch the tvc here : Bournville

The brands says that one has to EARN this chocolate and not just buy it , referring to the quality of this chocolate. Bournville is made from the finest Ghana Cocoa beans and comes in four variants -
Rich Cocoa
Almond
Hazelnut
Raisin & Nut
The brand is retailed for Rs 75 for 80 gms.

Bournville is targeting not all customers. This brand is for those who love chocolates. The brand is aiming the 20-30 yr old SEC A segment. This is a chocolate that one will indulge when they feel like indulging. Because this product tastes differently from ordinary milk chocolates, the brand will appeal to a select niche.

That is why the brand is asking consumers to follow a special brand ritual while eating Bournville. One has to first enjoy the darkness of this chocolate. Then place the chocolate bar near the ears and break one cube and hear that crisp sound. Then smell the chocolate for that special aroma. Then slowly eat the chocolate enjoying it slowly. .....

I think that the brand will have lot of initial sales because customers will test it because of the attractive price. Rs 75 is an attractive price which will enable consumers to test it. But whether there will be a repeat purchases will depend on the liking of the taste .

Consumer Insight : Insurance is a Subject Matter of Solicitation

If you have seen any advertisement of Insurance products, you may not have missed this disclaimer " Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation ".

As a consumer , this disclaimer/warning is of utmost importance but often ignored.

What is the meaning of the clause " Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation".

The dictionary meaning of solicitation is " Ask For". Hence insurance is a subject that should be asked for . It means that customers have to talk to an adviser who will suggest the right product for your needs. Insurance should not be SOLD but Solicited......

Sounds out of the world isn't it ?

How many of us have asked for Insurance ?

In India, insurance is sold not solicited. Hence this dictum seem totally meaningless OR is it ?

If you read the terms and conditions put forth by Insurance companies, one will find relevance to this dictum.

The above dictum have relevance to consumers because it puts the responsibility for selecting the right product on the consumers than on the company. The website of a leading insurer states " Customer's participation in the insurance products are purely on a voluntary basis ".

As a consumer, the responsibility lies in
Understanding one's insurance needs .
Planning
Meet with a trained financial adviser.
Selecting the right product
Signing the contract.

But we know that most of the consumers are not aware about either their needs or the various options available before them. Hence the consumers have to obtain the help from a trained insurance advisor who will " advise " the customers and then help them to select the right product .

In practice, we find that none of the above applies. Insurance advisers take up the role of pure selling machines trying to " close" the sale rather than " advice " the customers. Companies put pressure on their agents to achieve targets often forgoing the basic dictum that drive this business.
While in the developed markets like USA , the actions of financial planners are highly regulated, here the onus is on the customers . CAVAET EMPTOR.... Buyers beware....

Most of the insurance firms also does not practice the dictum iof solicitation in its pure essence. If you have listened to any of the recent " sales talk" of advisers, they pitch the ULIP plans irrespective of whether you like investing in stock market or not.

There is no analysis of one's financial position or insurance needs. ( There are professional financial /insurance advisers who do all the right things but many doesn't) .

It is because of this non-professional selling approach that makes customers run away from an important product like insurance.

If insurance firms practiced what they preached, then insurance would have gained a much higher value as a product. And insurance sales persons would be regarded as a friend rather than a nightmare.

99% of my MBA students hate to get into a job in an insurance company. Much of this hatred happened because we forgot that we should sell the right kind of product to the right kind of consumers. As a customer I believe that insurance is one of the most important products which helps a consumer to be secure. But alas.....

In my experience as a prospective customer, I met only one advisor who professionally and systematically explored my insurance needs. Rest of all were trying to " sell " me insurance.

The million dollar question for an Insurance salesperson is

Will you walk away from a consumer for whom you do not have a right product ? Will you recommend your competitor's product to him if it fits his need ?

Its time for the insurance companies to Walk the Talk.... It is tough... your quarterly results will show negligible growth. But consumers will love you for it.....

Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation.

Marketing Funda : When Teaser Gets Teased

Read my article on Teaser ads published in Adclub Bombay Website here : When teaser gets teased

Zeiss : We Make it Visible

Brand : Zeiss
Company : Carl Zeiss India
Agency : Modern Medtech

Brand Analysis Count : 367

Carl Zeiss is a respectable name in the global lens' market. This decade old German company is named after its founder Carl Zeiss who was an optician. His company first started making lenses for microscopes and later extended his product range to cameras .

The company began its Indian operations in 1998. Although present in different verticals, the brand came into consumer space during 2005.

Carl Zeiss manufactures spectacle lenses under a joint venture with GKB Hi-Tech Lenses which is a home grown company. The spectacle lenses are sold under the brand Zeiss.

Indian spectacle lenses market is worth around $90 million ( Rs 360 Crore). Looking at the population, the potential is huge. But like many other products, this market is also dominated by unorganized sector which accounts for more than 75 % of the sales.

There are only two highly visible brands in the spectacle lenses category. One is the global major Essilor and other is Zeiss.

Zeiss has been trying to build its brand by consistently investing in media campaigns in India. It has been regularly advertising both in visual and print media.

The marketing of spectacle lenses is a difficult task because so far the category is regarded as a commodity. Consumers seldom ask for a specific brand of spectacle lenses since they are not aware of any brands neither they are aware of any specific advantages of using a branded spectacle lens.

So typically a consumer goes to the optician with his prescription and selects his spectacle frame and asks for the price of the lenses and gives the order. No where in the process , he asks for a particular brand for his lenses..
This offer tremendous opportunity for a marketer but it is not an easy task .
Zeiss has been trying to brand the commodity called spectacle lenses. But I am not impressed.

I have been watching the commercials of Zeiss for a while now. Frankly I did not knew that Zeiss was from the house of Carl Zeiss. I have heard about Carl Zeiss since the brand is famous as a camera lens. More over the latest mobiles from Sony and Nokia is now sporting Carl Zeiss lenses. Cameras which have Carl Zeiss lenses are often sold at a premium.


But the positioning strategy if Zeiss spectacle lenses is far from spectacular.

Watch the commercial here : Zeiss Spectacle lenses

The main USP of this brand is that it is branded...... Sounds funny isn't it ?

Zeiss is positioning itself as a spectacle with brand mark. For non-marketers, Brand Mark refers to the logo or symbol that the brand has.

I frankly does not understand the logic behind this positioning. Brand is defined as a name , term, symbol, logo which are used to identify and differentiate a product from the competitors .
But having a brand mark is never a differentiator. You cannot build a brand over its brand mark.....

Zeiss in their ads try to claim that " Brand nahi hai to style nahi " ( means if it is not branded, then it is not stylish ). It is true also. Consumers try to show off their brands. And successful brands are those where consumers are willing to act as living billboards.
Take Levi's or Nike, consumers are willing to show off. But not because they have brand marks.

First the company has to build a brand on certain core values or attributes . Once this is built, consumers will adopt the brand and act as the brand ambassadors. People does not buy Nike because it has the brand mark SWOOSH . But because they love the brand for its values embedded in " Celebrating authentic athleticism ". Consumers evangelize Apple not because of the brand mark but because of the innovation that is personified by the brand.

Here Zeiss has got it all wrong. Having a brand name or a logo is not suffice for consumers to love your brand. Brands should be built on strong attributes ( tangible or intangible). Brands with out brand values is at best a Label.

Zeiss thinks that its major competitors are the unbranded spectacle lenses. Hence the company feels that having a brand mark is the best differentiator. I was surprised to find that globally also the brand is positioned as a spectacle lens with laser marked brand mark.

Essilor has done a better job in promoting its brands like Transitions and Crizal. Consumers understand that these brands are having quality and certain important attributes.

Zeiss is a powerful global brand which has a reputation of being high quality manufacturer. The brand also has a powerful secondary association with the country of origin - Germany.

It should have taken some important attributes and promoted those attributes. Having a brand mark is an advantage but only after the brand is being built. People like others to see that their sunglass is a Ray-Ban because the brand has an image built on style and quality. Hence the Ray-Ban brand mark on the glasses make sense for the consumers.

First the brand has to understand the important attributes that customers look for in a spectacle lens. Then try to understand which are the most critical of those attributes which influences their decisions. Then develop the brand around those critical attributes. I don't think that the current USP of a brand-mark is considered important by consumers and is a sufficient reason for them to pay a premium for the brand.

Zeiss must go back and learn some basic brand building before investing such huge amount on money on meaningless campaigns.

Related Brand
Essilor