Canada Dry : RIP ( 1995-1999)

Brand : Canada Dry
Company : Cadbury Schweppes ( Later Coca Cola)
Agency : Mudra

Brand Analysis Count : 371

One of my colleagues yesterday showed me a 1989 issue of Business India where he pointed out an ad of a long forgotten brand - Canada Dry . We passionately talked about the brand which we both liked.

Canada Dry was launched in India in 1995 . The brand ,from Cadbury Schweppes ,was a highly popular brand of softdrinks across the globe. Canada Dry was a much hyped brand because it was from the house of Cadbury. Cadbury Schweppes launched Canada Dry and Orange Crush in the Indian market with much fanfare.

Canada Dry was a Champagne Softdrink. The brand has positioned itself as a champagne and the taste was different and refreshing.

The brand was also promoted heavily in various media. The ad featuring the snow and tiger brings back the nostalgia about this brand. The brand was positioned as a premium cooldrink . The brand gained immediate acceptance because of its association with Cadbury. The brand had the potential to become a premium softdrink brand in India .

But alas, the brand did not last too long in the market. In 1999 CocaCola took over the beverages business of Cadbury Schweppes and like GoldSpot and Limca , Coke killed this brand.

It is sad to see such brands being killed for no reason connected with customers. The only reason for Coke to kill these brands was to make way for Coke's original brands. In the case of Canada Dry , the brand only had a negligible presence in the Indian market.

Look at the Indian market now - Is there a premium softdrink brand in India ? Neither Coke or Pepsi was able to create a premium softdrinks category in India. They have not even tried yet.......

Best Marketing Practice : Cause Branding

Read my article on cause branding published in Adclubbombay site here : Cause Branding

Brand Update : Bournvita

After building the brand over a beautiful concept of confidence, Bournvita has gone down the ladder in the latest campaign.

I was virtually shocked to see the latest campaign for Bournvita ++ ( a new variant ?) which talked about the merging of Science and Nature !!!

In my last update on Bournvita, I had applauded Bourvita in taking up Confidence as its positioning platform. But it all has been virtually killed in the latest campaign.

I will share the Advertisement once I have it..

The ad which is poorly executed talks about Science and Nature coming together in Bournvita thus helping the kid to succeed. The ad shows a ( poorly made) Robot and a Grass covered man ( indicating nature) helping out the kid who is doing the homework.

If the ad is made aiming at kids, the agency have no idea about the new generation kid's standards . If the ad is aimed at parents, then again the agency have no idea about Parents either.... This ad is ideally suited for a kid in the year 1965....

I wonder why this sudden change in positioning ? Science , Nature and Bournvita have nothing in common. Bournvita is a tasty Malt Food Drink... it was like that and it will remain like that for consumers.

Bournvita has been selling on taste which was again reinforced by the association with the company brand- Cadbury's . The earlier campaign has taken the brand to a better positioning platform of Confidence against the arch rival Boost's focus of 'Winning Energy'.

The only logic I see in this ad is that the brand feels that consumers perceive Bournvita to be unhealthy because it is brown and tasty. Hence the sudden love for this nature- science crap. There were lot of other sensible ways available for this brand for developing association with health .

I think the brand has done a terrible mistake in forgoing such a valuable positioning platform as Confidence and accepting a crap positioning which is not at all relevant to the target segment.

Related Brand

Bournvita

Brand Update : Axe

Axe is a marketing phenomenon. This brand knows how to keep excitement ticking in the market. Last year saw the controversial Axe Dark Temptation making headlines . The brand has started 2009 with yet another launch - Axe 3 deo.

This is a unique innovative product where the brand asks the consumer to use two Axe Deos to gether to make a new fragrance. So Axe 3 comes in a combi-pack of two fragrances and the consumer can make a third one by spraying the two deos together.

Watch the ad here : Axe 3

Smart move indeed. Has anybody thought of combining two deos for a new fragrance ? ..

Axe 3 was launched in other markets in 2007 as a limited edition product.
A typical Axe 3 packs contains two deos marked 1 & 2. These cans should be sprayed together for a new fragrance.
The question is why should a consumer spend double the money for deos ? Why should he use two together and blow away double the money ?

The answer is that the brand does not expect every one to do so...

This is a product launched to keep the excitement going. That is the purpose of limited editions. All those Axe fans will try out this new product and competitors will have tough time matching this brand .

Axe has always been an unconventional brand. These seemingly outrageous innovations are in line with the brand's core positioning. And these launches gives enough reasons for Axe to advertise and that keeps the brand on top of the share of mind.

Related Brand

Axe

End Note : Neither the HUL website or the Axe Effect website carry any information about this new product launch. It is sad that a professional company like HUL did not have the common sense of regularly updating its websites.

Top Ramen : Its not Noodles, Its Smoodles

Brand : Top Ramen
Company : Indo Nissin
Agency : Dentsu

Brand Analysis Count : 370

Top Ramen is the second largest Noodles brand in India trying hard for the past 18 years to beat Maggi Noodles. Top Ramen is a global brand from Nissin. Launched in 1991, Top Ramen has been trying all possible marketing tool to dethrone Maggi.

As a hardcore Noodles fan, I remember trying out this brands on two occasions. First occasion was when the brand was launched. The brand quickly went into limelight with its famous positioning as Smoodles. I guess that Smoodles means Smooth Noodles . But after the initial trying,I went back to Maggi noodles.

The next occasion was when Maggi changed the taste. That was an occasion where, as a brand loyalist , I dumped Maggi . For a while I bought Top Ramen . Then when Maggi reversed the taste, I switched back....

Top Ramen at that point of time was one of the heavy advertisers in the media. And since the taste was also comparable , many Maggi users may have switched to this brand. But it could not retain the customers like me. One factor is the price. Top Ramen was always perceived as a premium brand compared to the affordable Maggi. ( Its my perception since I don't exactly remember the price difference ). The high price may have prompted many Maggi users to switch back .

Another factor was the promotion. Top Ramen could not sustain the share of mind it generated during the formative years. Maggi was able to bring in lot of noise because it had become an umbrella brand and was advertising for various other products .

Top Ramen had an interesting distribution strategy . For the past 10 years, the brand has been distributed by Marico. It is a case of marketing alliance where Top Ramen was utilizing the distribution strength of Marico. In 2008, the alliance was mutually called-off . Now Nissin is building its own distribution network.

It is puzzling to see that a global brand with lot of support from its parent could not put up a big fight with Maggi .The major issue faced by Top Ramen was the differentiation. Top Ramen could not offer any serious differentiation to Maggi either in terms of the product or brand. Since there was no serious differentiation, Maggi was able to gain back the lost ground because it was the pioneer brand who built the category. Top Ramen also lost out when Maggi repositioned itself in the health platform.

Having said that, Top Ramen had its share of innovations. This brand is credited with innovating a new category of cup-noodles in Indian market. The difference between cup noodles and instant noodles is that cup-noodles need not be cooked, it is ready to eat just after adding hot water into it.
Top Ramen currently holds more than 90 % share in the cup-noodles market. Maggi has recently entered the cup-noodles market with its brand Cuppa- Mania. It is expected that the entry of new players will expand the category.

Unlike instant noodles where the brands are targeting kids, Cup-Noodles is targeting adults. The segment aimed by Top-Ramen is 16-35 .

Top Ramen is also credited with the launch of curry-noodles in India. While ordinary noodles are dry, curry noodles have both gravy. Top Ramen to me is heavily associated with Curry Noodles. and that is one of the reasons why I did not buy the brand ( i hated the curry variant).

So the brand has not been remaining dormant. It has been doing the right things in the market but somehow the brand is not able to manage the perception among the consumers. It is in the promotion front that Top Ramen has failed to make an impact.

When Maggi repositioned itself as a healthy food, Top Ramen should have followed suit since the market was moving towards healthy foods. When Maggi launched its rice noodles, Top Ramen should have followed since it could have added value to the brand.

Except for the first phase of brand promotion, Top Ramen did not have any worthwhile campaign in its 18 years of existence. Hence as a customer, the brand is not giving me enough reasons to change my addiction to Maggi brand. Even it is not giving enough reasons for kids to buy this brand.

Related Brand
Maggi

Update : Marketing Practice reader ' Outspoken ' that in 1999 Shah Rukh Khan endorsed Top Ramen Curry Noodles. But that campaign has long been forgotten.

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