Brand Update : Can Katrina Boost Yardley's Fortunes ?

In November 2009, Wipro acquired the rights for marketing Yardley in Asia , Middle East, Australasia and parts of Africa. That was an important turning point for this 240 year old heritage brand.

The acquisition of a brand like Yardley makes sense for Wipro whose personal care portfolio is having only one major brand - Santoor. Yardley range of personal care products gives Wipro an instant access to the premium segment of the personal care market.

Yardley , though a brand with high recall and recognition, was languishing in the Indian market because of the lack of marketing support. There was seldom any campaign for the brand neither it was promoted at the store level. The new owner in Wipro has a very successful marketing history demonstrated by the success of the brand Santoor.

Wipro has made its first major initiative for Yardley by roping in the current Bollywood Diva Katrina Kaif as the brand ambassador for Yardley. The brand expects to ride in the current sensation's popularity to make a comeback in the Indian personal care market.

The brand is currently running a campaign featuring Katrina

Watch the ad here : Yardley

Before going into the quality of the campaign, its important to understand the tactical significance of such a move. Yardley wants to move fast in terms of reinforcing its brand credentials. It want to announce its resurgence fast and make an impact. For that celebrity endorsement offers a reasonable strategic sense.

But as usual , the execution failed the brand strategy. The ad was poorly made in the sense that there was no creative spark in it. The theme, execution, message everything was so cliche that the ad never made any impact (in me !). At best it reminded about the brand nothing more nothing less. The ad give Yardley a new tagline " My Yardley, My Fragrance ".

The ad wanted to give the message of heritage , London Connection, Signature fragrance , attributes of Yardley.But although these messages were conveyed, the ad failed to create a premium image for the brand.

As an immediate tactical move, the current campaign does achieve its purpose but like Santoor, Wipro needs to find a sustainable positioning platform for Yardley. It should push the creatives working for the brand to do another Santoor.

Lets hope that Yardley achieves its true potential under Wipro.

Related Brand

Yardley

Candyman : Kuch Bhi Karega for Candyman

Brand : Candyman

Company : ITC

Ad Agency : Draft FCB Ulka

Brand Analysis Count : 462

Candyman is ITC's ambitious foray into the Rs 2300( approx) crore highly competitive Indian confectionery market. The brand which was launched in 2003 is fighting for its share in a unique way .

Candyman, as the name itself describe ,was born as a hard-boiled sugar candy product. The brand was launched first in fruit flavors - Fruitee Fun variant which came in banana, pinapple, orange and mango flavors.

Candyman was launched with a campaign featuring a naughty boy and a cartoon boy as the central characters. The campaigns revolved around the fight between the real and cartoon boys for Candyman.

Watch one campaign here : Pool Fight

There was a problem with the ads because there was a chance that the fight between the two boys would scare the primary audience (kids). Although the ads meant to portray friendly competition for Candyman, the scenes of the ad showed very bitter, deadly fights between the characters. For example , the ad where the boy trying to drown the cartoon character cannot be taken in a light spirit. Since the cartoon boy was perceived to be a representative of Candyman, the ads portrayed the brand in a negative light .

Soon the ads were changed to portray friendship between the cartoon character and the real boy. The brand realized the negativity of the first theme and corrected it in the following campaigns.

The brand was positioned as a candy/confectionery which is irresistible and adopted the tagline " Kuch Bhi Karega for Candyman " translated roughly to " Will Do Anything for Candyman ". The brand was targeting the kids (naughty types) who seek delightful candy experience.

Usually while choosing the brand name, one has to be careful not to choose names which restrict the brand's movement across categories/product lines. In the case of Candyman, the brand name obviously suggested that the product is a candy. Candy is a product form which belongs to hard-boiled confectionery. So theoretically, it would be difficult for Candyman to launch anything other than candy because of the association of brand name to the candy category.

But the brand defied that rule and launched a slew of flavors and variants that transcended the boundaries of candy and chocolate .

The strength of Candyman was its relentless innovation interms of flavors and variants. Some of the variants of Candyman is given below :

Candyman Natkhat Mango

Candyman Maha Mango

Candyman Echlairs

Candyman Mangolicks in 2007

Candyman Toffichoo Strawberry in 2009

Candyman Lacto Creme center in 2008

Candyman Butter Scotch licks

Candyman Choco Double.

These large number of choice together with the strong ITC distribution network gave Candyman enough room for growth.

Some of the campaigns for the variants was quite successful. One of them was the Natkhat Mango TVC which was well received by the viewers.

This is one candy brand that does not believe that it should only be a candy in its entire life. Thus came Candyman Echlairs and followed by Candyman Choco Double. These chocolate products directly competed with Cadbury Echlairs not only in the market but also through the campaigns.

Cadbury Echlair when released the campaign " Chocolate ka Sweet Bomb" , Candyman countered it with the Choco Double spoof . ChocoDouble came with the tagline - " No Waiting for Chocolating " taking on the Cadbury Dairy Milk Echlairs ' ads.

Candyman's variants have a different personality and slogans but also shares the common tagline. The large number of variants has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that consumers ( kids) will be delighted with choices and there is always some excitement with the brand. The negative side is the proliferation of the product line extension can create challenges interms of brand promotion. At a given point of time, how will the brand manager allocate the promotional budget among these variants ? Which should be promoted more ?

To manage such large number of variants/flavors, Candyman is adopting a very smart brand-portfolio strategy. Currently the brand is using a strategy where Candyman will eventually become the endorser brand while there will be individual primary brands for various variants. For example in the packaging of Choco-Double Echlairs, Candyman is the endorser brand and Choco Double acts as the primary brand. Candyman brand name is displayed in small fonts while Choco-Double in larger fonts.

Candyman has the powerful backing of ITC's cash power and distribution strength. It has not yet being able to move into the top position of the confectionery market yet. But with the aggressive new product strategy together with high profile promotions make Candyman a brand to watch for.

Marketing Strategy : Customer Orientation Vs Competitor Orientation

Should Your Marketing Strategy Be

Customer Oriented or Competitor Oriented

Originally published here in Adclubbombay.com

Although many marketing literature propounds the dictum “Customer is the King”, it is seldom practiced in its fullest sense. Marketers would love to put customers at the center of their business strategy but the intense competitive environment forces them to think beyond the customer and move towards the competitors.

There is a dilemma in the marketers mind with the choice of whether the firm’s principal orientation should be towards customer or competitors. Conventional wisdom say that firms should be oriented more towards customers than competitor. Peter Drucker famously said “The purpose of business is to create customers “. When a firm is customer oriented, the entire business is centered on customer needs and satisfaction.

According to academic literature, there are three components of market orientation (1) Customer Orientation (2) Competitor Orientation (3) Inter-functional coordination. Customer Orientation is where the firm spends its resources on gathering information about customer needs and behavior. Competitor orientation is where the firm directs its resources to gathering information about competitor behavior and activities. The firm’s strategies will then be based on the information gathered through any of these orientations. (Source: Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability." Journal of Marketing 54 (October):20-35.)

Customer orientation helps firms with a clear in-depth understanding of consumer which results in a focused marketing effort. Research has confirmed that customer orientation helps firms to increase performance and enhance customer satisfaction.

Too much customer orientation also can be dangerous. There is a chance of marketers becoming blinded by their current focus thus oblivious of the changes brought about by the competitors. There are critics who argue that customers may stifle innovation in companies because customers may not be able to explicitly state their expectations or anticipate future needs. Customers are often resistant to change and this forces the highly customer focused firms to maintain the status quo thus refraining from game changing innovations.

The firms who are skewed towards competitor orientation are blamed for launching me-too products in an effort to fight competition. Too much focus on competitor often forces firms to invest in understanding customers or anticipate their needs better. Too many resources will be spent on competitive activities which may restrict investment on breakthrough innovations. Competitor oriented firms are more open to the changing trend in the market. Since their actions are more directed by the actions of the competitor, there is less chance of lethargy in marketing activities.

Firms must understand that there is a trade-off between these two orientations. Firms will have to lose something if they chose either of the two orientations. The ideal option is to balance both the orientation. It is easy to advocate that firms should have both customer and competitor orientation but with a limited resources in-terms of men and money, firms will find tough to have best of both worlds.

Companies must realize that the choice of customer / competitor orientation is dependent on the environment in which firms operate. There are external and internal factors that will decide the orientation of the company. For example, there are organizations like Zappos.com which is totally customer oriented. The customer orientation run deep within the organization’s DNA and the entire firm is structured around the customer.

Competitor orientation is more preferable in markets which are growing very fast. In fast growing markets, firms should invest in gathering more data about competitors which will enable them to develop innovations at lower costs.

Customer orientation is preferable in more uncertain markets. When the markets are changing very fast, firms can focus on customers which will enable them to change their marketing strategies quickly in accordance with changing customer needs. Also firms that deal with complex markets need to focus on investing in customers rather than competitors.

The choice of customer vs. competitor orientation is ultimately depended on the top management’s world view. The choice is important because there are only limited resources available with the managers to spend on either of these orientations.

Firms can strike a balance between these orientations if they can focus on the following guidelines.

• Invest in a robust market intelligence mechanism in the marketing department. The mechanism can be internal or outsourced, but the emphasis will be on information gathering and dissemination. When a mechanism exists, depending on the market environment, organization can decide on the type of information that should be gathered.
• Encourage free flow of information within the organization. Market orientation tends to be ineffective if the organization is bureaucratic. Hence firms should ensure that important market information is passed to various levels quickly.

Brand Update : Can Ambassador be saved ?

Recently the good old Ambassador was in the news that the brand owners - Hindustan Motors is planning to relaunch /rejuvenate this heritage brand. Both the brand and company is in deep crisis with HM posting losses of Rs 43 crore last year and its networth declining by about 50%.

The company plans to relaunch the Amby in a new look and is planning to entrust a design house with the task. The report also suggest that the new Amby will have a retro- look and will be in the price range of Rs 5- Rs 7 Lakhs. The new Amby will be a niche product.

The interesting question is can this brand be saved with the new strategy ?

From the report about the new Amby launch, it will be tough for the brand to regain its lost glory if the brand is going for a niche variant. According to Economic Times, Ambassador sells around 600 units per month in a market of 2 lakh cars/month.

Ambassador is now in a rut which is its own creation. The brand is the classic example of marketing myopia. The company took the customers for granted and refused to change when the entire market changed. The brand did nothing when faced with competition from Tatas and Maruti. Instead of changing its core DNA, the brand relied upon cosmetic changes. When the brand needed a drastic revolutionary change, HM decided to get stuck with the old product.

The current strategy of a niche Amby is again a patch-up . This brand cannot survive on patch-up strategies. I don't think that the core brand Ambassador will revive with the launch of a niche high priced Ambassador. With the brand equity in shambles, how can the brand expect consumers to pay a premium for the new Amby variant ?

The high priced Marquee variant will work for iconic brand which are facing a decline. But Ambassador was not an icon. It was a market leader and consumers bought the car because they did not had a choice. Not because they were a die-hard Amby fan. Hence a high priced niche variant may not revive the sale of Ambassador.

Secondly HM as a company is now relying its future on Ambassador which again is a flawed strategy. A weak brand cannot save a weak company. And a niche variant will at best give some life support and not survival.

Another way to look at the current strategy is the transformation of Amby from a mass market car to a niche product. So instead of trying to sell large volume of Ambassador, the company hopes to sell high-end variant and hence generate more cash. In that perspective, the launch of a high priced Amby make sense. But the question is whether the brand has enough equity to support such a variant. Brands like Beetle and Enfield revived because these brands had strong equity existing in the market even after its previous life. The relaunch re-ignited the existing goodwill . But such a goodwill does not exist for Ambassador. Ambassador is known for its space and rugged nature .The product is also infamous for nagging problems and poor build quality. Still people bought because there was no choice. For such a product, the hope of renewal from a niche product seems too optimistic.

Having said that, Indian market has seen consumers embracing products with exceptional quality and/or utility. So if the new variant is exceptional, there are chances of getting accepted by the market.

Another interesting aspect of this issue is about the reliance of HM on Ambassador brand for its survival. Why didn't it think about an entirely new brand ? The trend in the Indian auto market is that multiple brands from different companies sporting the same engine. The engine becoming commoditized and design gaining prominence. In such a market why not come out with an entirely new brand with a proven engine ? Although building new brand is expensive compared to rejuvenation of old brand, in Amby's case, Ambassador comes with a lot of baggage and perceptions which is difficult to change.

If Ambassador wants to stay relevant as a brand, what it need is disruption. Disruption should happen both internally and externally. The brand should go for radical redesign and more importantly it should disrupt the market. The current price to value proposition of Ambassador is negative compared to the competitors like Indica . So if Amby wants to play the volume game, it needs to offer consumer something they cannot refuse. A diesel car below Rs 4 lakh can ignite interest in the brand but given the cost scenario, such a task is virtually impossible.

HM is again going for short-term strategy in pursuit of long-term results. For Amby, it seems to be the end of road .

Related Brand

Ambassador

Is Social Media a mere extension of traditional media ?

A guest post of mine was published in Indiasocial.in. Indiasocial is a resource- rich site for marketers interesting in social media. Marketers make a big mistake in viewing social media as mere extension of traditional media. But social media needs different learning and approach. Read the full article here .

Brand Update : Dettol & Lifebuoy Creating Hand Sanitizer Category

Indian market is witnessing the creation of a new category in the hand hygiene segment - hand sanitizer. Although hand sanitizer products were existing in Indian since 2002, this category is witnessing lot of marketing action only in the last couple of years.Two giants in the Indian FMCG market is fighting it out in creating this category - Dettol and Lifebuoy.

Hand Sanitizer is an alternative to soap and used for maintaining hand-hygiene . This product which is available in gel, spray, liquid or foam form can be used directly to the hand and unlike soaps need not be washed away. Just apply the hand sanitizer and leave it like that.

It is not Lifebuoy or Dettol which introduced this product in the Indian market. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd , Himalaya, Paras Pharma etc had introduced this product in the Indian market even as early as 2003. GCPL 's brand Protekt is exported to various countries while Himalaya's brand - Pure Hands is a herbal hand sanitizer. But these brands were not able to create a noise in the market so far when compared to Dettol and Lifebuoy.

Indian Hand Sanitizer market is still nascent with an estimated market size of Rs 20 crore (source) . Marketers believe that this category will grow faster owing to the new breed of infectious diseases.

Hand sanitizers are popular in markets like West and Europe because of the consumer awareness ( fear) about hand hygiene coupled with the convenience of the product. The fact that the product can be used anywhere/anytime makes it a very useful product for those who are too much worried about keeping their hands always germ-free.

The early marketers of hand sanitizers in India tried to cash in on the SARS Virus pandemic which created huge amounts of concern and fear in 2002-2003. But the marketers was not effective in converting the fear into enough sales to create a category. When the SARS fear died out, the hand sanitizer market was also dwarfed.

2009-2010 is witnessing another surge of infectious diseases like H1N1 and host of other diseases which are spread through air/water. Since most of these diseases are infectious and spread through socializing, the scope of a convenient hygiene product again surfaced. The trend shows that this surge and fear will last longer than the earlier SARS episode.

As usual, Dettol and Lifebuoy are pushing this category based on fear. The ads shows the probability of germs affecting the consumer at various public places like shopping malls, public transports etc and then advises on keeping hand sanitizer with them always so that they can protect/sanitize their hands all the time.

The ads does the job of scaring the shit out of the consumers and spreading the fear psychosis of contracting diseases everytime/anytime. But thats the job of marketers isn't it ?

The question is whether consumers will be open to the habit of keeping hand sanitizers in the bag and use it everytime they shake hands or uses a public transport, or uses any commonly uses objects like a door handle ?

To be fair to the marketers, the threat is very real. How many of us are aware of the possibility of contracting disease through a publicly used ' door handle ' of the office toilet ? How about the germs in the currency notes that we use on a daily basis ? How about the Bus ?

Oh God !

But how many of us will take the pain of buying and keeping hand sanitizer and using it again and again for fear of contracting disease ?

Many will buy and use it for sure. Like Handwash category, sanitizers will also find takers who are ultra health conscious. There will be consumers who will be attracted to the product because of the sheer convenience of it. The product will be a boon at places where you don't trust the water or the soap.

Now the brands are focusing on fear to promote the product category but as a consumer I am put off by the fear psychosis that these brands are trying to create. I am conscious of the possibilities of diseases but I chose to be little careless about the stuff rather than carrying a hand sanitizer and using it everytime I shake hands with someone.

Having said that I would have been more comfortable if the brands spent more time talking about convenience of the product . I think it will be convenience that will drive the brand and not fear.

What say ?