Market Statistics

Branded Tea market :Rs 9500 crore growing at 5%
Branded Green Tea market :Rs 150 crore growing at 21 %
Retail Market size : $500 bn ~Rs 30 lakh crores
e commerce market excluding travel :Rs 18600 Crore
Home and Furnishings market Size :Rs 1.2 lakh crore
Furniture market :Rs 600 crore
Total Households in India ~234 mn
Household with Television ~ 153 mn
( Source :Business Standard, Businessline)

Brand Update : 5 Star repositions as the cure for seriousness disease !

Rest in Peace : Ramesh and Suresh

5 Star, it seems, is on a repositioning mode. In the new ad released recently, the brand has found a new disease that is creating havoc in the entire world- Seriousness. And the only solution for this is 5 star !

Watch the campaign here : 5 Star 

5 Star  has been promoted for the last 3 years on the " lost in taste" platform anchored by two characters- Ramesh and Suresh. The brand had the tagline " Jo Khaaye Kho Jaaye ". Ramesh and Suresh ads had mixed reviews from the ad world . Although the characters had recall effect, I personally felt that the theme did not do justice to the brand. The first ad featuring the duo was funny but later these characters became irritating.

Characters that are shown in the advertisements have lot of relevance to the brand's personality. Ramesh and Suresh were depicted as stupid guys and hence that had a rub-off on the brand also. 

Now the brand decided to change the positioning and hence I suppose that Ramesh and Suresh will be taken off the air.

The new  positioning theme is " Anti-Seriousness". The brand is now positioned as a fun brand which cures seriousness . As an idea, I feel that anti-seriousness is a good platform with lot of creative options. The first ad featuring the new positioning is not that great. 

Although the ad theme is good, the question arises as to what  the brand try to convey to the consumers ? Earlier theme of  'lost in taste' had a credible reason or attribute focus. But being a fun-brand is some thing very commonly used by many brands across categories. Example Mirinda. So 5Star , trying to move from a product-based focus to more abstract proposition has taken the risk of being losing focus in future. Further, I have doubt whether positioning 5 Star as a fun-brand  fit into the 5 Star's brand personality.  

Along with the repositioning of 5 Star, Cadburys have also launched a variant 5 Star Chomp in the Indian market. The variant or Product Line Extension is expected to fight the Snickers brand of Mars International. In other markets, Chomp is promoted as a stand-alone brand while in India it is launched as an extension. 

Related post 

5 Star

Marketing in Practice : The Online Marketplace Conundrum

The blistering growth of e-commerce in India (estimated to be around a size of $ 1.6 billion) has thrown up a Pandora's box of problems for marketers. The channel conflict has become intense between the traditional brick and mortar channel members and the online market place. The conflict is real and brands are caught in between the fight for the customer's wallet. 

The issue has come to the forefront  with brands like Toshiba, Lenovo and Cannon publishing advisory to customers on purchasing their brands from online retailers. ( read news here : Lenovo, Cannon). The basic issue between the online retailers and the traditional channel members is the predatory pricing adopted by the online retailers. Traditional retailers with their huge overheads and investments are not able to match the pricing of the online retailers.

The issue has become more complicated with large online retailers like Flipkart, Snapdeal adopting the 'market place' model . The eCommerce market has two models- Inventory model where the online retailer owns and controls the inventory and the market place model where the online retailer acts as the platform which connects the consumers and the retailers. 

In India, the trend is that many major players like Flipkart, Snapdeal etc have moved to the market place model. So these big online brands using technology as the enabler connects the customers and retailer partners and ensures seamless transactions between them. 

Online retailers like Flipkart and Snapdeal are able to patronize large number of retailers to its market place thus offering a huge spread of categories and brands to the customers. The online market place is a Two-Sided market where the success of the online retailer lies in his ability to increase the number of partner retailers and also the number of shoppers to the site.

Because there are large number of retailers in the online market place, the pricing becomes predatory and huge discounts can be offered to the shoppers. This has proved to be the point of contention. It was impossible for traditional channel partners to match the price cuts offered by the market place. With increasing popularity and adoption of e-commerce in India, its normal for the traditional channel members to cry foul.

To pacify the traditional channels brands has been adopting major initiatives like

• offering additional services like additional warranty on products purchased through traditional channels.
• Policy on uniform discounting across channels. 
• Issuing advisory to consumers on benefits of purchasing through authorized retailers.
• Issuing certification to authorized retailers who agrees to abide by common rules.
• Advisory against un-authorized retailers. 

However in many cases, consumers overlook the advisory and take the risk of purchasing from unauthorized retailers. The price takes the front seat in comparison with the warranty offers. 

Experts opine that these issues will be sorted out but will take time. Brands are now increasingly asked to provide clear differentiation to traditional retailers so that their business is not suffered . It has to be noted that traditional retailers offer many valuable services to consumers in terms of information , product display etc. Consumers being smart avail these services at the traditional retailers and make the final purchase at the online retailers.

Brand Wars : Perk Vs Munch

Its been a long time since Indian advertisement world saw a humorous fight between the brands. There has been high profile competitive wars between the brands like Horlicks Vs Complan, Vim Vs Dettol, Dettol Vs Lifebuoy, Pepsodent Vs Colgate etc but these were serious fights. 

Recently the new war started between the arch rivals Perk and Munch. These brands were keeping different paths between each other for quite some time. Both were trying to position themselves on different attributes ; Perk focusing on the glucose content while Munch was focusing on the crunchier proposition. However, Perk decided to poke Munch by launching the first TVC featuring the son - Monu leaving home because his father gave the bigger, heavier Perk to his brother Sonu.

Watch the TVC here : Perk Monu

Not to be left behind, Munch countered with another TVC which features Sonu leaving the father because he gave the tastier Munch to the brother Monu.

Watch the TVC : Munch Sonu

The Perk TVC was hilarious with the brand trying to outsmart Munch by talking about the difference of 1 wafer and 5.5 grams with the Perk. 

Munch however tried to downplay the grammage comparison by focusing on the taste. The brand humorously counter's Perk's claim by stating that chocolates are eaten for taste and not weight. While this argument is weak counter for Perk's claim, what saves Munch was the humour and the instant fight back to Perk's offensive.

 Had Munch not reacted , Perk could have used the "high grammage " value for money proposition  very effectively 

Munch was recently investing heavily in the promotion by taking in cricketer Virat Kohli as the  brand ambassador . Perk was struggling with the positioning proposition and was in my opinion had a weaker platform based on the glucose content. Perk was trying the break away from that weaker spot by launching an offensive against Munch.

With the two brand's paths crossing now, it will be a interesting space to watch for.

Read more brand war
Brand war : Sensitive Toothpaste
Brand war : Colgate Vs Pepsodent

Marketing Strategy : Toothpaste majors fights challengers effectively

A recent article in ET mentions that the challengers in the Rs 7000 crore toothpaste market like Anchor,Ajanta Babool and Vicco were wiped out by the major brands like Colgate, HUL etc. A few years ago the major toothpaste brands like Colgate and Pepsodent were shocked by the huge challenge from brands like Anchor ,Babool etc . The challenger brand used price as the major USP and gained more than 15% share in the market.

Its interesting to understand how the majors fought these challengers. The following are the strategies used by the major brands to fight the price competition -

• React aggressively : The assault from the challenger brand was faced by the major brands aggressively. Brands like Colgate, Pepsodent etc reacted sharply to the competitor first by reducing the price to arrest the severe market share loss.
• Flanker brands : The major part of the success of market leader was the use of flanker brands to ward off price competition. Colgate effectively used Cibaca as the flanker brand to fight the price competition thus preserving the price premium of the market leading brands.
• Use smart SKUs : The toothpaste market leaders also used less prices SKUs to neutralize the price competition. The availability of big brands in affordable packs in a way prevented the consumers from switching to a less priced local brand.
• Advantage in differentiation : The age old concept of Positioning and Differentiation helped the leading brands to effectively fight the price competition. The low priced brands failed to counter the brand-equity with price alone. 
• Deep pockets : The deep pockets of the likes of Colgate and HUL enabled a large aggressive and sustained offensive against the challengers. Regional brands didn't had a chance fighting the deep pockets.

The lesson for the challenger brand is not to fight the big players without credible differentiation. 

Marketing In Practice : When Celebrities de-endorse !

Pepsi was in a soup recently when the celebrated endorser Amitabh Bachchan publicly told the media that "  he stopped endorsing Pepsi some years ago, after a young girl asked him why he was advertising a drink her teacher said was “poisonous " ( Source ET)

The brand was obviously embarrassed since Bachchan was endorsing Pepsi for more than 8 years.  Although the media took the  sensational issue initially, the issue died down thanks to the clout of Pepsico. 

The problems that brand faces when celebrities turn rogue is nothing new. There has been a spurt in the recent past on these kind of mishaps because more and more celebrities are being roped in for endorsements. But things are different here in this case of Pepsi where BigB has virtually de-endorsed ( new word) the brand by subtly saying that he made a mistake in endorsing .

Celebrity like Big B is not going to be affected and may even will be praised for saying such things. But for sure this is a thoroughly unprofessional act . It is the brand that suffer when such de-endorsement happens.

What is the lesson learned ?

There is no new lesson but a reminder that brand and not celebrity should be the highlight in campaigns. Although obvious, brands tend to forget this simple dictum. Brands try to derive maximum equity from the celebrity hence would act as a second fiddle in the campaign. 

Brands should try to balance the power sharing with the celebrity. One way to balance is to portray that celebrity is also deriving much benefit from consuming the product. 

 Understand that the celebrity-brand relationship is contractual and transactional. Hence if the entire equity of the brand is going to rest with celebrities, then these events will hurt more. 

There is not much a brand can do when celebrities de-endorse. Just sulk  and move on and pray that no one noticed .And probably build a clause in contract to prevent such de-endorsement.

In the long term,what the brand should do is the plan the nature of engagement and dis-engagement while using celebrities in campaigns.

What's your take ?