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

Brand Wars : Pepsodent Vs Colgate

The August of 2013 saw the beginning of another war in the toothpaste market. Pepsodent, the challenger brand from HUL directly attacked the market leader Colgate with a high profile comparative advertisement. The ads directly compared  Pepsodent Germicheck with Colgate Strong Teeth with claim that Pepsodent Germicheck is 130% better in fighting germs than Colgate Strong Teeth.

Watch the ad here : Pepsodent vs Colgate

While this is not the first time that Pepsodent has frontally attacked Colgate. 

Pepsodent is a small brand compared to Colgate. According to ET, Pepsodent Germicheck has a market share of 6.4% while Colgate strong teeth has a market share of over 29.4%. For a challenger brand like Pepsodent, fighting the leader directly certainly puts the brand in limelight.

In India, brands do engage in such direct attacks. Law does  allow certain level of comparative advertising provided it does not disparage the other brands. Usually the challenged brands take the matter to either ASCI or to the court. But since these take time to settle, the comparative ads may have achieved its objectives.

Most of the time, the challenger brand uses research evidence to support their claims of superiority. In this case, Pepsodent claims that it has 130% more germ attack power than Colgate. The fine print says that Colgate is indexed to 100 %. So is Pepsodent in a sense puffed up the numbers to make it seem extraordinarily superior to Colgate.

It is interesting to note that Pepsodent Germicheck chose to attack Colgate Strong Teeth rather than Colgate Total. Colgate Strong Teeth is the largest brand in the Colgate portfolio but this brand is not claiming any germ killing attribute. Colgate Total is the brand which claims the germ killing attribute. So rather than fighting the Colgate Total, Pepsodent Germicheck decided to launch the attack on Colgate Strong Teeth.

Direct comparative ads, that too against an established market leader most often works for the challenger brand. It has the shock value and the ensuing marketing war gets the challenger brand eyeballs and media spaces especially in social media. Frontal attack using such tactics has its fair share of risks. The market leader often will react with full might which may destroy the challenger brand. In this case , it is the fight between the titans and if there is a war, both will bleed.  

Brand Wars : Sensitive Toothpastes

Indian toothpaste market is worth Rs 6000 crores ( Source Business Line) and growing at 20%. Colgate has been the undisputed market leader in this market.. Competitors has been trying to make a dent in the share through almost every strategy listed in marketing textbooks.

It was an unlikely player- Glaxo Smithkline Beecham (GSK ) which really broke into the stronghold of Colgate. GSK in 2010 brought its global dental care brand Sensodyne into the Indian market. The sensitive toothpaste segment was very small and almost unknown to the larger Indian market. Colgate had presence in that niche with its variant Colgate Sensitive. 

Sensodyne surprised the market by capturing 10% of the segment within 4 months on launch. The heavy awareness campaign made customers take notice of the brand.The campaign featured " Chill Test " where the customers who had sensitive teeth were asked to tryout chilled products after using Sensodyne. The ads were very convincing and prompted many customers to try Sensodyne.Besides the Above-The -Line ( ATL) promotion, GSK also contacted around 15000 dentists to promote Sensodyne ( Source- TOI). In one year, Sensodyne became a 100 crore brand and the Sensitive toothpaste market was growing at more than 45 % p.a.

Colgate being an agile marketer was not keeping quiet . The brand launched another variant Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief inorder to arrest the growth of the competitor.Both the brands benefited by the growth of the category which has grown to about Rs 500 crore. Sensodyne inched very close to the market-leader and at one point became the leading brand in the sensitive toothpaste category. According to reports, Sensodyne and Colgate Sensitive are now having almost same market share in the category. 

Pepsodent from HUL also got into the fray with its variant Pepsodent Expert.While every brand focused on providing relief from sensitive teeth, Pepsodent differentiated by offering  ' relief and repair'  to the consumer. This move by Pepsodent forced the players to rethink their offerings. In the latest campaign, Sensodyne has added the 'repair' proposition to the brand's positioning thereby achieving points-of-parity with Pepsodent Expert brand. 

Sensodyne success can be seen as the success of a specialist brand's fight with a product-line extension. Consumer's view Sensodyne as an expert in the field and hence the claims are more effective compared to the product-line extensions. However, Colgate and Pepsodent were quick enough to retaliate to the entry of Sensodyne albeit with little success.

The fight in the toothpaste segment became more interesting with the launch of Paradontax by GSK. Another specialist brand against bleeding gums. The war has just began.