S S JONDHALE INSTITUE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

A PRESENTATION FOR

MARKETING RESEARCH

COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING IN INDIA

BROUGHT TO YOU IN ASSOCIATION WITH

Mr VISHAL R PULI

COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
 COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING IS AN ADVERTISEMENT IN WHICH A PARTICULAR PRODUCT, OR SERVICE, SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS A COMPETITOR BY NAME FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF SHOWING WHY THE COMPETITOR IS INFERIOR TO THE PRODUCT NAMING IT.  COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY COMPETING BRANDS

COMPARES ONE BRAND WITH ONE OR MORE

 ONE DRAWBACK OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING IS THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE BECOME MORE SKEPTICAL ABOUT CLAIMS MADE BY A COMPANY ABOUT ITS COMPETITORS BECAUSE ACCURATE INFORMATION HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN PROVIDED, THUS MAKING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPARISON ADVERTISING QUESTIONABLE

 IN ADDITION, COMPANIES THAT ENGAGE IN COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO MISINFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT A COMPETITOR'S PRODUCT.  INCORRECT OR MISLEADING INFORMATION MAY TRIGGER A LAWSUIT BY THE AGGRIEVED COMPANY OR REGULATORY ACTION BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY SUCH AS THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC).

 THERE ARE TWO BROAD TYPES OF COMPARATIVE ADS  ONE IS THE DIRECT COMPARATIVE ADS WHICH COMPARES THE COMPETITOR IN MORE THAN ONE ATTRIBUTE. THE SECOND TYPE IS THE INDIRECT COMPARATIVE AD WHICH PROJECTS THE BRAND AS THE LEADING BRAND RATHER THAN COMPARING ON CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES.

COMPARATIVE ADS IN INDIA

 THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE ADS IS USED EXTENSIVELY IN WESTERN COUNTRIES.  IN INDIA TOO,THE CONCEPT WENT BACK TO 1980S WHEN THE COLA WARS WAS FAMOUS.

 IT WAS ALSO PEPSODENT VS COLGATE  HORLICKS VS COMPLAN  PEPSI VS COCA COLA

 LETS HAVE A LOOK AT ONE OF ONE SUCH COMPARATIVE AD PEPSI COMMERCIAL SPRITE COMMERCIAL

SOME COMPARATIVE ADS IMAGES

A CASE STUDY OF RIN VS TIDE

 NOW THIS IS THE LATEST EXAMPLE IN THE CASE OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING.  THIS CASE IS ONE OF ITS KIND IN INDIA BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHEN A COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOWCASED ITS COMPETITORS BRAND CLAIMING ITS BETTER THAN ITS COMPETITOR.  BEFORE DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THE AD!

RIN VS TIDE

 NOW THIS CASE HAPPENED THIS YEAR WHEN HUL COMPANY LAUNCHED ITS RIN AD AND DIRECTLY SHOWCASED TIDE AS AN INFERIOR PRODUCT.  AS RESULT P&G WHICH AS IS THE PARENT COMPANY OF TIDE LAUNCHED A SUIT AGAINST HUL COMPANY.  THE RESULT WAS HUL HAD TO WITHDRAW ITS AD IMMEDIALTELY OFF THE AIR.  BUT HUL STILL STANDS BY WHAT SHOWED AND SAYS THIS WAS INTEREST OF PUBLIC.

IT HAD IN THE

 NOW TO UNDERSTAND THIS WE HAVE I HAVE DIVIDED THIS PRESENTATION IN TWO SECTIONS PART 1 AND PART 2.PART1 CONATINS INCIDENTS WHICH HAPPENED BEFORE THIS ISSUE TOOK PLACE OR INSTEAD WHICH TRIGGERED THIS INCIDENT AND PART 2 CONSISTS OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THIS ISSUE?

PART 1

 NOW THIS CASE IS NOT SO INSTANTENOUS IT SEEMS SOMETHING WHICH HAPPENED OVERNIGHT.  THIS WAS A RESULT OF A BREWING FIGHT BETWEEN HUL AND P&G FROM LAST YEAR .  NOW TO CHECK OUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED LAST YEAR LETS GO INTO THE HISTORY BOOKS AND SEE WHAT HAD HAPPENED.  TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WE HAVE TO FIRST OF ALL THE COMMERCIAL OF TIDE NATURALS

 HERES THE AD FOR YOU!  CLICK HERE!  NOW WHAT LAUNCHED NATURALS LAUNCHED CONTAINED

HAD HAPPENED HERE WAS P&G HAD A PRODUCT CALLED AS TIDE AND FROM THIS AD WHICH WAS IN DEC 2009 THEY CLAIMED THAT IT LEMON AND CHANDAN.

 TO THIS THE HUL COMPANY FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST P&G IN MADRAS HIGH COURT CLAIMING THAT THE CLAIM OF P&G THAT IT IS NATURAL IS UNTRUE AND THAT IT IS A SYNTHETIC DETERGENT.

 P&G HAD TO RESPOND BACK AND P&G HAD TO ACCEPT THAT THEIR PRODUCT WAS JUST A SYNTHETIC DETERGENT AND NOT A NATURAL DETERGENT.  THE COURT ORDERED P& G TO MAKE SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENTS AND PRESENT THE AD AGAIN.IT ALSO HAD TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE PACKAGING.  THE DIRECTOR MARKETING ,PROCTER AND GAMBLE MR SUMEET VOHRA WAS INTERVIEWED ON THIS ISSUE BY CNBC NEWS CHANNEL AND THIS IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ON THIS.

 REPORTER : HUL SAID THAT IT WAS PROVOKED BY YOUR CLAIMS IN THE ADVERTISEMENT.YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT.  SV I DONT WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT .BUT WHAT I COULD SAY IS THAT THE CHENNAI HIGH COURT HAS ACTUALLY VACATED THE INJUNCTION SO I THINK THAT MATTER HAS ALREADY BEEN RESPONDED TO BY THE COURT AND THEY HAVE ALLOWED US TO CARRY ON AIRING THE TIDE NATURAL S AD WITH A SUPER.

 REPORTER - DONT YOU SEE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE BRAND PER SE?  SV-LIKE I SAID WHAT MAKES OR BREAKS A BRAND IS HOW CONSUMERS RESPOND TO IT AND SO FAR THE RESPONSE FROM CONSUMERS ,TO THE PRODUCTS ,ITS BENEFITS ETC HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING

 REPORTER WHAT DOES TIDE NATURALS STAND FOR?WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS AND HOW WOULD THEY BENEFIT THE CONSUMER?  THE CONSUMER FIRST OF ALL GETS OUTSTANDING CLEANING AND FOR THE CONSUMER THAT WE ARE TARGETING IT WILL BE MUCH BETTER CLEANING THAN THEY ARE USED TO.AND THEY WILL SEE THE IMPACT ON HANDS IS GOOD,SO MANY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT HANDS GETTING BURNT OVER THERE THEY WILL SEE A BENEFIT.AND ITS GOT OUTSTANDING PRICE AND FRAGRANCE.SO EVERTHING THAT A CONSUMER LOOKS FOR IN SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL PARTS OF INDIA WE ARE OFFERING THIS PROPOSITION.

 REPORTER BUT WHY DO WE CALL IT NATURALS?  SVITS A NOMENCLATURE THAT THE CONSUMER RESPONDS TO.

SOURCE INTERVIEW - CNBC PHONE INTERVIEW DATED 5TH MARCH 2010

PART 2

 SO THIS WAS WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE INCIDENT.  NOW THE RIN COMMERCIAL CAN BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS  FIRSTLY IT CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS A VERY CONFIDENT AD WHICH DIRECTLY CLAIMS THAT ITS PRODUCT IS SUPERIOR TO ITS COMPETITORS ,AND BASED ON LAB TESTS.IT MAKES THE COMPETITORS BRAND SHAKES AND MAKES THE PEOPLE TO QUESTION .

 SECONDLY IT CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS AD WHICH HAS INDIRECTLY ADVERTISED ITS COMPETITORS BRAND BY BENCHMARKING IT .IT ONLY MAKES EFFORT TO TARGET THE COMPETITORS MARKET BUT WHEREAS THERE ALSO OTHER COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET.
 IF WE OBSERVE THE AD ,22 SECONDS OF THE 30 SECOND AD IS DIRECTED TO TIDE ALONE. THAT MEANS IN AROUND 75% OF THE TIME ,THE AD TALKS ABOUT TIDE.THEN THE REST OF THE 8 SECONDS TALKS ABOUT RIN.  SO IF HUL SPENT AROUND 30 LAKHS FOR THE AD 22.5 LAKH WAS SPENT ON PROMOTING THE AD.

CURRENT STATUS
 ITS BACK TO REPOSITIONING THE PRODUCT BY SOME ADS AGAIN IN THE MARKET.  HERES A LOOK AT SOME OF THE LATEST AD  KAJOL RIN AD.

WHAT DID THEY COURT SAY ON IT?

 P&G FILED A CASE AGAINST HUL IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT.THE COURT DIRECTED THAT AD BE PULLED OFF AIR IMMEDIATELY.  HUL TRIED TO REASON IT OUT SAYING THAT THE AD WAS IN INTEREST OF PUBLIC AGAINST THE FALSE CLAIMS OF THE COMPETITORS.  THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEIR CLAIM IS BASED ON LABORATORY TESTS DONE THROUGH GLOBALLY ACCEPTED PROTOCOLS IN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY LABORATORIES.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ON SUCH ADVERTISING

 STATEMENT GIVEN BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN BACKDROP OF SIMILAR CASE  A TRADESMAN IS ENTITLED TO DECLARE HIS GOODS TO BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, EVEN THOUGH THE DECLARATION IS UNTRUE.  HE CAN ALSO SAY THAT HIS GOODS ARE BETTER THAN HIS COMPETITORS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH STATEMENT IS UNTRUE.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAYING THAT HIS GOODS ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD OR HIS GOODS ARE BETTER THAN HIS COMPETITORS HE CAN EVEN COMPARE THE ADVANTAGES OF HIS GOODS OVER THE GOODS OF OTHERS.

 HE, HOWEVER, CANNOT WHILE SAYING HIS GOODS ARE BETTER THAN HIS COMPETITORS', SAY THAT HIS COMPETITORS' GOODS ARE BAD. IF HE SAYS SO, HE REALLY SLANDERS THE GOODS OF HIS COMPETITORS. IN OTHER WORDS HE DEFAMES HIS COMPETITORS AND THEIR GOODS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  IF THERE IS NO DEFAMATION TO THE GOODS OR TO THE MANUFACTURER OF SUCH GOODS NO ACTION LIES, BUT IF THERE IS SUCH DEFAMATION AN ACTION LIES AND IF AN ACTION LIES FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION, THEN THE COURT IS ALSO COMPETENT TO GRANT AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION RESTRAINING REPETITION OF SUCH DEFAMATION.

 THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, 1984 (HEREIN AFTER MRTP ACT) AND THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 WORK IN TANDEM TO PROVIDE THE BASIC STRUCTURE THAT GOVERN COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING.

CONCLUSION
 IT CAN LEFT TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE USER HOW HE PERCEIVES THIS AD.  ITS A CONSUMERS BENEFIT IN SUCH COMPETITION AND TILL ITS BENEFIT WE CAN SEND A MESSAGE TO THESE COMPANIES KEEP PLAYING DIRTY

THANK YOU!