Brands pull out all the stops in ad wars

Besides the court case,HUL fired another offensive against P&G by launching an ad across TV channels in which it openly claimed Rin was a superior detergent than Tide. Called comparative advertising,the practice of pulling down rivals in ones marketing communications is not new in India,yet,the ad took the industry by surprise because it was an open war declared by one powerful company against the other. As expected,Tide took HUL to the court seeking a withdrawal of the ad and the court,in an interim order on 5 March,asked HUL to withdraw the ad.

The most interesting aspect of this high profile corporate battle is that both companies said their decisions at each step were guided by consumer interest.

HUL,for instance,claims the ad had been launched in the interest of Rin users. You will be aware of the recent launch and advertising of one of our competitors who has sought to give the impression that theirs is a natural detergent when in fact,by their own admission in court,it is a synthetic detergent. This has misled consumers at large, HUL said in response to a questionnaire from The Indian Express. A senior executive of the company added: Consumers had to be informed about the misleading claims made by the ad in question and we had no option but to put things in perspective for them,hence,the new ad for Rin.

Tide,while refusing to comment on the questions sent by The Indian Express because the matter was subjudice,maintained that the offensive from HUL had hurt Tide consumers and in their interest it will take the fight to a logical conclusion. We will continue to stay focused on growing our share via delighting consumers with superior product benefits, a company spokesperson said.

Alongside this high-decibel brand war,there is another interesting,albeit low-key drama unfolding among a different set of competitors - news channels. In the past one week,at least three news channels have released prominent full page to half page ads in various newspapers claiming the maximum viewership on the budget day. In a full page ad,Bloomberg-UTV,the business news channel owned by media and entertainment entrepreneur Ronnie Screwvala,claimed it was the number one news channel watched on 26 February whereas in a similar campaign,another English news channel Times Now claimed it beat all its rivals including the business news channels in budget day viewership.

These claims also have an expected consumer interest tinge to them. Consumers want to be with the best. So being number one matters and when you are number one,it is essential for a brand to communicate this to the consumers, says MK Anand,CEO,UTV Global Broadcasting.

In the midst of these claims and counter-claims the essential questions are: Do such tactics really serve consumer interest in any way? Do they really help them in making an informed choice? And most importantly,do consumers really care about such rants?

Answers to these questions are difficult to come by because of the conspicuous absence of strong consumer bodies in the country,something that actually emboldens companies to make such claims in the first place. Market observers,however,say there is a difference between informing consumers and letting off at rivals.

There is nothing wrong in highlighting a brands attributes,its benefits and other features. That helps consumers know what the brand stands for and that would really be helping them make an informed choice. But mud-slinging in the name of informing consumers is bad strategy. It is demeaning for consumers as well, says Santosh Desai,CEO,Future Brands,a company promoted by retailer Kishore Biyani.

The experience in the Indian market shows efforts at denigrating rivals have mostly boomeranged or at least,not done any good to the aggressor. Beverages maker Pepsi in an ad in the eighties showed that consumers in a blind taste test preferred Pepsi over rival Coca Cola. The brand remained quite aggressive in its subsequent advertisements as well; the most prominent example being its Nothing Official About It campaign in which it took a direct potshot at Coca Cola,the official sponsor of the World Cup cricket in 1996.

While the two companies dont disclose market share data,estimates from various quarters suggest Pepsi has never been able to beat Coca Cola in market share in India.

Such offensive ads taking a direct dig at the rivals are often launched by brands in a weaker position, says Chintamani Rao,vice chairman,Times Global Broadcasting,the company that runs Times Now,the English news channel. TGB is part of Bennett,Coleman & Co,the countrys largest media house that owns titles such as The Times of India and The Economic Times. Incidentally,The Times of India and Hindustan Times are also known to have public spats over supremacy. The day the readership numbers are declared,both newspapers run campaigns claiming to be the leaders in different markets.

On how can all players operating in the same market space be the market leaders,Rao says: Its all about slicing and dicing the data the way one wants it. One can make data say whatever one wants.

Experts say mostly,it is the defending brands or those losing market share that indulge in disparaging or comparative advertising. In the current case of HUL and P&G as well,Tide,according to the data from market research agency The Nielsen Company,is in a much stronger position. HUL,however,raises a more pertinent question: What option does one have if one sees a rival brand spreading misinformation? Broadcasting flat statements are not going to yield any results,nor would they get any attention from any quarter, says the HUL executive. We had no option but to bring out an ad exposing the wrongful claims,alongside seeking a legal redressal.

Interestingly,Indian laws do not prohibit comparative advertising. Also,the Constitution recognises the right to commercial speech. Indian laws allow brands to indulge in puffing up their image through advertising. A brand is at liberty to make claims such as it is the best, says J Sai Deepak,an IIT Kharagpur law graduate,currently practising at the Delhi High Court. He further says,according to Section 29 (8) of the Trade Marks Act,2000,companies are allowed to run comparative ads as well though with some riders,such as,the brand in question should not be taking unfair advantage through such communication or shouldnt be contrary to honest business practices and should not hurt the reputation of the rival brand.

The Advertising Standards Council of India,the industry watchdog,also has laid some guidelines on comparative advertising but being a non-statutory body,its recommendations are not obligatory.

Legal intervention,when sought,helps put things in perspective but most of the time,such battles are won on other public platforms because the effort,at the end,is not to expose the truth but to influence consumers,say experts. In the absence of a strong regulatory environment and standard procedures to substantiate claims made by brands,having public slugfest and indulging in war of words doesnt hurt. Sometimes,such mudslinging helps in unraveling some truth and therefore,actually,helps consumers in making an informed choice. But in most cases,it leaves them more confused than ever, says Desai.

What the Advertising Standard Council says

1. Advertisements must be truthful. All descriptions,claims and comparisons which relate to matters of objectively ascertainable fact should be capable of substantiation. Advertisers and agencies are required to produce such substantiation as and when called upon to do so by the Advertising Standards Council of India.

2. Where advertising claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment,the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement.

3. Advertisements shall not,without permission from the person,firm or institution under reference,contain any reference to such person,firm or institution which confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised or tends to bring the person,firm or institution into ridicule or disrepute. The advertiser and the advertising agency shall produce explicit permission from the person,firm or institution to which reference is made .

4. Advertisements shall neither distort facts nor mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Advertisements shall not contain statements or visual presentation which directly or by implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer.

5. Advertisements shall not be so framed as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.