Brand Patanjali's galloping success is a rare case in the FMCG industry.
But, is it a brand with no weaknesses? Of course not. Here are some:
1. It's a founder-person brandWhile
phrase is a made-up one, I think it explains best the category of
brands strongly linked to their founders, like Richard Branson and
Virgin, and Salman Khan and Being Human.
A large proportion of
the brand's power comes from the person behind it, and that may very
well cause trouble. We have already seen how the Lokpal movement died
after Anna Hazare moved on. Questions were raised on the future of a brand even as strong as Apple after its founder's death.
In
its advertisements, there are other endorsers - Hema Malini for
biscuits, Sushil Kumar for ghee. But they are not strongly used to build
the mother-brand, nor do they carry any past association with Ayurveda.
2. Product quality being questioned, especially in the food categories
When
product quality gets questioned, losses pile up, and even loyal
customers bid goodbye. Coke, Pepsi, Maggi... the list of strong brands
facing PR nightmares is long. Only some, like Cadbury Dairy Milk, were able to bounce back strongly.
In case of Patanjali, its atta noodles product was highlighted in the news for all the wrong reasons. And with the product range getting wider, the connection with Ayurveda becomes weaker. A tomato ketchup from Patanjali may increase sales in the short term, but I have my doubts on its impact on Patanjali's brand value.
With the new announcement on jeans,
the brand association seems to be moving away from 'Ayurveda', and
towards 'Swadeshi'. While it will help the brand tap a larger potential,
the association seems more 'inside-out' at the moment, and it remains
to be seen whether or not consumers also make the same connect.
3. Consumer Dissonance
The
biggest success factor for Patanjali is the association with a
healthier way of living - Yoga and Ayurveda. This image / perception can
trump Science, by evoking association with artificial, cosmetics,
chemicals, etc., and can make consumers feel happy that they are moving
towards a way of life closer to nature.
But habits are tough to
break, and the newly built Yoga regimen will soon be given up in
exchange for an extra half hour of much-needed sleep. Then, every
purchase of Patanjali would increasingly remind consumers of their
broken promises to themselves. Big risk!
If the 'Swadeshi' hook
takes off positively among consumers, the 'Ayurveda' association can
take a backseat, and perhaps avoid this dissonance altogether. However,
with that, the food section of Patanjali's product range will lose its
biggest differentiator too. Tough task ahead.
Of course, for
now, these are mere theoretical possibilities, and Brand Patanjali can
rest on its laurels, as its products continue to topple competition at
retail counters. So for now, other brands would simply have to try to
ride this wave of healthy living.
Or perhaps, they could stage a
comeback using positive associations with science and technology, or by
using rational arguments of superior product quality (like Heinz ketchup tried last year)?
What do you think?
Sep 14, 2016
Getting started with a Creative Brief
Have you ever tried to crack a joke, and then, suddenly realised it
didn't land right? That's pretty much how creative briefs land too, when
not written appropriately.
I realised this largeness of this problem only when a creative director pointed it out. We were in a client meeting discussing timelines, when this CD said that we need to accommodate at least 2 rounds of scripts presentation. He reasoned, the client knows what he wants only after he hears the Round 1 scripts.
So how do we avoid this? We can start by ensuring that the brief covers everything we want in the resulting ad.
If the ad has to be clutter-breaking, the brief should explain what the clutter is.
If the ad has to comprehendible, the brief should state what the intended message is.
If the ad has to be memorable, the brief should state what the killer insight is.
Most importantly,
If the ad has to be effective, the brief should cover the expected effect, and how it is communication that will affect it.
1. Explaining the Clutter:
Most briefs mention only a marketing-led background. We need to also mention what brands, products, and ads exist in the marketplace. If the brand is a challenger-brand, the brief needs to explain what brands we are challenging. If we are also challenging category codes of communication, Semantics is a brilliant tool to identify these codes.
Take the deodorant category for example. A clutter defined as 'Foreign lifestyle' will lead to desi contexts of Wild Stone's ads (one of them here). Alternatively, if it got defined as 'sex and sensuality', it will lead to Fogg's new ad.
2. Stating the intended message:
This would probably be the brand proposition itself. In case, the proposition has been around for a long time, it will be in the context of a new product / consumer insight. The simpler this message, the more hard-hitting the output can be. Think Fevicol.
3. Stating the insight:
Of course, this term is extensively abused. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Without an insight, even a great product feature (the intended message) will lose its memorability. Continuing with the example, notice how most memorable Fevicol work (not necessarily the most awarded work) is in the context of fragility. Strength of bonding can best be highlighted amidst things that are prone to falling apart. Or for that matter, Ceat tyres' ads on importance of good grip.
4. Covering the expected effect:
As advertising becomes more effectiveness-oriented, this part is the key. In a way, it connects the brief to the marketing problem. Explaining the role of communication is important too. It converts the marketing problem into a communication problem, so that advertising can solve it. At Ogilvy, we were asked to follow the Do Brief. More about the approach here.
Is this the best structure to write a brief? It's not. It's just one of many.
Nor is this brief required in all cases. Sometimes, a celebrity or just a catch-phrase can work wonders.
In other cases, though, this outline (and the work that goes in writing it) can increase your chances of striking a good idea.
---
Note: While Ogilvy is an ex-employer, the objective here is to use examples, where to some extent, I was aware of the development process. Taking other examples would be just hypothesising how the ad came to be.
I realised this largeness of this problem only when a creative director pointed it out. We were in a client meeting discussing timelines, when this CD said that we need to accommodate at least 2 rounds of scripts presentation. He reasoned, the client knows what he wants only after he hears the Round 1 scripts.
So how do we avoid this? We can start by ensuring that the brief covers everything we want in the resulting ad.
If the ad has to be clutter-breaking, the brief should explain what the clutter is.
If the ad has to comprehendible, the brief should state what the intended message is.
If the ad has to be memorable, the brief should state what the killer insight is.
Most importantly,
If the ad has to be effective, the brief should cover the expected effect, and how it is communication that will affect it.
1. Explaining the Clutter:
Most briefs mention only a marketing-led background. We need to also mention what brands, products, and ads exist in the marketplace. If the brand is a challenger-brand, the brief needs to explain what brands we are challenging. If we are also challenging category codes of communication, Semantics is a brilliant tool to identify these codes.
Take the deodorant category for example. A clutter defined as 'Foreign lifestyle' will lead to desi contexts of Wild Stone's ads (one of them here). Alternatively, if it got defined as 'sex and sensuality', it will lead to Fogg's new ad.
2. Stating the intended message:
This would probably be the brand proposition itself. In case, the proposition has been around for a long time, it will be in the context of a new product / consumer insight. The simpler this message, the more hard-hitting the output can be. Think Fevicol.
3. Stating the insight:
Of course, this term is extensively abused. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Without an insight, even a great product feature (the intended message) will lose its memorability. Continuing with the example, notice how most memorable Fevicol work (not necessarily the most awarded work) is in the context of fragility. Strength of bonding can best be highlighted amidst things that are prone to falling apart. Or for that matter, Ceat tyres' ads on importance of good grip.
4. Covering the expected effect:
As advertising becomes more effectiveness-oriented, this part is the key. In a way, it connects the brief to the marketing problem. Explaining the role of communication is important too. It converts the marketing problem into a communication problem, so that advertising can solve it. At Ogilvy, we were asked to follow the Do Brief. More about the approach here.
Is this the best structure to write a brief? It's not. It's just one of many.
Nor is this brief required in all cases. Sometimes, a celebrity or just a catch-phrase can work wonders.
In other cases, though, this outline (and the work that goes in writing it) can increase your chances of striking a good idea.
---
Note: While Ogilvy is an ex-employer, the objective here is to use examples, where to some extent, I was aware of the development process. Taking other examples would be just hypothesising how the ad came to be.
When are research scores comparable (and when are they not)?
"Let's not compare apples and oranges"
This phrase has led many a meeting astray. But it isn't completely misused. Before we compare any research findings, we need to agree on whether those findings are indeed comparable.
But, as we have seen earlier, whether we accept or reject findings depends as much on our prejudices as on our understanding of research. And if we disagree with the findings, we are more likely to believe the comparison itself is invalid.
So, how then, can we be sure that we are making like-to-like comparisons?
The guiding principle here comes from the way laws of economics are written - 'ceteris paribus'. Latin for 'All other things being the same', it sets the condition right at the beginning - that all variables other than the ones being compared are either constant, or their impact has been identified and accounted for.
Example 1: Comparing impact of an ad campaign across 2 bursts
If we see Burst 2 result in better sales than Burst 1, we need to first check if the distribution was already in place when Burst 1 was launched. Alternatively, when Burst 1 performed better, it could be a result of a retailer incentive program that didn't get rolled out along with Burst 2.
Example 2: Comparing an ad campaign across multiple geographies
Competition and Culture vary greatly across geographies. If a campaign for breakfast cereals does well in City 1 versus City 2, it could be a result of different breakfast habits, and different competing breakfast foods and not so much the ad itself.
Example 3: Comparing brand growth over long term using tracking studies
While working on evaluating a brand's long term ad campaign, we saw that while overall the ad had a positive impact, the sales actually dropped in some years when the ad was on air. A little digging revealed that the industry itself went through a slump during that time, and thanks to the ad campaign, this brand performed better than industry. Quite revealing how 'success' and 'failure' got redefined with just one additional factor included in the analysis!
What about your data?
Any interesting comparisons?
This phrase has led many a meeting astray. But it isn't completely misused. Before we compare any research findings, we need to agree on whether those findings are indeed comparable.
But, as we have seen earlier, whether we accept or reject findings depends as much on our prejudices as on our understanding of research. And if we disagree with the findings, we are more likely to believe the comparison itself is invalid.
So, how then, can we be sure that we are making like-to-like comparisons?
The guiding principle here comes from the way laws of economics are written - 'ceteris paribus'. Latin for 'All other things being the same', it sets the condition right at the beginning - that all variables other than the ones being compared are either constant, or their impact has been identified and accounted for.
Example 1: Comparing impact of an ad campaign across 2 bursts
If we see Burst 2 result in better sales than Burst 1, we need to first check if the distribution was already in place when Burst 1 was launched. Alternatively, when Burst 1 performed better, it could be a result of a retailer incentive program that didn't get rolled out along with Burst 2.
Example 2: Comparing an ad campaign across multiple geographies
Competition and Culture vary greatly across geographies. If a campaign for breakfast cereals does well in City 1 versus City 2, it could be a result of different breakfast habits, and different competing breakfast foods and not so much the ad itself.
Example 3: Comparing brand growth over long term using tracking studies
While working on evaluating a brand's long term ad campaign, we saw that while overall the ad had a positive impact, the sales actually dropped in some years when the ad was on air. A little digging revealed that the industry itself went through a slump during that time, and thanks to the ad campaign, this brand performed better than industry. Quite revealing how 'success' and 'failure' got redefined with just one additional factor included in the analysis!
What about your data?
Any interesting comparisons?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)