There are not more than seven musical notes, yet their permu­tations and combinations give rise to scores of harmonious melodies. Similarly, though there are just five primary colours, when com­bined in various portions they produce myriad hues. There are just five cardinal tastes – sour, acrid, salt, sweet and bitter – yet combine them in unequal or equal measures and you have an assortment of flavours to tempt your taste-buds.

Likewise when you go in for battle there are not more than two methods of attack: the direct and the indirect. The two can be combined in various forms producing endless manoeuvres to stump the competitor’s camp.

Walking A Tight-Rope
War in the market place can be fought using the same two manoeuvres creating endless strategies to defeat the competi­tion. Comparative advertising is one of these manoeuvres. While Hero Honda versus TVS Suzuki (1989) and HCL ver­sus Modi Xerox (1985-86) are examples of direct strategy, Nirma versus Surf was combat of an indirect kind (in 1971). Interestingly, the biggest advantage of this kind of advertising is in its capabil­ity of immediately swinging the viewer's attention towards it. More so when the combat is direct due to the involvement of competing hi-profile brand names.

Comparative advertising has been lauded for being more aggressive and factual in its approach. The Federal Trade Commission (USA), more than 20 years ago, had begun to encourage the use of comparative advertising. It is not a new phenomenon. There is evidence that it was used in England in the eighteenth century. It had been and is being used in US extensively. However, prior to 1971, the practice of naming a competitor’s product in advertising was rare.

Different cultures have shown dif­ferent responses towards comparative advertisements. In US, they are all part of the game. The logic: Public slanging matches reflect the concept of ‘consumer is the king’ and hence, for his benefit, both sides of the story should be told. In US, the Federal Trade Commission explicitly endorses the comparative use of brand names to enable consumers to make an informed decision. However, in a country like Taiwan, such advertise­ments would surely be frowned upon.

India’s reaction to comparative adver­tising of this nature is the toughest to assess. If handled properly, westernised India doesn’t mind comparative advertis­ing. Yet the same advertisement (accept­ed in metros) may not be appreciated by a large part of the middle class consumer. The phenomenon is like walking a tight rope, where one needs to find the right balance. A wrong step could topple you over. In such cases, the advertiser needs to understand the psychology of the con­sumer first. The consumer always sides with the underdog and not the bully. So if the ads are unnecessarily aggressive, they may just not work. Moreover, to a common man it may seem out of charac­ter to see two giants fighting it out. As a result, sometimes both parties may end up losing the bond that they share with their consumers.

Beware Nasty Retaliation
Comparative advertising comes with its own share of drawbacks. It is not always a very great idea to be unscrupulous while handling/using comparative advertising. There is a possibility of competition re­taliation, through lawsuits, if a compara­tive claim cannot be substantiated.

It is interesting to note though that sometimes competitor retaliation is actually sought after! Take the case of Complan versus Horlicks. Chaitra Leo Burnett made an ad which was in the form of a talk show of parents. With the help of this talk-show they proved how brand H (obviously referring to Horlicks) was inferior to Complan. Chaitra knew it had stirred up a hornet’s nest. Probably it wanted to create some kind of con­troversy, and get some attention. When Smithkline sought recourse to the law, the ad was immediately whisked off air and a new ad, showing Brand X instead of Brand H started being aired. Accord­ing to some sources, Chaitra had shot both the ads, i.e. one with Brand H and the other with Brand X before the con­troversy started. They were banking on the publicity that their strategy would create. What one needs to remember is that in such games it is very easy to be caught on the wrong foot.

Another problem with comparative advertising is that even if you have a superior attribute vis-a-vis your compe­tition, it may be one that can be easily copied, thus negating your superiority claim.

Sometimes, a product may not have a distinctly superior product attribute. Take the case of Parachute versus Clinic Plus. In July 1996, Parachute’s market­ers Marico released an ad which read – “when they say Plus they mean 42% coconut oil, Plus 58% paraffin. When we say Parachute we mean 100% coconut oil”. This Plus in the sentence was an obvious indirect reference to Clinic Plus. Though the competition was not named in the ad, it showed a bottle with a plus sign on it, bearing a striking resemblance to Hindustan Lever's Clinic Plus. Marico did not know that this would backfire. HLL complained to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC). The charge was not against the comparison, but the fact that the two products were incomparable.

Parachute did not mention on its bot­tle that the product was for hair applica­tion. (This was done to put the product in a lower excise bracket). Thus, technically it qualified as cooking oil. So Parachute and Clinic Plus could not be compared. Following this logic, if Marico did want to compare then Clinic Plus could be com­pared to the company’s other product, i.e. Hair & Care. (This product incidentally contained 60% paraffin!). HLL further argued that paraffin was used to help dense oils flow well. So if Marico tried to portray paraffin as a dilutant, that was unfair. The arguments were too strong and what Marico tried to depict as their product superiority fell flat on its face! The campaign had to be stopped.

Barging Into Saturated Markets? Try Differentiating
With so many brands competing with each another today, the aim of all ad­vertising is to differentiate them. If you want to enter a new market and make a dent in it, the best way to differentiate your product from the others would be to take the help of comparative advertising. This is what drove Samsung to explicitly name its arch rivals when it launched its colour TVs in India. The agency Mudra, which created the ads, used the punch line: “If you are not interested in buying the world’s best TV you could always buy a Sony, Philips or Panasonic”. No one knew about the brand name Samsung, but everyone knew about Sony, Philips, etc. So the best way to shoot to promi­nence was to compare your product with the more popular brands.

Nothing concentrates people’s minds better than a war. Unlike real wars, where one wins and the other loses, in brand wars sometimes both the parties win!

Coke and Pepsi are the best examples. In public, going for one another’s throats is part of their ethos. But among them­selves they know that it’s the war which keeps the consumers' interest alive in their products and helps in increasing the num­ber of cola drinkers. Not just this, when the two fight, they ensure that the cola market is divided between both of them only and no third party dare enter.

It’s always the guy on the lower rung who starts this war of comparative ads. In the case of colas it is Pepsi that has always been comparative. After all, this is the best strategy to steal the limelight. The leading brands, in contrast, tend not to get embroiled in such tussles and that is possibly why Coca-Cola always refrains from retaliating to Pepsi ads. That’s also why Hertz for years did not respond to Avis advertisements.

And the Battle Hots Up…
Of course, sometimes the leading brands, too, succumb to the temptation of retali­ating. When pop star Michael Jackson, a Pepsi endorser, fainted while performing one of his concerts due to dehydration, Coca-Cola splashed hoardings with the message “Dehydrated? Try Coke”. Though after many years, Hertz, too, retaliated to the 1960s Avis ad which stated that “we are No 2, we try harder". It retorted “Hertz has a competitor who says he’s only No 2. That’s hard to argue with”.

The moment you compare your brand with another one, it gets a free piggy ride on your back. If you are not 100% sure of your product, it is better not to go for comparative advertising. Why give cred­ibility to a rival product at your expense. However, comparative ads cannot be de­nied their charm. The high-decibel mar­keting, the cheeky punch lines, the subtle reference to the competition, do get you hooked on to them, and you think “what’s the competitor going to do next?”

In 1987, Bakeman’s Industries Ltd con­ceived Mint-O. The company identified a real need for a mouth freshener in the Indian market. So Mint-O was positioned as a “beyond-the-child” mint product, targeted at the adults. Suddenly, in 1993 came the rich and powerful, cousin of the mint family – Polo. It had everything, big money, international clout and a very aggressive marketing strategy. Interest­ingly, when it was launched, it came with a hole in the middle.

The sleepy confectionery market was refreshed by the giant Polo. Suddenly consumers started taking interest in the mints. Bakeman’s saw a golden oppor­tunity and instead of shying away from competition, decided to slot Mint-O as the only alternative to Polo. The ad cam­paign of Polo, with the punch line “Mint with the hole” had become very popular. Its blitzkreig advertising had taken the confectionary market with a storm. If Mint-O had to make a place for itself it, too, needed to be very aggressive. The best strategy would be to take Polo head­long. It decided to fill the hole and then question the very need for it.

A whacky ad campaign was designed by Ambience taking pot-shots at the competition. Soon the punch line “All mint, no hole” become a popular punch line. They released a series of ads which stated. “You don’t have a hole in your head so why have one in your mint.” The ads had a definite appeal for the youth. Result: Mint-O succeeded in establishing itself as a “see Polo, remember Mint-O” brand. Parle, too, tried to jump on the bandwagon with its mint variant called Yahoo; but was unceremoniously kicked out. Even lower prices did not help it in making a dent in the market.

After all, while two is company, three is a (unwanted) crowd! It’s a bloody battle being fought, every day every year, year after year and only the mighty survives. Brands that have survived definitely de­serve a round of applause.

Hook the Kid or the Mother?
When you cut your finger what’s the first thing you’d reach out for? Everybody got the answer right: a Band-Aid. The answer would have been very different if Band Aid had not fought tooth and nail for its share of the market.

Band-Aid came into our lives in 1961. At that time it cost just 10 paisa! Over the years it ruled the market, faced no compe­tition and was accepted with open arms by the urban, educated mother. Its adver­tising was direct. One of the ads went like this: “Don’t risk infection.” It stated the product benefit directly and was endorsed by an urban mother – its target consumer. “I trust only Band-Aid” is what she said for many years. She was suddenly facing stiff competition from a little boy who cart wheeled and gambolled. When he got bruised he immediately used – no not Band-Aid – but Handyplast. Plaster suddenly became a ‘fun’ product. Band-Aid became the serious one. It should have realised this was coming since the product is simple and it doesn’t require any sophisticated technology and hence, could be easily copied.

Handyplast connected with the tar­get customer almost immediately. It was launched at a time when children were becoming more independent and mak­ing buying decisions. Instead of parents telling them what to use, they were influ­encing the parents' choices. Handyplast was talking to these children through its mascot – the naughty little boy. Band-Aid was badly bruised. Its market share fell to 63%. Not to be disheartened it changed its ad strategy. This time the mother showed how if a bruise was not taken care of properly it could get infected. What it actually meant was that it was the mother and her knowledge of the right product (obviously Band-Aid), that could protect her child from any infection.

However, this strategy was not enough to give back its lost glory. The next spate of advertisements decided to do something different. Instead of target­ing children through the mother, it posi­tioned its product for the 22-44 year old housewife. She, too, got cut and bruised, especially in the kitchen. There was Band-Aid Wash Proof to protect her. Of course, the child could not be forgotten else he would be lured away by the cutie kid of Handyplast. So in 1989, Ogilvy & Mather created the ‘Pyar ka Aanchal’ campaign. Pampering the kid further in 1991, Band-Aid roped in the lovable su­perstar of children, Sachin Tendulkar, for endorsing its product. They even started giving a free wristband with every pack. The child was mesmerised.

Once bitten, Band-Aid was now very conscious of its competitors. The moment it got news that Dettol was coming out with medicated plaster it changed its advertising strategy. This time around its advertising emphasised the fact that the product was a part of the Johnson & Johnson family, a company known for quality products for children. The mother would still form the focus of its advertise­ments. So it came out with “Shararat ki Dava” campaign showing real life situ­ations children got into and with which the mother immediately identified.

Band-Aid did not want to take any chances so it kept the children also un­der its spell. What better way to attract children than with the ever favourites – Mickey and Donald. So it put these Walt Disney cartoon characters on the plaster. The commercials showed two little children comparing their bruises and showing off their plasters. And if this was not enough they even put the characters from Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book on their plaster! Band-Aid knows that even though today it has regained the lead over its competitors, the No 2 and No 3 are both strong and can come back with greater force any time. As they say, may the strongest survive!

Fill It, Shut It, But Don’t Forget It
It’s believed that if you enter the market first, your chances of survival are the highest. Twin reasons for that – (a) there is no competition, and (b) consumer re­members your brand the best since he saw it before he saw others. So, if you are good you normally retain your number one slot. Unfortunately, this did not prove true in case of Ind-Suzuki. It was the first 100 cc motor cycle of India. It was easily overtaken by a product that was not bet­ter, but it explained to the customers very convincingly why it was good. Advertis­ing agency Ulka told it in six words – “Fill it. Shut it. Forget it.” The bike went to town promising the consumer 80 km to a litre. With the backing of international giant Honda, people did not question its quality. The bike from the Hero Honda stable sold like hot cakes.

A successful idea is like a pot of honey. It attracts a lot of bees. Seeing the suc­cess of 100 cc bikes competitors began to spring up to grab a share of the pie. The strongest of these was Yamaha RX 100 launched by Escorts. It took its com­petitor head on. An advertisement for RX stated: “When they talk about how long the fuel will last, think about how long the bike will last…” RX had hit the nail in its head. Suddenly 'power' and not fuel efficiency became the reason to buy. As usual, the most impressionable of the lot, i.e. young college-goers, started rooting for it.

Soon ad agency Hindustan Thompson Associates (HTA) created a new cam­paign for Hero Honda CD 100. The catchy slogan went: “You’ve got a good thing go­ing”. Hero Honda knew its customer well. The 18-24 year old, extrovert guy is very conscious about the kind of impression he makes on others. A bike was a very clear way of reflecting his personality. Yamaha showed him ‘power’ and he fell for it. Hero Honda stole him away from Yamaha by showing him other dimensions – car­ing for the environment. Here was a bike which was low on pollution and low on maintenance. The idea appealed to him and the efforts paid off. CD 100 regained its No 1 slot in 1988-89.

In order to further consolidate its po­sition, Hero Honda was out with a brand new model and brand new advertising. “What’s life without a little passion?” asked their print ads. This time again it was the young male who was the target. He was shown trying to impress a girl with his dream machine. Once again the company hit the bullseye and soon Honda Sleek accounted for one in every four bikes bought just on the basis of looks. Did someone say looks don’t matter!

But then life’s not a bed of roses. TVS Suzuki had been nursing its wounds for long. They say there is always a lull be­fore the storm and what a storm it was! Suzuki rocked the market soon with not one, but two bikes. “No Problem”, the two words were enough to beat the com­petitor hollow. Suzuki Samurai was the ‘no problem’ bike. The powerful 110 cc Suzuki Shogun dazzled the urban Indian consumer. The two together hypnotised everyone with their combination of beau­ty and power.

Not to be left behind, Hero Honda came up with a winner called 'Splendor', which was “Designed to excel”. This time it was given a premium image. It was not just a bike, it was a piece of art. Hero Honda is constantly innovating to stay ahead of the competition.

New Media Wars: No Fairy Tale Endings
‘Saas-bahu’ fights are the root cause of most tensions in India’s joint family sys­tem. In the 1990s, this battle from the home transgressed into the corporate board rooms of two families, viz Procter & Gamble and Hindustan Lever Ltd. The products at stake were Ariel and Surf. It began with advertising wars featuring the saas and the bahu, an argument that Indians would love to overhear, especial­ly if the protagonists are our neighbours’ saas and bahu! Ariel came up with an ad that showed the mother-in-law sup­porting the old method of washing (an indirect hit on Surf and Rin, which are older brands as compared to Ariel), while the smart bahu stressed the zero labour, high output value of a compact detergent, read, Ariel. Ariel had taken the smart way and soon became popular!

Not to be outdone, Hindustan Le­ver's Surf Ultra promised the housewife something irresistible – a wash which guaranteed no trace of stains. “Dhoondte reh jaoge” was soon the catch line on everyone’s lips and the company man­aged to literally sweep its competitor into oblivion. Everybody was soon looking for ‘Surf Ultra’ and not Ariel in the neigh­bourhood mom-and-pop stores.

Then Ariel began hunting for a prom­ise which would exceed that of Surf. It launched Ariel Microshine, which had mysterious enzymes that offered "100% more stain fighters". Not far behind, Surf, too, launched Wash Boosters, which promised "the best clean under tough­est conditions". If that was not enough, Ariel was out with Ariel Super Soakers soon enough, and Surf launched the Surf Ultra with enzymes. By this time the con­sumer was completely confused and ex­hausted trying to remember the chemical compositions of the two detergents. The two detergents were seemingly fighting out a media war over the same issue of who cleans better and faster. The conse­quence: brand loyalty started declining and tactics were immediately changed.

There Was Nothing Official About It!
"Nothing official about it" was what Pepsi had to say in 1996 when Coca-Cola be­came the official cold drink of the cricket World Cup. Coca-Cola did not retaliate. It did not believe in getting its hands dirty. Nevertheless it did respond to Pepsi, but with the help of other brands like Thums Up and Sprite.

Coke came out with another campaign which went “Eat Cricket! Sleep Cricket! Drink only Coca-Cola!” Pepsi lashed out by roping in cricketers Azharuddin and Sachin Tendulkar. Coke lashed out too with the help of Thums Up. The cam­paign said “Don’t be a bunder (monkey). Taste the thunder!” Soon after, when Pepsi aired the Preity Zinta commercial with Jaggu (the monkey) it was Sprite that said cheekily “Man ki Suno, Monkey ki nahi”. Media war between these two cola biggies sure is monkey business.

If that was not enough, when Thums Up started its “Grow Up to Thums Up” campaign, Pepsi showed Pawan Kalyan (of Andhra) and an uncool side kick who suffers after drinking a ‘grow up tonic’. It even roped in MTV VJ Cyrus Broacha asking “Who wants to grow up?”

Coke came back again, this time armed with a new celebrity – Aamir Khan, and a new campaign. “Thanda matlab Coca-Cola”. Nimble toed Pepsi was quick to react and was out with the Fardeen Khan and Rahul Khanna cam­paign. Coke’s punch line was “Life ho to aisi” and Pepsi took a dig at it showing the deserted Cola Cola(!) shack. Rahul Khanna and Fardeen are looking for work when they come across two shacks on a beach. One was of Pepsi – bustling with people. The other of was in red, called Cola Cola. Fardeen runs to the Cola Cola shack – the logic – no customers, no work, all play!

Incidentally, these ads were made in something as short as four days. A brief­ing at 6 pm on a Saturday, the team work­ing till two at night, then shooting the film on Sunday, and viola it was ready to be aired the next day! Fight ho to aisi!

May The Best (Wo)man Win!
This is an ancient Chinese tale. The year was 945 AD. A small Chinese force was surrounded by a very strong and vastly superior enemy. It was hot and the land was parched. All the wells had dried up. The men were reduced to squeezing lumps of mud and sucking out the mois­ture. To make matters worse a strong gale started blowing. The sky became black and the air was filled with dense clouds of sand dust. An intelligent general saw the opportunity. He told his leader that this was the time to attack. So what if their numbers were small, the wind and sand would camouflage them and victory would go to the most strenuous fighter, not the biggest one. They attacked their bigger enemy and won the battle.

War is not just about numbers or arms and ammunition, it is also about intelli­gence. It’s about understanding the battle ground, the situation and identifying the right tactics. In today’s market place, it’s not simply about understanding the competitor, but also the market and the customers. The one who has mastered this needn’t fear any battle.

Uncle Chipps, neither a global giant nor a first entrant in the market, won and succeeded using the right tactics. It was started by a small Delhi-based set up called Hindustan Proteins Ltd (HPL). Later it was bought by Amrit Agro. The product had a catchy name and some catchy advertising soon established it as the premium brand. War clouds soon gathered on the skyline when big players like Pepsi decided to enter the market with its product called Ruffles.

With their financial might these big players could easily outdo the offerings of the reigning market leader, Uncle Chipps. But, Uncle Chipps was not wor­ried and tightened its belt. It was ready for the giants. It changed its agency and roped in Contract to do its advertising. It started using a lot of outdoor advertis­ing and point-of-purchase materials. Not just this, it launched flavours which were truly unique to India and Indians loved them. There was one for every part of India. Papri Chaat for the East, Tomato Punch for Mumbai and another one for the south Indian market.

The first round of ads talked of com­petition between only two players – Uncle Chipps and Uncle Chipps – meaning be­tween two flavours of Uncle Chipps the existing and the new. Soon competition started collapsing like a house of cards and Uncle Chipps screamed from various banners and hoardings “Can a chip unite a country”. George Bush won the elections in US with his famous line “Read my lips”. Uncle Chipps pushed out its American competitor with the catchy slogan “Bole mere lips I love Uncle Chipps”.

By 1996 Uncle Chipps became the largest selling brand of potato chips. Pu­dina pataka, salt ‘n’ vinegar and naughty nimbu made sure that Uncle Chipps would not budge from the number one slot.

However, not all wars end in victory. If you hit below the belt you are bound to lose. Tasteless advertising is not some­thing that the consumer enjoys. Hyundai came out with a series of ads which ridi­culed it's competitors Daewoo and Ford. One of the advertisements compared Hyundai’s Santro with Ford’s Ikon. The headline stated “Santro ends Ikon’s Josh” and the rest of the copy was peppered with statements like “… the Ikon falls flat... surprisingly nothing more than a stripped down version... a driving experi­ence totally devoid of any luxuries... Why the josh fizzles out.”

In an apparent reference to Daewoo, some Hyundai dealers published adver­tisements which said “Car apke ghar, kam­pani sadak par” (car at your home, com­pany on the road). To add insult to injury, the advertisements further stated that the company had been declared bankrupt and placed in the market for auction. So consumers had better be cautious since they could face problems in procuring spare parts later. This was perhaps an example of a tasteless, unethical form of comparative advertising. MRTPC finally put a ban on all of Hyundai’s compara­tive ads.

A Lawsuit? Maybe Not!
In India there is no censorship but the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) does wield a strict hand. Any person who finds an ad offensive can complain against it.

The MRTP can direct the advertiser to withdraw the advertisement. It may even ask the advertiser to issue a corrective. In some urgent cases, where the competitor is suffering heavy losses, the Commission has the power to grant temporary injunc­tions on the campaign till the inquiry is complete (of course you could make ap­peals to the High Court or the Supreme Court later). The aggrieved party could even ask for damages, which are pursued in the appellate forum. However, very rarely does corporate India take things so far as to demand compensation – the main reason being that the whole sys­tem is so tedious. In most cases the im­mediate concern is prevention of further damages.