Look ma, fair hands

The glow on Rakesh Kumar Sinha's face is hard to miss "" and it's all due to FairGlow, the fairness soap from the Godrej stable. No, Sinha isn't a user, but as vice president for sales and marketing at Godrej Consumer Products, he has reason to be bright "" again.

For the past three months, FairGlow has been growing at close to 40 per cent; Sinha claims that the advertising support for the brand has also doubled since last year. Agency Mudra, which handles the brand, says there will be "interesting activities" around the brand in the next few weeks.

The activity is urgently needed. FairGlow may be erupting like Etna at the moment, but until the last quarter of 2004, the brand bore a closer resemblance to Haleakala, the world's largest dormant volcano. Within two years of its launch in 1999, FairGlow had become a Rs 100- crore brand.

But now the entire fairness soaps category "" Godrej FairGlow, Hindustan Lever's Fair & Lovely soap and Emami Naturally Fair herbal fairness soap"" has shrunk to Rs 80 crore.

In comparison, fairness creams, which were around Rs 550 crore, crossed Rs 800 crore by end-2004. Even in the Rs 4,000 crore soaps' market, the fairness segment has a minuscule 2 per cent value share (just 1 per cent in volume terms).

Although FairGlow still has the lion's share of the fairness segment, its 60 per cent share works out to just Rs 48 crore, which is less than half its earnings in year two.

In other words, even if FairGlow keeps up its scorching 40 per cent growth, it will take another two years or so for it to regain its 2001 position. So, is Sinha happy because FairGlow is getting a second opportunity to score?

A fair chance

When FairGlow soap was launched in December 1999, the dice were heavily loaded in its favour. First, most Indians associate beauty with fair skin.

Even the competition's research bears that out: according to a 1998 Hindustan Lever study, 78 per cent of women in India aspired to be two shades fairer because they believed it made them more attractive and confident.

"It is a colonial hangover," comments Ashish Mishra, head strategic planning, Mudra.

The decision to promote the fairness proposition as a soap also made strategic sense: in India, creams had a penetration of only 25 to 30 per cent.

On the other hand, soaps enter over 95 per cent of Indian households. And FairGlow was priced at Rs 11 for a 75 gram bar, compared to Rs 26 for a 25 gram tube of Fair & Lovely cream. "We offered fairness through a soap, which was more convenient to use at no extra cost," says Sinha.

With high expectations from the product, Godrej planned a high visibility launch. On the launch day, FairGlow created a "surrogate roadblock" on television channels (the 40-second television commercial ran simultaneously on all channels within a five- to 10-minute time frame to ensure that even viewers who surf channels during commercial breaks caught a glimpse of the brand).

Then, the product was advertised on all top rated programmes such as Kaun Banega Crorepati and Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi. "The opportunity was big because it was a true innovation," says Mishra.

But there were huge credibility issues to be tackled: the stay-on proposition of creams "" once applied, creams stay on all day "" while soaps are washed off within seconds of application.

Sinha argues, "The same is true with hair conditioners or a face wash, which are also washed away. But consumers still believe that they work." True. But fairness soaps had to contend with an established category (launched in 1975) like fairness creams. For hair conditioners and face washes there was no close alternative product.

Godrej's solution was simple: it tailored its commercials to focus on customer testimonials. The result: within a year of launch, FairGlow was selling between 400 and 500 tonnes a month (a volume share of 1 per cent in the toilet soaps segment).

Fair, fairer, fairest

How did HLL, whose Fair & Lovely had more or less created the market for fairness products, react? Within a couple of month of FairGlow's launch, HLL retorted with a prolonged teaser campaign for Lux Sunscreen soap. The new variant was launched in March 2000 "" and withdrawn barely a few months later.

In the second half of 2000, battlelines had been drawn between the soap and the cream. FairGlow and Fair & Lovely aired similar television commercials on the marriage theme; only, Fair & Lovely launched two ads in response to FairGlow's single ad spot.

"We could not match their advertising muscle," admits Sinha. Instead, Godrej resorted to offers like buy-three-get-one-free in end-2000.

Darkness at noon

Even as Fair & Lovely and FairGlow fought it out on TV screens, the sun was eclipsing over the toilet soaps industry.

Consumers were downgrading to the sub-popular category: in 2000, while the popular category grew by just 1 per cent, the sub-popular category was clipping along at a brisk 15 per cent. FairGlow being an offering in the popular segment of soaps, was naturally going to be hit.

Then, in December 2000, a year after the launch of FairGlow soap, it committed a vital strategic mistake. It extended FairGlow into creams with the proposition, Bedaag gorapan (spotless beauty).

But instead of being considered a natural brand extension, the move further fuelled a suspicion consumers had harboured "" fairness soaps may not be as effective as creams.

Importantly for Godrej, it lost the high ground of innovation that it had made its USP. Sinha admits that if he could change one thing about FairGlow's past, "We would never venture into creams".

Even as FairGlow's brand extension backfired, HLL engaged in battle on another flank "" it launched Fair & Lovely soap. Naturally, the already thin dividing line between cream and soap further blurred.

Fair & Lovely's soap was a high profile launch with its theme, Ek tukda chand ka (A piece of the moon). While a barge backlit by the moon floated on the sea off Mumbai's Marine Drive, practically every hoarding in prominent places hollered the benefits of Fair and Lovely soap. But at Rs 15 a piece (nearly 50 per cent more expensive than FairGlow), HLL's new battering ram did not find too many takers.

Analysts say that HLL used the soap as merely a flanking strategy to guard its cream user-base. "The idea was that even if consumers bought a fairness soap, it would be from the same brand basket," says one analyst. HLL executives did not meet The Strategist for this article.

Still, HLL did not rest after its soap launch. Over the next two years the company launched several new Fair & Lovely cream variants.

FairGlow, on the other hand, was still fighting consumer perception that soaps may not work. It launched a "money-back challenge" to build up credibility in 2002. Fair & Lovely reacted by offering two soaps for the price of Rs 20 (coming down to the FairGlow price).

The sales graphs, though, remained dim. By mid-2004, FairGlow put the cap on its cream misadventure. It followed with an ad campaign in late-2004 that illustrates the efficacy of the soap. That's paid off dividends, and sales are currently up. Whether they'll be able to reach their previous highs, though, is anyone's guess.
 

What would you do now?  

How could the fairness soaps segment be made more relevant? The Strategist asked two marketing specialists to draw up their dream plans for brightening the market for fairness soaps. But what would you do? Send in your suggestions in less than 500 words to strategist@business-standard.com. The three best responses will be posted on our website. Last date for receiving entries: 24 February 2005

Who's the fairest of them all?

Consumers believe that the soap category offers several basic benefits "" cleansing (including freshness and germ-kill), skin "after-state' (dry, moisturised) and end-benefit led (confidence, beauty). One critical task to be accomplished by the fairness soaps is to gain a deep insight into the dynamics governing the "wash-off" versus the "leave-on" categories.

I suspect that the primary reason for the fairness soap market performance turning out to be significantly below expectations is the credibility gap arising out of the ability of a soap, which remains in contact with the skin for just a few seconds, to deliver fairness.

To address this fundamental barrier, the answer lies primarily in communication. One way to do this could be by centre-staging the technological breakthrough that allowed the fairness benefit delivery through a soap "" this would obviously need to be in plain consumer-speak and not "tech-ed out".

A different route would be to take on the strong consumer belief head-on. The way Savlon antiseptic liquid took on Dettol by challenging the "no-sting" proposition is a good example.

Thirdly, a strong source of authority could accomplish the same task. Chefs' endorsement of culinary ingredients has been proven to be effective. When the source of authority is not directly related to the category the proposition may have to be supported by "proof of action". An example is the Cadbury's Dairy Milk communication with Amitabh Bachchan, which had the new purity sealed package at its core.

Finally (and if there is evidence to prove the claim), the option of communicating the synergistic effect of the fairness soap when used in conjunction with the cream or lotion as a Step 1 and 2 regimen, could be examined.

(Shripad Nadkarni is an independent strategic marketing consultant. He was previously marketing head at Coca-Cola India and Johnson & Johnson) Fairness soaps: prequel to fairness

They say in Hollywood, if something has worked, do it again. Hence the plethora of movie sequels. FMCG marketers usually get it right by using the same principle for extending brands into related categories.

In the case of fairness products, fairness creams were around for decades, well accepted, widely used and credible to many users. Sunscreen lotions were a niche category, not really competing with creams since they provided protection against darkening of skin, while creams promise a visible lightening of skin colour.

Enter the fairness soap. But it does not do too well. We all know that consumers do not buy products "" they buy a solution. And consumers have believed in the power of creams for decades. Would they be convinced about the power of the soap, which is not clearly positioned? Are fairness soaps complementary or do they seek to replace a better-known cousin?

Why should there be a contest? In a beauty routine, it is common to use a cleanser, followed by toner and finally the moisturiser. Similarly, for a fairness routine, would consumers not see the soap, cream and sunscreen lotion as a formidable triumvirate enhancing fairness and protecting it?

The sequence of use is easy to understand, as are the specific benefits of each component. In this case, the soap would become indispensable as it removes grime and dead skin. The soap could also claim (if it is borne out by research) that its chemicals counteract melanin.

A combo pack with soap and cream could also work. Tactical advertising of the fairness routine pack should be adequate. For a "standalone" fairness soap brand, the claim that the usage of fairness soap is a prequel to any and all fairness routines is strong.

If most of the fairness cream users can be converted to a soap-and-cream routine, fairness soaps could lather up a lot of excitement and decent sales figures.

(Sudipta Sen Gupta is head, marketing, Cafe Coffee Day)