Coiling the shots

Old-fashioned mosquito coil has stolen spark from mats

It's smoky, old-fashioned and expensive. And consumers swear by it. The mosquito coil "" generically called kachhua (tortoise) after the pioneer brand in the category "" has been making a quiet comeback in India.

After taking a battering from electronic mat devices (EMDs) in the mid-1980s and most of the 1990s, consumers are asking for mosquito coils again.

According to data from ACNielsen ORG-Marg, the market for coils, which was nearly 30 per cent of the segment of mosquito repellents in 1998, is now 53 per cent of the segment. In comparison, mosquito mats, which dominated at 34 per cent in 1998, are now down to 10 per cent.

Why have consumers dumped sophisticated mat technology in favour of the smoky, dusty coils? Manufacturers put a part of the blame on rigid customer perceptions.

Take a look at what Godrej Sara Lee (GSL) "" which introduced EMDs in India in the 1980s but now markets three coil brands, Good Knight, Jet and Hit "" has to say.

"Consumers link smoke with efficacy in the case of mosquito repellents," points out A Mahendran, managing director, GSL.

The company was convinced of this when it test marketed a smokeless coil in Kerala in the late-1990s. The product bombed in the test-marketing stage itself. (Incidentally, smokeless coils have failed throughout the world.)

Another paradox in the resurgence of coils is the value proposition. Earlier, the cost per use in the case of coils was less than that of mats.

For instance, in the 1990s, the nightly usage cost of coils was at a low of under 50 paise compared to mats, which cost Rs 1 a night. At present, while mats cost Rs 1.6 a night, cost of coils have gone up to as much as Rs 2.1 a night. But industry executives point out that consumers are still convinced that coils cost less.

You can't entirely fault the consumers for thinking that way. Mats have a entry cost barrier "" a no-frills electronic mat device on which the mats are placed costs Rs 28, that too after costs have dropped by more than 50 per cent. EMDs also faced other problems in attaining popularity.

First, there was the issue of electricity consumption, which meant an added expense. Then, most places across the country still do not have access to uninterrupted electricity.

Also, unlike a mosquito coil that can be placed in any corner of the room, mat devices have to be placed near electricity switch boards "" which, according to consumers, meant the repellent would not be effective all over the room.

With penetration of mosquito repellents being abysmally low (40 per cent in urban areas and 10 per cent in rural), category growth had to happen, through the entry-level mosquito coil.

That wasn't always the case. EMDs created quite a buzz when they were launched in the mid-1980s. First-mover advantage went to Good Knight (then owned by the Mumbai-based Transelektra), which entered the market in 1984.

It was quickly followed by several others like Jet, Casper, Banish and so on. By 1996, mats had captured 46 per cent of the Rs 434 crore mosquito repellents segment "" and the entire segment had doubled in value terms over a five-year period.

But when Reckitt & Coleman (now Reckitt Benckiser) test-launched Mortein mosquito coil in south India in 1993, and extended it to the rest of the country in 1996, it upped noise levels in the industry.

Although ad spends for that time are not available, industry sources say that since the entry of Mortein ad spends on coils have been zooming.

According to industry estimates, three years ago, advertising spend on coils was Rs 15 crore, of the total Rs 40 crore. (The figures for the current year are Rs 40 crore and Rs 90 crore, respectively.)

The market leader at the time was Bombay Chemicals' Tortoise "" indeed, it was generic with the segment. But the company spent hardly Rs 2 crore on its advertising "" and it was squashed.

Godrej Sara Lee reacted by launching Jet coils in 1996, but the brand was at best a regional success. Jet dominated big markets like Andhra Pradesh (where the company claims that the brand lords over 80 per cent of the market).

What worked for Mortein was its large presence on television. Besides, it was the first Allethrin-based coil as opposed to the Pyrethrum-based herbal Tortoise coil. (Allethrin coil manufacturers claim that that the active ingredient is more effective against mosquitoes.)

Mortein was soon gunning for market leadership and ran ahead of Tortoise in 1999 with a market share of 34.6 per cent. Tortoise had meanwhile declined to 26 per cent from nearly 33 per cent the previous year.

In the same year, coils marched ahead of mats. To make matters worse for mats, refill liquidators introduced in the early-1990s were silently growing from strength to strength "" their claim to fame being they solved the issue of changing mats every night.

GSL, which had bought out most of the competition in the mosquito mats category (it had taken over Jet mats from Sonic Electronics and Banish mats from P L Chemicals in 1995), was the worst hit. In 1999, when GSL gave in and extended its flagship brand Good Knight into coils, it had to offer a differentiator.

Based on consumer needs for a longer lasting coil, the company launched a coil that, it claimed, would last for 10 hours (other coils promise eight mosquito-free hours).

To emphasise the difference from other coils, Good Knight coil was coloured maroon (the rest were green) and positioned as a "jumbo coil". By 2000, Good Knight coils had a 12.9 per cent market share.

It wasn't long before the competition reacted. Mortein, for instance, launched a "king coil" variant in 2000 and Maxo from the Mumbai-based Jyothy Laboratories threw down the gauntlet in 2002.

Good Knight has since then launched a 12-hour coil and another that will work for 14 hours (although the company carefully refrains from actually saying so in as many words).

The market soon resorted to a slugfest, offering free coils and value-adds. Even the otherwise-slow Tortoise reacted, offering a patented coil pad for placing the coil (it ensures that the coil ash does not fall on the floor).

However, some of Tortoise's communication attempts, such as a 1999 print ad campaign that openly hit out at Allethrin-coil makers, did not go down too well with the Advertising Standards Council of India. Tortoise's pace soon slowed down to a crawl.

At present, GSL with its three brands (Hit, the aerosol repellent brand, was extended into coils six months ago) accounts for 35 per cent of the market, while Mortein is the single-largest brand in the category with a 29.1 per cent share.

Jyothy Laboratories' Maxo is the second-largest brand. With such heightened activity it's only the mosquitoes that are not smiling.

Crawling into its shell

In a sparsely furnished office close to the Bombay Stock Exchange, there's a buzz of excitement about Vijay G Gokhale. As director of Bombay Chemicals "" better known as the makers of Tortoise mosquito coils "" his enthusiasm could be misleading.

Because Bombay Chemicals' turnover is down to Rs 30 crore, from Rs 60 crore just five years ago. Its market share in mosquito coils, where Tortoise was synonymous with the category, is down to 2.3 per cent (January-December 2003, ACNielsen Org-Marg), from a leadership position of 32.9 per cent in January-December 1998.

But why is Gokhale still smiling? Simply because the category of mosquito coils, which Bombay Chemicals pioneered in India in the 1970s, is back in vogue. And Gokhale is confident that this time round, things will be different.

Where did Tortoise go wrong? Perhaps the biggest mistake was in attitude: like the proverbial frog in the pond, it believed that the world was only as big as it could see.

Earlier, after its launch in the 1970s, Tortoise had fought off many competitors like Rooster, Attach and Guard. But the entry of big-time competition in the form of Reckitt Coleman's Mortein, in 1993, was the beginning of the end.

It's not as if Tortoise didn't have time to react: Mortein began by test-marketing in the south and went national only in 1996.

Tortoise's strongholds were the markets in Mumbai and West Bengal; it could have used those to cement its position in the rest of the country. But, as Gokhale admits, "We do not move very fast. We are happy with what we are doing."

Of course, Bombay Chemicals did make some effort to push up brand visibility. Its advertising campaigns with the proposition Kachhua jalao machchar bhagao (burn Tortoise and drive mosquitoes away) did ensure high recall.

But compared to the blitzkreig unleashed by the competition, Tortoise was way behind in the race. Even now, the total advertising spend on coils is Rs 40 crore; Tortoise's budget is a paltry Rs 2 crore.

And although the brand had become generic to the category, what hurt Tortoise the most was its erratic distribution system.

"Tortoise was not developing the category aggressively and there were huge supply shortages in season," says a competitor. Gokhale accepts this.

"Our market shares went down because our distribution was very weak," he admits. The current distribution depth is restricted to just 15 per cent of the entire market, although the company now claims to be beefing up its distribution strategy.

A beginning has been made by increasing the number of C&F agents from 12 to 30. "Even today customers ask for Tortoise. Distribution, distribution and distribution is what I need for the brand," Gokhale says.

In September 2003, Tortoise also launched a variant "" Tortoise Nak Lazor "" with a money-back guarantee if customers are not satisfied. The company claims that the variant has resulted in a 30 per cent increase in sales already. But will it help Tortoise win the race?