Competitive brands keep on taking potshots at each other right under the regulator’s nose
It’s not often that the Supreme Court steps in to resolve advertising wars. But the country’s apex court did so a fortnight ago when it rejected GlaxoSmithKline Consumer’s plea to stay the Delhi High Court division bench’s order that suspended its single judge’s decision to restrain Heinz from airing or publishing ads that disparaged it.
The case is as follows. Both players compete in the health food drink space with Horlicks and Complan respectively. While the latter has consistently made the promise that kids can get taller with its 23 vital nutrients, GSK had hit back with its “Taller, Stronger, Sharper” campaign, which said that kids could not only get taller but also stronger in body and sharper in mind after drinking Horlicks following a study conducted by the Hyderabad-based National Institute of Nutrition.
Subsequent ads spoke about how this could be achieved at a price lower than competition. Heinz came back with both print ads and television commercials refuting these claims, directly drawing comparisons between Horlicks and Complan. The matter landed in court – first the high court and then the Supreme Court.
This is not the only instance of combative advertising between two popular rivals, even though regulations have frowned upon such practices. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), for instance, has prescribed a code of self-regulation, which describes disparagement as an unethical practice, which is against fair play. Yet, advertisers indulge in it in some form or the other.
Take last year’s ad war between traditional rivals, Hindustan Lever and Procter & Gamble. Brand managers of HUL’s Rin cashed in on a long weekend in January 2010 to unleash a daring commercial to take on P&G’s Tide Naturals.
A Rin commercial showed visuals of P&G’s Tide Naturals, drawing comparisons between the two on the parameter of superior whiteness. While the ad was eventually taken off air following P&G moving the courts, HUL’s combative stance remains fresh in consumer minds to this day.
Take another example. Coke and Pepsi. The two, in India as well as abroad, have repeatedly spoofed, even disparaged each other in their commercials. Like the very famous ‘Joy of Pepsi’ campaign that was aired in the US a few years ago.
The ad shows a young boy heading towards a large vending machine to get a soft drink. At the lower end of the machine is the switch to procure Coke cans. At the upper end is the switch for Pepsi cans. He slips two coins one after the other into the machine and presses the Coke button. Out pop two Coke cans. But then he does something that earned the wrath of the Coke bosses based in Atlanta. He places the Coke cans upright on the floor, stands on them, puts his third coin in, and then presses the Pepsi switch for his drink. Out comes the Pepsi can and the happy boy walks away.
The commercial resulted in much debate in advertising circles, with Pepsi being restrained from airing it after Coke took the matter to court.
Despite this, advertisers including Coke and Pepsi have not ceased from taking pot shots at each other whenever the occasion has permitted itself. In India, for instance, after the famous Rin versus Tide episode, HUL and P&G once again locked horns over the Mystery Shampoo teaser campaign in July. HUL literally took the wind out of P&G’s teaser campaign for its new-look Pantene shampoo by announcing that it was Dove that was the leader in the segment. ‘There is no mystery. Dove is the No.1 shampoo’ - screamed a billboard right next to P&G’s Mystery Shampoo hoarding in Mumbai.
While the latter was a tongue-in-cheek response to a rival’s teaser campaign, the question still remains: what drives advertisers to indulge in this form of advertising when regulation is stern on the issue?
ASCI’s secretary general Allen Colaco says that quite often it is simply the need to be one-up against the other that drives advertisers to do this. “At times it may be sheer competitive pressures that compel them to behave in a certain manner,” he says.
This point is endorsed by Arvind Sharma, chairman & chief executive officer, Leo Burnett India, also an active member of the ASCI. “Human beings are passionate and every once in a while you will find them reacting in a certain manner or making a claim which suggests that their products or services are better than the other. It is up to an independent panel of civil society members and industry captains to decide whether the claim is factual or made in passion,” he says.
But going by the number of intra-industry complaints, that is, complaints made by one advertiser against another to ASCI, there hardly appears to be a let-up on that front. The number of such complaints has grown from 25 per cent earlier to 35-40 per cent now. The reasons could vary from disparagement, plagiarism or claims that appear tall, says Colaco.
Clearly, advertisers appear to revel in this combat.
