Madhukar Sabnavis: Keep refreshing!

Brands should dare to re-invent their advertising more often.

The story of the brand "Asian Paints" is both instructive and inspirational. The brand has evolved from being a "can of paint" in the early 80s to "painted walls" in the 90s to now being about "beautiful homes" in the new millennium. During this period, the brand has moved from being just a product to being about retail services and home-making experience. Its advertising too has moved from being about "celebrating a freshly painted house" in the 1990s to being about a "home reflecting the personality of the owners" in its latest campaign. In 2002, the brand went through an identity change""its logo took on a new look in typography and colours""and the brand actually "gave up" its mascot""Gattu""who had been an integral part of the brand-building success from the 60s. What makes this story particularly interesting is that Asian Paints did all this while it remained a leader with no real outside "market reason" to change.

This is more an aberration than a rule in the marketing and advertising world. It is worthwhile to pull back and see how this has evolved in this country in the last two decades.

Man is fundamentally resistant to change. He changes only if pushed to a corner""often when he does not have any other choice. The same is the case with marketers, brands and their advertising. The principle mostly is "If it aint broke, why fix it". So not surprisingly, most successful brands retained the same advertising through much of the 80s and early 90s. In fact, for big brands, advertising became almost formulaic and formatted, marketers seeking comfort in the rules framed from what worked in the past. And for some iconic, successful brands""the same execution ran for years. Liril, a brand positioned on freshness, had the same girl and waterfall execution running for over a decade and a half. Colgate's ring of confidence commercial with a dentist and family ran for over a decade. And the brands did ok in the market.

Things began to change in the 90s with competition hotting up in the marketplace. External pressures, with new brands coming in, forced marketers and brands to revise their existing advertising strategies to combat the new challenges. Many brands actually changed executions and strategies quite frequently in an attempt to figure out the right way to go ahead. This was driven more by the environment rather than internal belief that change was essential. "Necessity is the mother of re-invention" became the principle for brands. Reinvention was a reaction rather than a planned action. And the future course of brands and their advertising sometimes emerged from the "seemingly" random, tactical reactions to marketplace pressures.

Today there needs to be a re-orientation towards the concept of re-invention and re-engineering. It should not any longer be seen as a reaction to external environment but should be seen as a strategic weapon for brands and their advertising to move ahead. In the world of advertising, this becomes even more relevant as it is a variable that is most easily changeable. In fact, the damage a "wrong" campaign can cause an established brand is limited""magnified more by the paranoia of marketers. This need for disruptive brand and advertising thinking is triggered by the following changes in the environment:

Consumer democracy: Thanks to a variety of products being offered in the market""particularly because of technological advances and the globalisation of markets""the consumer has more choices than before. And this is making markets more brand-undifferentiated. In such me-too markets, distinctive new communication can make a big difference.

Consumer fatigue: With the explosion of advertising mediums and messages, consumers do get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. There is a constant need for new stimulus, and brands that are sensitive to this can perhaps gain more.

Consumer aesthetics: Growing influences in the marketplace are changing consumer expectations of aesthetics. And this change can have subtle but real influence on consumer perceptions of brands. If a brand at the most basic level is an identifier""a symbol, logo, name, colour""all these elements speak to the consumer subliminally and communicate strong values. So typography that was very modern and contemporary five years ago can have become archaic and irrelevant today. The best advertising ideas of the 80s and 90s would be executionally totally irrelevant or outdated in today's context! Brands and advertising need to take cognizance of this.

Clearly, change is part of life. The need to refresh continuously is the call of the hour. Brands need to listen and reflect this. Historically "teenage" brands like Coke and Levis have always done new things all the time""because teenagers are seen as the "rebellious" ever-changing consumer group. So, much of the newness of the cola brands comes through their constant advertising updation""new icons, new youth lingo and association with the latest in music and sport. Other consumer segments are seen as relatively static with fairly constant universal human needs. This needs to be seriously re-examined.

Classically, product innovation or extensions have often been seen as good moments for brand re-invention. However, as we go into the future, there may not always be excuses available to refresh""so brands and advertising need to find them (or make them up) to make an impact.

Interestingly, history has shown that whenever brands have dared to refresh and hence revealed a new face to consumers, the idea has worked. Cadbury Dairy Milk has done "deviant" advertising three times in the last decade and a half""each time looking different from the past and it has worked well for the brand. Onida dispensed with the devil in the 1990s and gave itself a new look with good results. Britannia refurbished itself""again in the 1990s""and its new look gave a face lift to the brand's imagery and marketplace.

The new "Surprisingly SBI" campaign does something interesting""highlights strong product features the brand had developed over a period of time but does it in an unexpected, "non-financial" way. Suddenly, with just the advertising, the brand looks and feels young and vibrant.

Continuity is not necessarily a virtue. The signal to brand builders is clear""play around with the symbols""advertising; even brand identity elements like logos""without fear. And the consumer is willing to accept it with pleasure. There is more to be gained than lost!

Something worth thinking about.

The author is Board Partner""Discovery and Strategy, Ogilvy and Mather, India.
The views expressed are his own.

Madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com