Recently read an article on afaqs and decided to write this to delve into the topic more. Have you noticed any similarity between ads of pepsi, LG cookie pep, goodknight, clinic all clear, airtel, Airtel DTH and likes? Apart from being endorsed by celebrities, these are brands that have been using two or more endorsers lately. 1. LG Cookie pep has John Abraham, Abhay Deol and Genelia D’Souza busy selling off Abhays cool stuff. Or rather, zap it. 2. Airtel DTH launched with Kareena Kapoor, Saif, some Indian cricketers and A.R Rahman. All at your home. 3. Clinic all clear is parading the zero dandruff scalps of Asin and Bipasha 4. Pepsi’s Youngistan ka Wow has Sanjay Dutt and Ranbir Kapoor playing some really dangerous games. Earlier a bunch of cricketers too were hitting a six off the boat for Pepsi. 5. Goodknight had Rani Mukherjee for less smoke coils and now Vidya Balan for their cream 6. Garnier had Aishwarya rai walking like a supermodel (you almost thought that she is gona slip off) in a shiny red dress with a fake accent and Chitrangadha Singh as well as Genelia D Souza faking a lot of innocence on her face. 7. Airtel has SRK and turns to Madhavan and Vidya balan when they need romance. These days, it is the other guy who calls his dad and tells that he wants money for his birthday. His name skips my mind. A lot of people believe the fact that ‘A known group of celebrities speaking about the product is much more effective and reaches out to wider audiences’. In fact, these are the words of LG s marketing head. Some think that having two people is better than one and three is better than two. At the same time people believe that Indian consumers have come off age and make informed purchasing decisions. Well the matter is much simple than all this. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth. Suppose, you have to classify the above examples into like or dislike. That is which of the brands do you think manage their multiple endorsers better than others. So what have you classified? I am sure most of us like the way Pepsi, Garnier and Airtel manage multiple celebs better than GoodKnight, LG or Airtel DTH. Right? And here lies the answer. According to me, a lot of people miss out on the fact that multiple celebs work better when the brands are associative in nature. As in you would not mind flaunting that or associating or being loyal to the brand when in midst of a group of people. Pepsi is associative and Airtel DTH is not. DTH as a service has not gained that much of ‘perceived’ differentiation over one another that make them associative but you clearly have people who either like Pepsi or Coke. Garnier is associative but Clinic all clear is not. Shampoos at least in Indian market do not have that much of differentiation. Especially, if it is the sachets. One wouldn’t mind shampooing with clinic plus if all clear is not there. Same is true for GoodKnight, will I go around showing that I buy only GoodKnight. Not exactly. When the brand is associative, it makes sense to go with a larger number of endorsers given that they have a commonality vital to the brand. LG roped in the three for the new ad. The commonality being youthful energy or whatever the guys in marketing thought was the underlying factor. Well here is the down point, LG mobiles as a brand is not associative enough, at least in India, and that is why the idea is less likely to cling on. Same is true for Airtel DTH. Sun DTH without any gung ho advertising is way ahead Airtel DTH and a little behind Tata Sky. Same is true for Goodknight too, not likely to succeed with vidya balan or rani mukherjee. Not only is there no commonality among them apart from the fact that there are better looking actresses than them but we all know that they wont exactly be battling mosquitoes when at home, too.
Tag Archives: airtel
According to Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge “In a recession, consumers become value oriented… But a downturn is no time to stop spending on marketing.”
Recession is the time when one can gain on the competitors’ weakness more than any other phase and consumers are willing to switch and test new brands rather than sticking to one. If they feel that their brand doesn’t connect with them then this is the time that the risk of switching over is more. A consumer who sticks with you even in a recession is loyal.
A downturn is no time to stop spending on marketing. But neither is it to continue wasteful spending. In a downturn the consumer is more likely to buy your product rather than your brand. Therefore until and unless you communicate the value that your product gives rest all efforts would be wasted. One method of communicating the value is through brand ambassadors. Here the question is much beyond recession. Choosing a brand ambassador does not depend on recession or boom but reviewing your brand ambassador during recession keeps a brand updated and ready to face new challenges.
- Pillsbury Doughboy
A brand ambassador is generally the companys face to the consumer. It can either be a person like Amitabh Bachchan for Cadburys or a character like Fido Dido of 7up.
A human ambassador is generally someone who is famous or well recognized. The company gets the advantage of instant recognition and recall and top of the mind awareness. The loyal sets of fans adopt products wholeheartedly given the purchasing power. A celebrity endorsement can be helpful for a brand to maintain attention to its brand and category. People would be more keen to watch a celebrity on screen. However if given a choice an organization should always restrain from it simply because most of the celebrity endorsements tend to follow the hockey stick effect – they rise for sometime to fall forever. A marketer or any businessman for that matter would like to control the risks as much as possible and everyone knows that a celebrity endorsement is often uncontrollable off the screen. Michael Phelps was videotaped smoking Marijuana, Kellogs for whom he was the ambassador pulled him instantly following public outcry and protests. The damage is reversible but expensive. Back home, Hansie Cronje endorsed Siyarams, soon to be hooked in a match fixing scandal. The cost and damages far outweigh the benefits, if things go wrong. Such incidents can be alarmingly damaging and a recession would just deepen the wounds.
- Tweet bird
On the other hand, a character is a reliable option. It is totally controllable and has no risk of being replicated. The incremental effect of a brand character on the consumers is also significant. The brand character can be extremely effective for smaller and medium sized companies who do not have cash resources to fund a celebrity, especially in a recession. Moreover a character can be molded over a period of time, especially, when you need to communicate a new position that marketers often take during a recession trying to undo the mistakes that they had previously accumulated. Hence Onida could easily change its devil character over the period of time to add more value into their communication, as they are targeting the conservative and cautious consumer. Hence Ronald Mcdonalds face remains synonymous in the minds of its young target audience who are being wooed unsuccessfully by Burger King and other outlets. Things can not be better if your consumer is loyal to you even during recessions because they want fun and nothing signifies it better than McDonalds Ronald McDonald, the ever smiling ambassador, recession or not. A brand character over a period of time can hence help you own a word in the mind of the consumer and enhance your positioning or maintain it. Hence, Ronald Mcdonald relates to “fun”, the AMUL girl signifies a “healthy and happy child”.
Recessions are times when a company needs to thoroughly examine its brand associations. A check needs to be done to ensure that the association is a source of equity. However, thoughtless marketing has more often than not, wasted company’s resources on extravagant brand endorsements. It gets painful when the consumer realizes lack of synergy between him/her and the brand primarily due to its erroneous secondary associations. This dissatisfaction hurts the company the most during recession when the consumer has more choices to switch and there are competitor brands repositioning themselves to woo the undecided consumer.
- mE? Really?
More often than not Brand endorsements, especially, come at the expense of an idea. Everyone remembers when Zoozoos and the Pugs walked away with the honors while Airtel was busy spending crores on Sharukh, Madhavan etc. An idea overpowered the blandness of celebrities. Brand ambassadors mean that you are forced to weave your brand around the celebrity than the other way around. This results in lack of believability and consumers fail to associate themselves with the brand. How believable is it when Deepika Padukone says that she uses orbit white? Whereas, HappyDent had a brilliant idea that needed none to endorse. Does Aishwarya Rai use Lux? Then why does she say “Dus rupaye mein Lux”? The consumer believes that the benefit they promise should also be false. Lifebuoy on the other hand is a brand that communicates the idea of health, without being dependent on the power of brand ambassadors and owns the word “Health” in the minds of its customers. The crucial ingredient in the success of any brand is its claim to authencity and poor brand ambassadors destroy it.
How brands perform in a recession is a sum of everything that the brand has done in the past to force the consumer behave the way he/she does in a recession. If it is unfavorable, then there is no better time to change than recession. Repositioning during a downturn is lesser obvious than when things are going on fine. Repositioning during recession communicates that the brand is willing to change according to new conditions.
Now suppose a management is adamant on the use of brand ambassadors to revive a brand, how do you enable it.
The answer is going back to the basics of making a brand ambassador, or, for that matter, any brand association, believable and credible. If the consumer feels that the brand ambassador is the brand itself then there is nothing better than that and that will not be possible until and unless there is exclusivity in your selection. The only brand that comes to my mind when I hear Vishwanathan Anand is NIIT. But for Sharukh Khan? Brands should hence not fall into the ‘Khan trap’ and should look for more economical sources of equity. Brands should awaken to the power of zero cost internal marketing assets like your customers, internal as well as external, who can represent your brand. Starbucks is what it is today not because of any ads, in fact they hardly
- Starbucks Barista – Got Milk?
advertise, but due to the service experience that the employees or the Starbucks “partners” help provide. These kinds of brand ambassadors are especially relevant to brands that are service oriented. Even the high end apparel brand Abercrombie and Fitch uses only its sales representatives as its brand ambassadors. Consumers are willing to pay extra for a good service where the employees represent the brand wholeheartedly and hence enhance the brand equity and create a win-win relation. Many product brands are now shrugging of the albatross around their necks of the brand ambassadors and using its consumers or a seemingly normal person as its brand ambassadors. We have seen Dove doing it and Maggi and KurKure do the same with the faces of consumers on its packages. Leveraging on your free marketing assets results in greater efficiency of your communication and more credibility- critical during recessions. It bonds them into a relation that will see you through the recession without any ripples. Real or not, these are much more effective than a celebrity who is never going to eat KurKure or concoct his/her own version of maggi.
- Zero Cost marketing asset leverage
Hence, given a choice opt for better ideas more than secondary associations. Incase, you feel that you need a brand ambassador adopt a brand character. If you are still dissatisfied then opt for credible, exclusive as well as zero cost marketing assets like your consumers and employees to be your brand ambassadors. It will create a long term brand equity and better “hard-to-attack” points of differences that the consumers would like to vouch for even in a recession, even if it means a higher price.