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: Pepsi
‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Here Juliet tells Romeo that a name is an artificial and meaningless convention.
Just read that Pepsi changed its name to ‘Pesi’ in Spain, following the name change to ‘Pecsi’ in another Argentina around July 2009. (Article) Reason: Locals pronounce the brand that way. I followed the comments to the article and there were people ‘For’ and ‘Against’ it. I was wondering what should take preference, so I thought of the following points:
- Easier pronunciation
- Coke or other competitors wouldn’t benefit from the shift of people to them due to the difficulty in pronunciation
- More localized; more attentive about the consumer preferences
- Would not make much of a difference
- Dilute the brand image; especially if there are some duplicate brands who would sell their beverage as Pepsi or similar name (assumption)
- The absence of uniformity in a global brand
- The constraint of localizing a successful global communication that could have been used otherwise
- Create apprehension in the mind of the customer who has always been purchasing ‘Pepsi’
I think the name change was not necessary. Not because the cons are exceeding the pros but the cons seem to be much more specific and the pros are either vague or an assumption of a situation that has equal probability of happening and not happening.
The most important point here is that of imagery. For Pepsi, the symbol, the logo, is its major brand identity; people identify Pepsi with its logo, unlike coca cola, whose brand image is calligraphic writing of the brand name. Hence, the name as far as the ‘P’ of Pepsi was concerned was the least common differentiator that was not necessary to tamper with.
Somewhere, it creates a certain lacunae within the minds of the consumer. Especially, in this globalized world where people are much more exposed to global campaigns and happenings , it might just be a tad difficult for a local to associate Pepsi endorsed by giants like Beckham and other endorsers and immediately register with Pesi or Pecsi.
A better solution would have been to continue branding as ‘Pepsi’ in their communication in the ‘local slang’. So, that after a period of time with repeated exposure to the same communication whenever the word Pepsi is seen the mind equates it to the sound of ‘Pesi’ or ‘Pecsi’. So, you could have showed a bottle with ‘Pepsi’ written on it but stress on the factor that it would be called ‘Pesi’ or ‘Pecsi’ from now on. In that way you still respect the local needs and give/sell them a global brand. A win-win for both sides.