Even in an era of déjà vu and digital fatigue, some advertisements and campaigns can still be clutter-breakers. Today I saw the latest Cadbury side-by-side hoardings, and they immediately caught the eye, albeit maybe for the wrong reasons. Both brands belong to Cadbury.
Like the saying
goes, any publicity is good publicity, as long as it is publicity. This
one certainly makes the point and in a very forceful way.
2. Segmentation
is subtle, so subtle that customers may not even know both brands belong to the
same company. HUL has many competing brands like Hamam, Lux, Cinthol, Dove in the
shelfs and they all act as flanking brands, but this strategy is largely unknown
to the customers. They think that the brands from different companies.
Similarly, TITAN
offers a diverse portfolio of watch brands catering to different segments,
including Titan (flagship), Raga (women's), Fastrack (youth), Sonata
(affordable), and premium/luxury options like Xylys, Nebula (solid gold), and
Edge (slim). Other specialized brands include Zoop, Titan Smart, and SF. Most
customers would be shocked to know that they all belong to the TITAN stable!
Let us
hypothetically assume that Colgate were to develop a wonderful toothpaste for
pets like dogs and cats. It would not name it Colgate Cutie Toothpaste.
Even if the formulation were different, many human customers would not like to
share their toothpaste brand with a dog toothpaste.
The same
argument holds good for Manikchand Atta or Nirma Toothpaste. We would soon feel
drugged just thinking of Manikchand rotis and brushing our teeth with detergent
if it were Nirma toothpaste. Brands are mental associations, and they are
extremely difficult to break.
.jpeg)
3. Would this
lead to cannibalisation of sales from one product to another? Would Silk take
sales away from Cadbury Five Star or vice-versa? Either scenario is not ideal.
Logistics and distribution issues might arise, leading to friction between the
respective brand managers.
4. What Cadbury
is probably hoping for is incremental sales for both brands. That both
brands would benefit and sell more. I honestly don’t know on what analytics
this assumption is based.
5. Is this part
of a well-planned strategy or just smart-alecky behaviour? Any promotion
has to be subtle—not so much in the face. Positioning is the battle for the
mind. Cadbury Silk operates at an emotional level, while Cadbury Five Star
plays at a very practical level. The two seem to clash.
6. In fact,
Cadbury Five Star’s communication almost appears to mock Silk’s positioning—“Why
get mushy?”, how far will you go to escape this mush, Nah I am fine here seem
to be lampooning or even making fun of Cadbury Silk’s creative campaigns.
7. Five Star is
virtually asking customers not to buy Silk (a higher-priced offering)
and settle for a lower-priced one. And Valentine’s Day, the biggest occasion of
the year for at least one customer segment—is when you ask them not to
celebrate? I genuinely don’t understand the logic here.
8. And then
there’s this whole idea of “doing nothing.” Since when did doing nothing
become so relevant? Doesn’t doing nothing also mean not partaking in any
commercial product, like Cadbury Five Star itself? Or are we using “doing
nothing” purely for commercial gain? I am getting confused with this entire line
of thinking.
9. Finally,
what exactly is the segmentation here? Cadbury Silk customers - Gen Z and Gen
Alpha. Cadbury Five Star - Gen X and Millennials. But can generations really be so
cold-bloodedly separated? What if they overlap and create brand identity
confusion? I don’t know—and I would love to be a fly on the wall in Cadbury’s
creative room when such discussions take place.
10. At the end
of the day, customers don’t care. Marketing pundits can go to hell. If they like the
ad, if buzz is created, and if the sales graph moves, then it’s all good. We
can crow till the birds come home to nest—but it does not matter. Jo Jeeta
Wohi Sikandar.
