Bhavesh this debate is all about will this kind of ad blockades will successful. I am not saying what HLL is doing is a perfect idea considering the present scenario however HLL might have different view on this and this can known from HLL only. I think HLL might be doing because they have so many products and by this way they show advertisement of all the major products. Consumer will not feel that they are seeing only one advertisement because each ad of different product but of a same company. I feel that HLL is doing this to give more emphasis on strengthen its’ brand image “HLL” rather than product advertisement. I just want to convey that advertisement blockades can be successful in few circumstances and scenario. We can't say that ad blockades are just wastage of money. I have given the example of Pepsi. I think established brands like Pepsi gets benefited with this kind of advertisement at particular season and event. PEPSI has been doing the same for last decade or so and they were benefited by this. In a cricket crazy country like India people watch matches whole day and if they see only one company’s advertisement through out the day then its really makes impact in the mind of consumer. Everybody in this debate says an ad blockades is just waste of money and company should give more emphasis on pricing & quality. Yes pricing & quality are true for each and every company. But I want to say that some times ad blockades strategy is also very successful for a established brands/new brands. It has given dividends to company like Pepsi. Take another example- Whenever any company launches new TV channel they do the same thing. Sometimes in a highly competitive environment you have to penetrate the market. Color TV CHANNEL does the same, before launching the channel; they give excess advertisement to create awareness about the channel by making huge expenditure. Now you see COLOR is one of the top TV CHANNEL in entertainment segment. Yes their contents are also very good but they have created awareness in the minds of consumer by providing excessive advertisement.
By
Deepak Agrawal, Consultant, Independent Consultant
| 09 26 2009 09:10:04 +0000
I am not supporting this idea of HUL. But I feel that HUL is already a giant in FMCG. This could be a good short term idea to boost its market share. Well if it works for once than a large number of target consumer will buy its product at least once. If 50 % to 70 % target consumers buy for once than the company will easily make a good profit margin from that. And some of them could continue also. But this kind of strategy should be banished. Because it can reduce the number of choice of the consumer as well as reduce the competition.
By
Tapas Kumar Maji, Entry level, Progressivemediagroup
| 09 26 2009 09:04:08 +0000
Bhavesh as I mentioned blocking advertisement will good for a company when they are coming with new add and want to create impact of that particular add in the minds of consumer. This kind of advertisment is really helpful for established brand in a particular season and event. Take the example of Pepsi & Coke- you may have seen so many times that during a ODI cricket match Pepsi comes out with a new add for that particular event and display it excessively through out the match so that consumer can remember the add. This kind of add always comes up with some sort quiz or promotional tactis. It provides company boost in sales compare to his competitor for some period of time.
By
Deepak Agrawal, Consultant, Independent Consultant
| 09 25 2009 11:04:39 +0000
Yes blocking advertisement is one of the ways to promote your product excessively. I think this type of concept works as consumer will see advertisement of that particular company through out the day and it really make impact in the mind consumer about the product. This kind of strategy should be adopted when a company develops new add and try to make huge impact of it on consumer by showing it excessively. But I am not sure about one thing, whether this strategy comes under abuse marketing or not. I feel this kind of advertisement should come under abuse marketing.
By
Deepak Agrawal, Consultant, Independent Consultant
| 09 25 2009 08:54:38 +0000
|
A big "NO" because of many reasons.... first many products from HUL has successfully established themselves as a brand so it's not that the money involved was spent on branding. Second an ad recall needs a frequency of 3-5 so cycling the same ads throughout the day will lead to a fatigue factor which will do more harm than good. Add to this study reveals about 50% recall from TV ads and this fatigue factor will reduce it further so I have no idea what HUL was trying to achieve? Third, competition is always necessary for the comparison or else how would market grow, it's just like you squeeze me and I will squeeze you and at the end of day we both would be at the same condition. Fourth, the cost incurred is way too high for the comfort. If I am not wrong the margins in the industry; HUL operates doesn't vote for this. Advertisements are a way to aware users about the offering of a company in an entertaining way. Where is that when the same products are being aired the entire day. It defeats the very purpose of the advertisement.
By
Pradeep , Senior Campaign Manager, Jivox Software Private Limited
| 10 21 2009 09:10:25 +0000
Having been closely watching the consumer behaviour from the retail outlets of different organization and location I have worked with, I can say that it is very difficult to predict consumer. If your product's benefit is not measurable in terms of money and social aspiration, then you book entire life span on television, consumer is not going to pick your product. I spend every weekend in any of my stores and have not seen any consumer coming and insisting on the product they want. Put a little effort at the store and see the result. This is the reason of success behind our private label, which is not advertised over television.
By
Mukul Bhartiya, Head-Sales & Marketing(Organic Food Business), Arvind Ltd.
| 09 26 2009 18:09:18 +0000
Hi, As far as my view is concerned its a short term startegy which is not going to do much for the barnds.Yes it will surely increase the cost of advertising in the internal badget for the year.As i was very closely associated with the sales of most of the brands of Unilever i know one thing that Unilever's issue is not brand awareness.The issue is that consumers today are expecting much much more from brands in form of innovation & quality.And unilever have failed to keep up to the consumer's expectation in the current decade.That too when In 90's HLL has taught the indian consumers the power of good brands.Now its resulting in either stagnent market share in a growing market or a negetive market share year by year. This advertising strategy i will only term as a short term strategy for crisis management.Again i will say "Innovation with quality is the Key",be it branding ar new product launch or sales across catogary.But i still beleive that they workout for a powerfull comeback as consumers have not forgotten the brands of HUL and it is not going to happen also untill and unless HUL itself start killing the brands. Thanks
By
Nishant Kurup, TSE (Rural,West MP) , Marico Industries Limited.
| 09 26 2009 08:01:16 +0000
Hi Deepak. ADs you are talking is for the purpose to take an advantage of the event where millions of viewers/cricket lovers are jumping on TV. For HUL I do not see any Events, its just full day bought over. I can understand as Advertising professional that firing ADs may a good idea but not always. Few of us may watch a single channel for full day or for hrs, this can not reach to maximum in my views,Good for TV channels, making good money.
By
Bavin , Stratergic
| 09 25 2009 11:44:10 +0000
Its like putting ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET... This is my first reaction to this sort of a Campaign. It cannot make the viewer think that HUL products are selling great guns, lets BUY... in fact it can appear to look like a desperate move or like the Final Punch. Spreading your Media Buying is always a wise move. This could maybe at the most generate a response of 'awe' in a few viewers. Good Luck to HUL at the same time !
By
Naushad H.L., Creative Director, MAD COMMUNICATION
| 09 25 2009 11:38:56 +0000
I'm agree with Jayant. Brands line AMWAY is great example of creation of Strong Brand without ADs. Always quality talks & not ADs. Whatever AD sells the message to consumers should also carry forward in product itself, if NOT- getting consumer for second time is not possible task.
By
Bavin , Stratergic
| 09 25 2009 09:50:10 +0000
Hi Deepak, I would like to study your opinion with evidence with Real example. I would love to see any example which got a kind of success using this strategy. In my personal belief NO CONSUMER like to watch ADs, We all know & all do change channel at break time, I finish a small work once break fall. I also think that money spent by HUL will help all other companies to take next step for TV Ads.
By
Bavin , Stratergic
| 09 25 2009 09:46:06 +0000
S I agree but I had some Different angle to look towards the things: 1. Heavy Bombardment of ad does not necessarily bring the RISE in sales...Not necessarily aggressive advertisement helps to boost the sales.... 2. The Time Spam between two consecutive ad should be maintained so that it shud not be perceived in Wrong way...The more the number of ads it directly reduces the impact/ strike rate... 3. There has to be some cost benefits ratio associated with Expenses whether on Advertising or on Brand Promotion..... 4. For FMCG market, consumers have there on Choice of Brands and Products that Hardly can be changed... S heavy ads n Promotion can help to reduce the repurchasing Cycle up to certain extent and can reduce the sales thru certain extent ... 5. If at all company wants to go for heavy ads than the message shud be changed ... for e.g. Instead of putting up the message of benefits of products the message shud be diverted to Differentiation of Product/Brand from the other.... orTarget customer shud be changed from ad to ad.... The point is there shud be differentiation of Message or Target customer or way of promotion etc and shud reflect in each ad..... as its not beneficial to pass on same message always...
By
Sampanna Shastry, Deputy Manager- Marketing & Sales, Arani Power Systems Ltd
| 09 25 2009 09:20:31 +0000
My personal views are: 1.Ads may be good for initial introduction of new products , but after that it is more or less the quality ,service and price of product which decides your choice. 2.Once a consumer is happy with a particular product he will not change his choice unless and untill he gets better combination of quality ,service and price and no amount of advertising is going to change his views untill he gets a better combination as stated above. 3. Hence let company spend more money on giving a better combination in terms of quality , service and price then there competitors and even little advertising will produce good results for them. 4. What HUL is doing if permissible as per law of land then nobody can stop them from doing what they are doing.
By
gurminder dhir, Associate Vice President ( Marketing), ISMT Ltd.
| 09 25 2009 08:49:12 +0000
|
