mba-3-sem-advertising-and-brand-management-march-2013

mba-3-sem-advertising-and-brand-management-march-2013

Master of Business Administration (MBA) Examination

III Semester

(Advertising and Brand Management)

Time : 3 Hours]                                                                                               [Max. Marks : 80


 ( Section A)

1.         How is customer behaviour related to advertising? Comment.

2.         On the basis of recent chages in media industry what will be the sources, you will use for gathering information on reach, depth and coverage of electronic media? Create a media plan to build desired Brand Identity for your. B-school in India in the mind of potential recruiters. Make your assumptions and explain reasons for selection of media you have chosen.

3.         (a) Give four. examples of advertisements you have seen, in which humor Appeal has been used to convey the message. Explain how humor has been able to convey the message clearly.

            (b) Explain two post-testing techniques of evaluating advertising effectiveness with examples.

4.         Write short notes on any two of the following :

(a)        Brand Positioning.

(b)        Agency Client Relationship

(c)        Brand Portfolio.

(d)       Future of Advertising in India.

(e)        Advertising as a Career.

5.         What are the creative aspects of advertising? Define conventional media and cyberspace?

6.         What are the functions of advertising? Should government organizations also use advertising like private organizations to promote their services and create brand? Explain.

Section B

Read the case and answer the questions given at the end dine case.

ASHWIN Awasthy watched keenly as Bharat Dalmia laid out some prototypes of his new coffee. Refresh. on the table. Four jars with varying designs, three flavours and brand name choices each written in different style and colour. "This will challenge the might of the big brands and herald our entry into, the coffee market," said Bharat with aplomb. Ashwin heard out the rest of the strategy patiently, then said. "You have a choice: either create

a new brand as a challenger, or say. I am going to create a great coffee. But understand, the choice you make will determine your brand's future. There will be a different kind of mentality that you will invest your brand with You will keep evolving from there and create the patterns for success to repeat and be sustedhed. So, set the patterns now before you launch Refresh."

Bharat was disappointed. Here he was, about to present his new idea to his family at dinner, and here was his best friend, almost decrying his efforts. "What does all this mean ?" he asked, impatiently.

"Let me explain," said Ashwin. "Every brand seems to have an inherent determinism that is embedded in the structure or configuration of its origins. It is not mystical-as much as simply almost an inexorable logic that we fail to see it. patterns are created in a brand as a function of the intention and circumstances of its birth. These will cause the brand to move in certain ways, to. respond to its environment in certain ways, which is to say that the causes for a brand's birth will contain or lend it certain characteristics which will be manifested in its effects, Therefore, if a brand is caused by an intentions to be a challenger, its manifested effects in its life will be to challenge. Therefore, if you naturally intend for refresh to lead, it will tend towards leadership."

"Why 'tend'?" asked Bharat. "Why aren't you being more definite ?" "Because, very simply a brand does not operate on its own," said Ashwin. "It is managed by people whose collective minds and intentions, fears and anxieties; form the brand's mind.. Therefore, at the outset, it is important for the team to own the brand's birth intent and stay with it steadfastly. If they waver, the brand wavers.

"Look, a brand is very much like :human life. It has a mind and the nature of this brand mind is a continuous interplay of the positive and negative forces, which make it up. The positive forces .are the forces of illumination, upward movement, purity, and clarity.. The negative forces are those of darkness, downward movement, inertia and tear. Both operate in varying degress at all times. The interplay of these forces causes a brand to shift from one state to another. By turns, it will be distracted, disturbed, focused or controlled.

"So, the intention and circumstances of its birth designs a life script for the brand. It's like a coding pattern, If you strum that string, say leadership, it will play that music. But if that genetic' code is never or inadequately used, what you'll get is erratic performance, dissonance."

Ashwin explained how a brand's life script was defined by the way it was born, the way its distribution is planned initially, the way it is in tested in and how it is tregted both within the portfolio and in the market. "the classic example is the Congress," he said. "When it was born, it took the mantle of

The Party in India. It was also born as The Legacy of The Family of the Nehrus. The dynastic attribute of the Congress came to be so because that was how it was born. So, it can't rule peacefully, if its leader is not a Nehru family member.

"Similarly' the Janata Party came a little later as the opposing party, the challenger. It was born out of a lack of faith in the ruling Congress. So, it developed the pattern of being challengers to the main ruling party, no matter who it is. But whenever the role got reversed, the Janata Party as ruler could not play its script of challenger. While it adopted the ruler's mantle, it had its awn people challenging the party because that was how the brand's ethos was build Likewise, every time the Congress had to sit in the opposition, it failed as it was not created to challenge. The mantles were clearly defined and intended at birth."

"Does that mean life scripts can never be changed ?" asked Bharat.

. "That will require a complete disruption in the environment of the brand cause a brand to go beyond conventional or patterned thinking. So it stops playing its conventional rale as challenger or survivor or leader and then begins addressing the disruptive event. Or, a complete change in the leadership will cause a change in the brand responses. Take Britannia. After the Rajan Pillai regime, Britannias entire. response to the market changed completely. It would seem the change of ownership changed its fortunes by placing its destiny in the hands of non-owners, i.e., managers. That's how life scripts get rewritten."

"What happens then when a leader is challenged ?" asked Bharat. "Doesn't he fight back to challenge ?"

"Oh, there is a great example in Colgate," said Ashwin. "Colgate was always the leader, having pioneered quality dental products in India. But when a new brand entered, Colgate challenged it. but it failed miserably as challenger. Observe two things here. Close-Up's entry and Colgate's response. Close-Up wasn't born to challenge any brand. It was born to take advantage of a novelty called gels in the dental care category. It was the category that really challenged Colgate. But Colgate took long to launch gels and instead began to challenge Close-Up. Now, to recover, it needs to re-assume leadership, which it can do only through innovation, either in positioning or new product ideas.

"Examine the mind of Colgate and the forces operating in its mind. It needed to stay centred on its life script of leadership. any desire to challenge is a negative force that will cause dissonance in the brand and set patterns for future derivative behaviour. Close-Up-a disruption in Colgate's environment-first caused it to lose its centeredness, which, in turn, caused negative forces to

be activated. An effect (action) must contain all qualities that are present in a brand's cause. In Colgate's action of challenge, there were none of the characteristics of its cause, leadership. Consequently, there was sub-optimality, causing Colgate to stray from its life script as leader."

A Bharat's interest heightened, Ashwin went on with more examples. "Look at a similar situation in detergents. When Nirma came in, Hindustan Lever didn't know how to respond. By birth, HLL is not a challenger. It has led in most categories. Detergents, where it was number one, was put to test when Nirma entered. Again what you see is the birth of a new category, which challenged the position of the leader, what I earlier referred to as a disruptive force in the environment, a force that reshuffles or challenges status quo by introducing an all-new option.

"The birth of Nirma detergent powder in the low price category (LPC) was innovative: Nirma is not a challenger, even if it challenged Surf. But it as the birth of the new category that. Challenged Surf. But Nirma misinterpreted its effect on Surf, by thinking that it had challenged Surf. Rather than concentrating on its leadership in the LPC, it got embroiled in marketing warfare for sometime, which surely would have disrupted the leadership perspective of its own people.

"The birth vision of your brand is also owned by your people who create, nurture and manage it. If your brand is a leader, its managers also get imbibed with a leadership perspective. It's a mutually enabling relationship; the collective mind of the brand team creates forces in the brand's life cycle. If the company leadership misinterprets the competition's response, then it'll contribute to dissonanmce among the brand team. Colgate needs to nourish and work on the leadership perspective of its teams and so too Nirma. colgate's team, which was brought up on a staple of leadership, couldn't contribute to the role of a challenger. Which is what we mean when we say Colgate could not challenge.

"Yet, took at what the same event did for HLL and for Nirma. For close to three years after Nirma's entry, HLL went through denial. But because it has always led in most of its categories (HII:s life script), HLL was able to bring in a challenging perspective from within the teams to respond to the LPC. Here the 'challenge' from HLL was not to protect its leadership in Surf, but to strengthen its leadership in the detergents category. What we saw was not a challenge from Surf. But the challenge came from the category leadership through a counter-offer Wheel. So, HLLs team created a challenging system within the detergent portfolio, recognising that the main system cannot handle it. None of HLIls existing brands had a life script that could challenge Nirma, so it created a new brand, Wheel. with a script that was meant to be a pure

challenger Wheel will always be a challenger,; it will keep evolving but always in the role of a challenger. But it will not lead...it shouldn't even try to be leader, that'll cause dissonance, it will be a very close second, but certainly one that will make Nirma run, faster.

"Nirma should have stayed focused with its script of leader in the LPC, instead of fighting Wheel. or cloning or hitting back. These are negative forces gaining dominance, which will cause disturbance and lay patterns for further deviation from the life script. Wheel's birth happened in the circumstance of challenge, so it'll thrive in being challenger. This may take Wheel ahead, but that will be only for the time being,' for soon Nirma will recover and gain.

"So, to bring a challenger brand you need to have a challenger mentality. ethos, and mindset Therefore, you need to create a challenger team, which can only think of challenging. Colgate's team was built for leadership, it could not think of challenge, hence it could not do so successfully. It would seem almost conclusive to me that the original Wheel team was composed of people from brands that were not clear leaders, but brands that were continually challenged by either the industry policies or the competition. They could never have been from Surf. They could either be people new to the detergents category, if not new to HLL itself. It's only such a team that can create a Wheel. A Surf team or a Rin team could not have created a success like Wheel,. They were both born with a vision to evolve the detergent usage; to convert the laundry soap users to detergent wash. They were in the user-conversion mode, leader mode. They could not have challenged Nirma."

Bharat was intrigued, yet not fully accepting of Ashwin's theory. As if to validate it further, he asked 'Can a plan, say a diversification plan, also have a life script ?"

"Every birth has a life script and a birth intent," said Ashwin "Take the entry of Promise toothpaste. Born in a small firm, it came with a modest vision. It did not take birth to capture the toothpaste market, but with a limited challenge-to take a manageable 2-3% Promise's life script was 'The Limited Challenger', who came for 3% but ended up getting 8% That's how great its potential was. But it got trampled under its own limited vision. If you write your brand script from such a limited platform, then once you have achieved that vision, or .you outgrow that vision, the brand starts declining. Promise's script was to just occupy a certain position in the dental care market and gain a base for itself. It wasn't even challenging. Neither Was there an intention to lead.

"When Close-Up came in with gels, the total market became-re bigger, but Promise wasn't prepared for that. Now 3% in the toothpaste market is really big for' or a small company. But what Promise ended up netting was 8%

Worse, they had not expected to be challenged by Colgate, let alone any other brand. So when Close-Up came in, Promise had no response, it was now having to play survivor, for which it had no plan. So, reality is that Promise collapsed under its own weight, with a small push from Close-Up. Its vision wasn't big enough to handle the 8% It had to sustain that 8% don't forget and it didn't have the money, production systems, distribution...

"Now look at the. Big Two and their life scripts. Worldwide, Coke is the leader. It was born as the pioneer, the leader. Pepsi's birth on the other hand, was essentially to challenge the position of Coke as the.only cola brand. Its sheer rationale is to challenge Coke, while Coke's sheer rationale is to be the leader, to define cola. Anywhere the roles are reversed, both brands stumble. And that is exactly what is happening in India.

"Recall the time when Pepsi entered India. I believe, Pepsi should have come only after Coke. That would have made both successful for each other. Both need the other to survive. Coke needs Pepsi's challenge and Pepsi needs Coke's leadership. But when Pepsi entered in 1985-86, there was no Coca-Cola. Instead there was Thums Up. Now Pepsi isn't here to challenge anybody. Its life script is about only challenging Coke (Limited Challenger). so it floundered for three years, unable to get its act right. It's only when Coke finally entered India that Pepsi's rationale for existence was realized. After Coke came, Pepsi started doing very well !

"Coke's life script has been to take charge of its own brand and be a leader. But in India it tried to take charge of Thums Up, but that did not work for the Coke brand. Now see this, if Coke has only Pepsi to face, then it would do marvelously well. That's how its energies are composed. Instead, in India, it has the distraction of nurturing and fighting Thums Up. The would over we see Coke leading, Pepsi challenging and both roles being enacted harmoniously. In India, when Coke hadn't arrived, Pepsimade all those moves because it tried to become leader, before the leader arrived. To occupy the market before Coke came. This distraction led to confusion...it tried all sorts of moves exporting potato and tomato and got everything completely wrong. They did not want Thums Up, because they knew that was not what they were wanting to battle, challenge !" ended Ashwin.

"So did Pepsi not want to challenge Thums Up or could not challenge Thums Up? Could not, like in capability or like in inability ?" asked Bharat.

"The ability was there but the energy to fight, the driving force, wasn't said Ashwin: "The adrenaline, positive energy. flows only when driven by a counterbalancing force. So Pepsi fought Thums Up as there was all the corporate rationale to fight it; the body was willing, but the spirit was weakened. Think about it.

"Now look at what happened to Coke when it came in. there is a certain pattern it has to play. Coke's leadership lies in being able to fight Pepsi. But Thums Up was already there. So Coke's efforts were confused between whom to attack, Pepsi or Thums Up. It wasn't clear to them who their adversary was. The life script recognised Pepsi, but now there was also Thums Up. And the brand team diverted energies (distraction) to Thums Up. Again, there was a problem, because the adversary had to be Pepsi for Coke to be energised. Meanwhile it went and acquired Thums Up. and created an even bigger confusion in its life script. Because that is not how Coke does business. Coke vanquishes any disruption in its environment, the moment it spots it.

- "By buying Thums Up, Coca-Cola become the statistical leader, but the leadership was coming through Thums Up, not Coke. Coke wasn't leading through its own brand energy, but the energy of another brand. That's another thing about brand scripts. Anything transplanted into a brand, midstream, isn't a part of the original brand script. So Coke here was deriving leadership energy from Thums Up, where as its leadership could be energise only through its own brand. It couldn't take ownership for Thums Up. It was a transplant, which the system kept rejecting. Having now taken it in, it now had to instead energise Thums Up so that the total system lived.

Also, Pepsi at this time stayed close to its life script without being distracted by Coke's moves. It did not ever hit out at Thums Up; its missiles . were all aimed only at Coke. Remember the Coke ad ? The more it hit out at Coke, the more it confused Coke. And the more it made Coke defend its stance on Thums Up. What do we see ? Confusion laying patterns for replication. So, now we have an interesting scenario in India where Pepsi, which is a challenger, is leading and Coke, which is a leader, challenging and defending. And the rules are not defined for these reversed roles. But it is bound to shift and both players will come back to their original life scripts. It's just a matter of time."

"Now look at what happens when a life is conceved in confusion-rejection. Cadbury's Dollops ice cream. With in Cadbury it did riot have a legitimacy or acceptance,. as within the system there was no consensus on ice creams as a business for it to enter. That defined Dollops life script. Like a Kama, to fight from outside, alone, and die in battle. Its parents did not approve of it; its siblings (chocolate business) did not accept it. So in the ice cream market, it had to fight alone, did not get the support of its parents or siblings, and finally it was sold off. It was a rebel child, which was conceived wrong, was not desired within the family, and was seen as draining the other business. It had all the fine qualities that a challenger to Kwality needed. born in a good family, in the right environment, yet, Dollops did not survive."

"What can be done when there are international parents too ?" asked Bharat. How can that be managed?"

"The whole system of multiple patentage in MNCs ca -I be disastrous if both parents are not in harmonious consensus on the brand's life script. Usually this is what creates sub-optimal brand performance. A brand may originate in Botswana, but its birth in India creates a new life script, because the place of birth is different not. So a fresh life script must be drawn up from the mother script, with changes for the new environment.

Ashwin gasped as he saw the time. "I have to go, but think about what I have explained it'll make sense !" he said. "New-Age marketing ! he added with a wink, as he left the room.

Questions :

1.         Analyse the case and state the problem in the case.

2.         Do you agree with the views presented . in the case that we should concentrate on new life scripts of brands ?

3.         Give examples of two multinational products where brands were born out of India and its introduction in India gave a new life script to brands.

4.         As an expert in advertising, would you like to continue the inherent brand scripts from foreign country or would you like to start a new script for its life in India. Give reasons in support of your answer.