With Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. in trouble for taking a dig at its rivals in its advertisements, we take a look at how far is too far when it comes to ad wars.
Delhi high court has banned Baba Ramdev’s brand Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. from airing all their Chyawanprash ads following a complaint from its rival brand Dabur, which alleged that the ad was blatantly harmful to their brand. Dabur, on its part, has also asked for Rs 2.01 crore as damage control.
Dabur claimed that the packaging of Patanjali’s Chyawanprash is too similar to its own trademark style. Dabur pointed out a social media ad where a bottle with a blurred trademark is shown to promote Patanjali’s own product.
While the avalanche of consequences for a couple of ads may end up costing Patanjali a pretty penny, ad wars between rival brands are an age-old tradition. Coca Cola and Pepsi, Axe and Old Spice, FedEx and DHL, the list of brands that subtly insult each other via advertising goes on.
A hoarding portrays how Dove took a dig at Paneen
The backlash and rivalry is just part of a democracy, says ad filmmaker and theatre personality Alyque Padamsee. “It completely depends on what the ad wants to say. If they feel that they can best portray the product by taking a dig at another, then so be it. If the rival company has a problem, it will object. That’s how a democracy works.”
The ad man reveals that there is a council for handling such disputes — the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) decides any disputes between rival companies. “If the Council decides that the ad is inappropriate in any way, they will ask that company to take it down. Newspapers and television channels will no longer use it. It’s as simple as that,” he shrugs.
Amer Jaleel, chairman and chief creative officer of Mullen Lintas, negates the very existence of ad wars, claiming that no marketing firm will want to wage war on its rivals. However, he adds that if there is some tongue-in-cheek humour involved and a slight dig at another company, sensitivity about the content and social context are absolutely essential.
Prahlad Kakkar
“Sometimes, when a company wants to look better than its rivals, it refers to them in ads. This may be in term in terms of factual features, performance, ideology or attitude. Now, if it is done while staying within the borders of decency, then there is no problem. As for legal issues, each company has guidelines that it needs to stick to them and they are well aware of this,” he explains.
Giving an instance of an ad, that remains “decent” while mentioning a rival, he points to his own company’s ad for Bajaj Avenger, which shows the Royal Enfield bike. Indeed the ad starts with a Royal Enfield. “It was made almost exactly a year ago for Brotherhood Day, on September 11, 2016. The ad was cheeky, since we were comparing the Bajaj Avenger — a much newer brand — to the iconic Royal Enfield. However, since it stayed within the boundaries of decency, we didn’t get a bite-back from Royal Enfield fans. Indeed, they congratulated us on the ad,” he smiles.
Not all rivalries are as pleasant though. And comparative advertising may not always give one the results one wants, feels Nishad Ramachandran of Hansa Cequity.
“I have an issue with comparative advertising. It does nothing for a brand in the long term. Brands that do comparative advertising, especially competing brands enjoy it in the short-term, as they feel they are undercutting the leading brand. The leader that’s being challenged gets peeved, and in some cases complain to ASCI or in extreme ones goes to courts,” Nishad explains, adding, “I think of comparative advertising as a street fight. And in a street fight, the only ones who really enjoy are the guys who are watching the fight on the street. So the Coke vs Pepsi fight has regaled young people around the world for ages. But Coke continues to be the leader in fizzy drinks despite being attacked for decades.”
Ad guru Prahlad Kakkar also calls comparative advertising a double-edged sword. “While you can say what you want about another brand, you also open yourself up for criticism. So, while the model is working in the USA, I’m not entirely sure if India should adopt it,” he cautions.
Ashish Khazanchi, Managing Partner, Enormous Brands
Prahlad also has an issue with Patanjali discrediting a health brand. “The cola wars are different, since those are purely consumerist products. Patanjali Ayurved and Dabur are health brands and hence the former should have been more careful about what it stated about the latter,” he adds.
Nishad also gives an example of how comparative advertising fails in the long run. “Nirma won for a while against Surf, but HUL out-innovated them in the long term with Wheel. India can emulate the US I am sure. But our spirit is one of compassion and non-violence. So this will not be accepted en-masse by brands,” he signs off.
