Meanwhile, the women of India got a chance to stare at a bare-chested man - and no one was made worse for it.
I applied my mind to it and this is what I came up with. I am a little doubtful how many people might have seen the advert.
Reinventing brand from a commodity pile
Did the consumers accept the HUL gamble of presenting a bare-chested SRK in the Lux ad ? (Their words, not mine but ok... that's the kind of stuff intro paras are made of. No cribs!)
Bahaaron phool barasao… Shahrukh Khan tub mein nahane aaya hai... The Lux ad featuring the Bollywood star immersed in a tub strewn with rose petals rose quite a media lather. The easy-pleasy explanation that came to mind when you happened to see that image of King Khan - hairless chest, I was-so-sensitive-smirk et al - is aha! The brand's gone "metrosexual".
Trouble is, this new sub-species of man that thrives in the pages of glossy magazines is - like the legendary Bigfoot - yet to be captured in the wild. A team from National Geographic Channel was called in to assist Unilever's legendary in-house research division in accomplishing this difficult task. In the meanwhile, the brand team appeared to have taken a simple leap of faith.
Following the principles laid down by soap queen Ekta Kapoor, the company added on a new and intriguing character to its own 75 year old soap opera. Yes, Unilever was desperate for increased TRPs - Trials and Repeat Purchase. As former HUL Chairman Vindi Banga candidly declared at the company AGM in June that year, the company had been hit by “the crisis of declining markets.'”
It wasn't that Indians “bathed less often or brushed their teeth less often or indeed washed their clothes less often,'' Banga explained, “but they did down-trade to lower-priced substitutes from higher-quality brands…A consumer buying six tablets of Lux in a month went to buying three of Lux and three cheaper brands".
Aisa kyun? Well, the theory went that Indians were pinching pennies so they could pay up their installments on cars, bikes, homes, computers and whatever they had. But that's only half the story. The scarier bit was that consumers were slowly losing faith in brands. "A soap is a soap is a soap" is the attitude – give me the best possible deal. Aishwarya makes a pretty picture on the wrapper but there is nothing quite as beautiful as a “buy one, get one free” offer.
The commoditification of FMCG brands is inescapable. The fact is that except for a brand like Pears– which is manufactured in a separate factory and uses actual glycerine – there isn’t much real difference between one soap and the next. Besides the superficial trappings like colour, fragrance and wrappers. The consumer has simply wisened up to that fact and is happy to experiment - given the explosion of choices.
Speaking of choices, there were two possible paths before the Lux brand team: clung to the Old way; or go the radical, different, bold way. The “Big Idea” of 1929 – a beauty soap endorsed by beautiful people – no longer packs that punch. The movie star of the moment is busy appearing in ads for noodles, chocolates, dandruff shampoos and whatever you have. So signing on a Preity or Rani would scarcely create ripples.
The brand ‘s ‘advertising identity’ crisis has been brewing for a while now. In the mid 90s, Lux received its first major shock when the actress ruling the roost at the time refused to be part of its campaign. The feisty Kajol “did not believe” in advertising (back then – now it’s a different story!). Consequently Lux was stuck with the nice-but-never-number-one Juhi Chawla until the likes of Aishwarya and Kareena became big enough to sign on.
The bigger crisis, however, was that the communication was itself losing relevance - consumers were beginning to question if the film star actually used the brand. So Lux moved out of fantasy and into a ‘reality’ phase: The film star was taken out of the tub and used purely as a communication device to portray star quality in every Lux user. Remember the “We bring out the star in you” series? No? Well, nobody really does.
Seen in that light the SRK-in-a-tub gambit made perfect sense – after eons the public was sitting up and taking notice. Was the soap now aimed at the man or the woman? Well, as long as that image of Shahrukh surrounded by rose petals wasn’t repulsive it really didn’t hurt the brand. The women – who are the ghar ka decision makers in soap matters – may well warm to the image of a good looking, bare-chested man while soaping themselves. Just like their husbands have been happy enough to use an ‘auraton ka product’ all this while – with a picture of those gorgeous actresses - at some sub conscious level – playing back n their heads.
There’s complex ‘semiotics’ involved, you see. As a researcher on Unilever brands conjectures: "They’vechosen the star very carefully – it’s not macho Sunny Deol" . Note how all throughout SRK’s maleness is submerged under water and how in the end, the four Lux heroines – Hema, Sridevi, Juhi and Kareena – gang up and playfully attempt to drown him in the tub.” So it’s the women retaining the upper hand, really!
Did the ad produce mere talk show chatter, or the sales spike that mattered? Well, there was only that much which advertising could really do in such a mature category. In the last 8 years Lux gained close to a 4% share -despite insipid communication – chiefly due to the launch of “Mini Lux” – an offering strategically priced at Rs. 5 to bring it within the reach of 300 million rural consumers.
It’s the pricing and product innovation, distribution and dedicated dust bowl marketing that is likely to produce the real results. Shampoo penetration and sales jumped manifold through sachets, could a similar revolution be in the offing for soaps? Some time ago Unilever test-marketed the idea of ‘Lux flakes’ a powder form of the soap which would retail for under a rupee. That’s a wheel turning full circle – Lux started its life as a soap in ‘flake’ form – although to wash clothes, not skin!
Taking a man, who will draw a lot of attention, for a traditional women product was an advertisment trick.
In Germany they did that for a couple of years now with a lot success. Commercial ads producer work internationally, they see what their collegues do in other countries.
Best example here was a buttermilk drink. First they let a lot of pretty women say, they drink buttermilk because it makes them beautiful. After a year, they showed a very beautiful man, clad only in white briefs, say lasziviously: he drinks buttermilk because it makes beautiful. Of course the ad was a hit! It drawed a lot of attention. Most regarded it silly, but the brand and the slogan became famous.
Now they show a lot of sexy men for typical women products, but the first rush is over. The latest surprise was a gay couple who advertised very successfully for popular frozen foods. If they could get hold of a Martian, they would try that. SRK fitted the profile and was available, thats all.
It is all about getting attention in ads and every ad is tested thouroughly for it's impact value before being launched. The public reaction was calculated, it was part of their strategy.
In a story in the Hindustan Times, SRK said he has never waxed his chest. I doubt that claim or may be he never had enough hair on his chest.Guess they are trying a pardigm shift. But the choice of the model. Yucks. SRK does look gay.
But then the advertisement has done what it was meant to do : Get people talking about.
The CopyWriter went the right way thinking of this concept without caring a rat's arse about SRK.
This brouhaha brought the brand into limelight, and brought attention to it. SRK succeeded in his job.Now it was upto HUL how they converted this hype into numbers, and jacked up the sales.
I never liked Shah Rukh until i saw him in Swadesh. After seeing him in the Lux ad, i started hating him all the more. He looks obnoxious in that rose petalled bath tub. Yuk!!!!!! I am 32 years old. I know my age for pranks, foul language and foul behaviour is long gone. I know I shouldn't be saying this. But all I want to say after watching the ad is this:
SRK sucks like a gay. I mean, tongue-in-cheek is one thing, posing bare chested after being someone who the youth looked forward to, with such a gleam in their eye, Swadesh, is a sin.
It seems really thinking over what brands to endorse is a long lost value. But did it help Lux was the big question? Will men or more women buy Lux just because SRK endorsed the product? Times change, people change, so must brands. You win some, you lose some – but you never know until you try. And Unilever deserves full marks for trying!
No comments:
Post a Comment