Painful Remedies

Dr Mohan Basrur

Professor of Marketing

Indian Institute of Management

Lucknow

e-mail address: basrur@iiml.edu

Dear Dr Basrur,

Its been exactly two weeks since I left Lucknow for Mumbai to begin research on my thesis on Managing heritage brands.

To be honest, I was a bit apprehensive when I left campus. While I had no doubt that I would enjoy researching the subject, I was still unsure what help I would get from industry. But the last four weeks in Mumbai have been a revelation. Ive already interviewed a wide cross-section of respondents ranging from market researchers, advertising professionals, brand managers and marketing consultants.

 

Among the brands that Ive identified, theres one particular case that has raised a great deal of controversy here in Mumbai. The brand in question: Iodex, a hoary brand which SmithKline Beecham bought to build its OTC portfolio. Well, simply put, the 75-year-old brand is in trouble. In less than half a decade, Iodexs market share has plummeted from over 60 per cent in the early 90s to under 40 per cent of the pain rubs market (technically referred to as rubeficients).

Whats more, in the interim, in a bid to get fresh thinking on the brand, SmithKline has decided to sever its decades-long relationship with Hindustan Thompson Associates and move to a new agency, Enterprise Nexus. I am convinced that Iodexs sharp decline will be an interesting and important area for enquiry. It offers an interesting interplay of various complex factors that have placed Iodex in a Catch-22 situation.

Will Iodex be able to spring back into action? I have a couple of important sessions with market experts on the pain rub category lined up over the week. Will keep you posted on the case study as I move ahead.

Do let me know your thoughts.

Regards.

Yours sincerely,

Rakesh Kini

December 10, 1997

Mr Rakesh Kini

Camp: Mumbai

e-mail: strategist@business-standard.com

Dear Rakesh,

Received your e-mail couple of days back. Glad that youre making good progress. Iodex sounds promising. Im sure it will throw up a good framework to look at the issues facing heritage brands.

Keep me posted on the top-line findings from your research.

Sincerely yours,

Mohan Basrur

December 17, 1997

Dear Dr Basrur,

Brands remain updated, said Jean-Noel Kapferer in Strategic Brand Management, by satisfying in their own particular way the fresh needs of their customers, and by renewing their clientele.

It seems Iodex didnt follow the first principle of brand revitalisation.

The pain rubs and balms market was dominated by three brands Amrutanjan, Vicks and Iodex. Till the mid-eighties, Iodexs equity lay in offering relief from sprains. But that restricted the brands frequency of usage. So in 1985, Iodexs brand managers decided to extend its ambit to cover a wider gamut of uses and become a multi-purpose balm. Thats when HTA coined the now defunct advertising campaign with its creative hook ooh, aah and ouch to signal the brands shift from a sprains specialist to a multi-purpose balm used for headaches, body aches and general pain relief.

The campaign was successful in arresting the stagnancy in volumes, and in also pumping up the brand saliency, while ensuring stronger brand recognition. Till the early nineties, Iodex was sitting pretty. Although the pain rubs and balms category was virtually stagnant with category growth down to less than 2 per cent there was no real challenge for the market leader. But by the mid-nineties, it faced a determined onslaught from a slew of competitors. Primary amongst them was Paras Pharmaceuticals Moov, which attacked the leader head-on.

Launched in 1987, Moov initially had its task cut out. It was the only brand in the category dominated by a clutch of heritage brands. Initially, the brand was positioned for older people, since joint sprains were endemic to that age group and hence they needed to use a balm more frequently. But as Kawal Shoor, account director, Triton Communications, the agency handling the Moov account told me, by positioning it for the 45 plus age group, Moov appealed to a very small consumer base. It alienated the rest of the balm users, because no one wanted to use a balm that was meant for the older generation. Besides, it took Moov directly into arthritis territory, which was beyond the scope of the brand.

Today, Moov is targeting housewives, in the 30 plus age group, who have a recurring back pain virtually everyday because of spinal problems on the lower back, post-childbirth. Besides, housewives also suffer from greater end of day fatigue. Moov wisely chose the back as a focus area especially since it offered a large surface area for application. In a market dominated by general pain relief balms, Moov became the back pain specialist.

With its target clear, Moov began to make huge investments in brand building advertising. So much so that Moovs share of voice was close to 37 per cent last year compared to about 11-17 per cent for Iodex. The extraordinary increase in ad spends a rise of about 120 per cent over the last two years was simply not borne out by volume growth in the 1,600-tonne-a-year pain rubs and balms category, which continued to languish at barely 2 per cent.

It was clear that the new pain balm brands were chipping off share from the established brands. But where had the new pain relief consumers disappeared?

Not really. Instead, the incidence of pill-popping was on the rise, resulting in the growth in the pain relief market being cornered by the oral tablets market like Brufen and other paracetamols. These tablets did not need a doctors prescription, and seen by consumers as quick relief.

With the pace of life quickening appreciably, there was considerable stress and tension in urban life. A recent issue of a leading newsmagazine quoted a prominent backpain specialist in Delhis AIIMS as saying, Weve all the clear and present dangers of modern living that make us prone to backaches sedentary jobs and lifestyles; long commuting hours in buses and autos with back-breaking seats; smoking; lack of a fitness culture and bad postures. Little wonder that half our patients at the AIIMS orthopaedic wards complain of backpain.

With work pressures escalating, consumers simply couldnt afford to be laid up for long. Besides, in urban households, the tolerance for pain was on the decline. In the urban market, consumers wanted a non-greasy, non-staining way to ease pain. As a consumer I interviewed said, I cant go to office smelling of balm.

How did that impact Iodexs proposition? It begun to be seen as fuddy-duddy. If the new entrants came in soft squeeze tubes, Iodex continued to come in a glass jar. If Moov was available in a cream form, Iodex was available in a greasy, staining form.

The usage occasions had changed, with the traditional balm user spending greater time outdoors. As a result, consumers tended to reach out for more modern and contemporary forms of delivery.

Besides, with back-pain emerging as a recurring complaint, brands like Moov, which had positioned them as back ache specialists, tended to gain as a result.

How is Iodex transforming itself with the changing times? Ill fill you in my next mail.

Regards.

Yours sincerely,

Rakesh Kini

December 24,97

Dear Rakesh,

Thank you for your detailed mail. The Iodex case reminds me of the Boots brand, Burnol, which found itself in a similar predicament.

Clearly, Iodex is being reactive and paying the price for not developing the market. Instead of dominating the market, Iodex today finds itself reacting to the new entrants in the market.

The first signs of trouble are usually a huge base of lapsed users. Check out consumers who have used Iodex before but don't do so now. If you do a medical chest audit in consumer homes, youre bound to discover old jars of Iodex in many homes. Understandably, even brand properties, like its dark green colour, are no longer seen by consumers to have positive connotations, given that the market now has newer product forms. Changing any of the elements runs the risk involved in diluting that precious commodity called brand identity and alienating current users. Clearly, it isnt an easy decision.

You quoted Kapferer earlier in your letter. He made another interesting comment in the same book. Brand revitalisation, he said, stems from the rediscovery of ones roots. Think about it.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Basrur

December 30,97

Dear Dr Basrur,

You are right. I hit upon some research done by a leading ad agency for one of their clients which shows there is an opportunity for a new brand to develop a niche by targeting Iodexs lapsed users. In the 40 plus age group, there are enough consumers who recall using the brand but cant recall the last time when they used it.

Your quote from Kapferer got me quite excited. Interestingly, thats exactly what Iodex doesnt seem to have followed.

To begin with, it appears that to bring back lapsed users to its fold, Iodex is now putting major investments behind its spray which was launched some years back. Iodex obviously feels that sprays are seen as a modern delivery format, preferred by urban consumers.

But as of now, the sprays market is largely underdeveloped. There seem to be two reasons for it. The price of the aerosol cans makes the consumer price high and therefore, not perceived as cost-effective. Two, the consumer apparently places great reliance on the massaging action and considers the sprays to be wasteful.

What about the balm? During my research, I chanced upon a cinema commercial that Iodex had commissioned. That gave me clues on what the brand was up to, which was later corroborated by others. To drive volumes for the mother brand balm, Iodex is now on a distribution expansion drive. It is going down the population strata, in a bid to enlist new users. That involves market development, keeping in mind the fact that consumers in those markets use home remedies to cure themselves from aches and pains. Thats when the cinema commercial comes into effect.

To protect share in its existing markets, Iodex has done a curious volte face. At one stroke, it has done away with its ooh, aah, ouch plank. Its new campaign, which attempts to dramatise backpain through a creative mnemonic of a locomotive, is meant to create a new position of a back pain specialist. To accentuate the benefit, the sign-off suggests: If Iodex cant cure you, only the doctor can.

It appears that Iodex is using this locomotive commercial only for the North and West. In the South, it has a different ad, keeping in mind the usage pattern there, which is skewed towards general usage balms. The basic thrust for Iodex in the south: Why go for a general balm when you have a specialist?

Whats the rationale for the change? Iodex doesnt offer much reason in its ad. An senior ad executive who worked on the campaign, has the following logic. A 75-year old brand, you trust the efficacy, you dont question the ingredients anymore. As we say it, while the earlier campaign had very high memorability, Ooh aah ouch cued pain, not relief.

Iodex has left its pack unchanged, simply choosing to beef up the graphics. Will this cut ice? Im not so sure, because it simply doesnt give the consumer a strong reason to buy. Does developing the spray market make sense? Perhaps, but as a marketing consultant told me, not unless Iodex is able to strengthen and redefine its core equity. Only then will variants such as the sprains stand to gain.

As I write, Ive just seen the two latest commercials of Moov which are tactical. In one, the husband returns from a trip, wearing a shirt which is stained at the back. The reason for the stain? The ubiquitous green bottle, a not-so-veiled reference to Iodex. And in the other, two women are conversing. The visitor realises that the hostess has back pain by noticing that her dress has a green stain, because of using...you guessed it. It looks like Moov is moving in for the kill.

Ill sign off on that note. Heres wishing you a very happy 1998!

Regards,

Rakesh Kini