MAM
Comparative advertising gets thumbs up from advertisers
MUMBAI: A brand trying to downplay its competition is nothing new. For years now, one has witnessed a brand praising itself and claiming to be better than its rival. What has changed over the years is the method; from ambush to disguise to in-your-face comparative advertising, brands have tried it all to catch customers‘ eye.
And in doing so, many a times, advertisers and brands have either gone overboard or crossed the line of ‘ethics‘ to get in trouble with customers, associations or rivals. The latest to enter the troubled waters was one of the leading toothpaste brand.
In the TVC, launched earlier this month, HUL‘s Pepsodent takes on Colgate-Palmolive toothpaste, Colgate. The advertisement shows Pepsodent Germicheck claiming to be 130 per cent superior in terms of germ attack power over market leader claim of having strong teeth even after four hours after brushing.
The ad which got more than four lakh views within a week on Youtube, took the world and especially the social media by a storm. It took a new turn when after a lull, Colgate-Palmolive (India) decided to drag Pepsodent to the Delhi high court.
Are we not mature enough to take comparative advertising? Can one call it a below the belt marketing? According to Leo Burnett national creative director KV Sridhar, “There is nothing wrong in comparative advertising until and unless the ad is stating facts to the consumers. A consumer needs to know what is good for them be it any product.”
He goes on to say that a TVC should be engaging for consumers as well as state specifics. When asked about Colgate dragging Pepsodent in court, Sridhar says, “Fight here is about superiority of brands. But one shouldn‘t forget about the interest of consumers as well.”
Similarly, Ogilvy& Mather‘s NCD Abhijit Avasthi too feels that if an ad is factual and beneficial to consumers then there is no harm in naming the competitor. However, he adds, “Even if we are open to such form of advertising, it is important for a brand to also be open to it. Otherwise, such fights will only become a matter of laugh among others.”
Advertising filmmaker Prahlad Kakkar sings in the same tune and believes that there is no harm in airing such ads if a brand has enough proof that their ingredients are better than the one they are claiming to be. “Customers have a right to know that which brand is better for them, because they are the ones who are investing their money.”
The advertising world is okay with comparisons so maybe it is high time for brands too to open their minds and enter the fight without a veil.
Brands
Flipkart completes reverse flip to India ahead of IPO
Walmart-owned e-commerce giant shifts domicile from Singapore to Bengaluru
MUMBAI: Flipkart has completed its restructuring to move its parent company from Singapore back to India, marking a key milestone as the Walmart-owned marketplace prepares for a potential initial public offering on Indian stock exchanges, ET reported, citing people aware of the matter.
The move, often referred to as a “reverse flip”, relocates the company’s legal home to India and aligns its corporate structure more closely with its largest market. It also clears an important regulatory step for Flipkart as it explores listing plans.
As part of the restructuring, several Singapore-based entities have been merged into Flipkart Internet Private Limited, which will now serve as the main holding company for the entire group.
The consolidation brings a number of major businesses directly under the Indian parent company. These include fashion platform Myntra, logistics arm Ekart, travel booking platform Cleartrip, healthcare marketplace Flipkart Health, and fintech venture Super.money.
Under the new structure, global investors including Walmart, Microsoft, SoftBank, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will hold their stakes directly in the Indian entity rather than through an overseas holding company.
The redomiciliation required approval from the Indian government because Chinese technology company Tencent owns around a 5 to 6 per cent stake in Flipkart. Under Press Note 3, investments from countries sharing a land border with India require prior government clearance.
Flipkart had already secured approval from the National Company Law Tribunal in December. With the latest clearance from the central government, the company has now obtained all the regulatory approvals needed to complete the relocation, ET reported earlier.
Flipkart had originally shifted its holding structure to Singapore in 2011 to tap global capital more easily. However, as India’s capital markets have matured, several start-ups have begun returning their domiciles to the country ahead of public listings. Companies such as Razorpay, Groww, and Meesho have taken similar steps.
The company is now expected to move ahead with its IPO preparations and has begun early discussions with merchant bankers. According to people familiar with the matter, Flipkart could file its draft prospectus later this year, setting the stage for what may become one of the most closely watched listings in India’s e-commerce sector.
Flipkart has been majority-owned by Walmart since 2018, when the US retail giant acquired a 77 per cent stake in the company for $16 billion in one of the largest e-commerce deals globally.
