MAM
Parle Krackjack launches TV campaign with new sweet and salty avatars
Mumbai: Parle Products, the largest selling biscuit brand has released its latest campaign for KrackJack. This latest iteration of the Parle Krackjack campaign adds to the legacy of a brand that has been loved by the nation for over half a century. It carries forward the same set of delightfully whacky ideas to a new generation of Krackjack connoisseurs.
The three-film campaign created by Thought Blurb Communications tells stories of conundrums that are solved in hilarious ways by the two protagonists, Krack (played by Dharmesh Yelande) and Jack (played by Raghav Juyal). They have different sweet and salty perspectives, that brings alive the idea- “Sweet and Salty saath jab aaye, baat ban jaaye”.
The over-the-top style of humour follows a legacy that was started in the 90s with Boman Irani and Vijay Patkar playing the titular roles. The torch then passed on to Swapnil Joshi and Gaurav Gera in the noughties, and after a decade, Krackjack has now found renewed vigour with Raghav Juyal and Dharmesh Yelande.
Parle Products senior category head Mayank Shah has spoken about Krackjack and the direction it has taken over the years, “Krackjack is the first biscuit in India to find that magical spot in the consumer’s palate with a flavour that tickles sweet and salty taste buds. When the flavour is so out-of-the ordinary, how can its communication not be unusual? Over the years, the characters Krack & Jack, have endeared themselves to audiences across the country. Every new generation resonates with these sweet and salty characters. Dharmesh and Raghav are new age celebrities with a wide fan following among the youth. More importantly, we chose them because we felt they have a spontaneity in their repartee, which is key to the brand’s communication.”
Thought Blurb Communications CCO & founder Vinod Kunj has echoed the sentiment and explained the challenges, “It’s a big challenge to work on a legacy brand like Krackjack with a high decibel legacy communication. When we got the brief we were clear that we have to carry forward the torch to the next generation of audiences across India. Not only do we have to appeal to a wide section of audiences across socio economic segments, we also had to touch their funny bone. Evidenced by the viewer responses we have received, the execution seems to have hit the bull’s eye. The dash of rollicking humour coating the films make them entirely enjoyable.”
Joining in with her perspective on the creative execution, Thought Blurb national creative director Renu Somani added, “We started off with a product that is sweet but also has salty overtones. That kind of dictated the tone and tenor of the campaign. In one of the brain storming sessions when the strategy team came up with the idea of ‘contrarian views working towards a common goal’ we knew we had our campaign. This in turn finds resonance in the claim – ‘sweet aur salty saath jab aaye, baat ban jaaye’. The fun part was working with the film crew to get Dharmesh and Raghav to work in tandem to translate this strange combination of diametrically opposite views. We wanted the viewers to have fun, and I think that has come out quite well.”
The campaign is released in 12 languages across mediums.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
