Playing it fair

Shunu Sen

`Sixty per cent more fairness than any other fairness cream,' says Fair & Lovely in its ad campaign. This is a claim made by the company, and nowhere in the ad is any explanation given as to what studies were conducted and by whom, before such a claim was made. Naturally, readers may tend to discount such claims thinking they are hollow. Why do companies and ad agencies resort to such tactics? Is it just an attention-generating psychological gimmick? -- V. Chandrasekhar, Visiting Faculty, Loyola Institute of Business Administration (LIBA)

In my younger days, advertising agencies used to call it `supporting evidence to the product proposition'. This meant that whenever a brand provided a functional or an emotional reason for purchase, it was supported by a substantiator.

Back in the good old days, both benefits and product features needed proof that the claim made was correct. For example, if a car was supposed to have a feature that could make it accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in six seconds, invariably, this was on the basis of a named testing ground or some automobile authority. If, on the other hand, there was a brand benefit of body odour removal, then the advertisement carried laboratory evidence! (This is true, particularly in the case of brands from Germany).

Another well-known example is Lux toilet soap which promises the consumer a beautiful complexion. This was on the basis of film star testimonial. Not only did a large picture of the film star feature in the advertisement but there was also her name and some times her signature supporting her testimonial.

In the early days of Fair & Lovely advertisements, there was significant amount of laboratory evidence collected from both the in-house R&D laboratory as well as the third party supporting the Fair & Lovely claim of a fairer skin in six weeks, without causing any danger to even the softest skin. This evidence was essential as the media questioned both the safety and the efficacy of the product.

In the first 10 years of the life of the product, media as varied as Femina and Doordarshan questioned whether the product could do what it said and do so satisfactorily. In every single case, Hindustan Lever was able to convince the media that the brand was as effective as advertised and completely safe. Indeed, in almost every single country to which the brand was exported, from West Asia to Egypt, from the UK to Malaysia, the brand had to prove the product claim to a variety of agencies and media. In every single case it did so successfully.

However, as far as I remember, the advertisement never carried proof of either the R&D agency's name or any concrete evidence. The press advertisement mentioned that the user was noticeably fairer in six weeks in nature's own gentle way. The consumer believed it and the product lived up to its claim.

Today, the market is more competitive and Fair & Lovely, which was the market pioneer, has now attracted several competitors. It is now important that the brand made a competitive claim. I do believe that when a well-known brand from a well-known company claims to offer 60 per cent more fairness than any other fairness cream, then the company must possess proof of it.

In brief, I believe that such a claim is legitimate and if the consumer requires proof she can always write to the company or alternately raise the issue with an organisation such as the Advertising Standards Council of India. Knowing the company, I have no doubt that the competitive claim is correct and can be substantiated.

In my view, it is not necessary (though it may have been better to have done so) to provide the supporting evidence in the advertisement itself.

(The author is CEO, Quadra Advisory, a strategic marketing consultancy. Readers may send in their questions on marketing issues to The Editor, Business Line, 859, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002 or e-mail them to bleditor@thehindu.co.in)