The Hindu Business Line : Abhi, Ash, the brand thereafter ...

With the wedding of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai just ahead, how do you see these two mega-brands ride into the future? What are the brand dynamics at play here?

Anjan Parekh, Mumbai

Anjan, these sure are two big mega-brands from tinsel town. Brands that have whole sets of consumers swooning over their respective auras!

A marriage of two such mega-brands with one another is not quite like the corporate marriage of two mega-brands that go on to make an even bigger brand presence felt. Remember, this is Bollywood. And Bollywood survives on the whims and fancies of its viewers.

While a Tata-Corus deal might give cause for a bigger Tata-Corus entity in the future, I can't say the same will happen to the Abhi-Ash brand of the future.

Why so? Very simply because we must remember the audience of Bollywood that resides in our country is a chauvinistic one in many ways. If you study the history of what has happened over the last 50 years in Bollywood, the trend is all about the male brand gaining from a marriage and the feminine brand losing.

I do believe this mega brand-marriage is going to be a positive stroke to brand Abhishek and a rather negative stroke to brand Aishwarya. Why? Because the audience we are discussing is a chauvinistic one.

Hindi cinema is all about chemistry. The chemistry that the lead pair is able to exude, hold, tantalise with and sublimate finally. Viewers love the chemistry that exists between two stars who are not married as yet. A marriage actually sublimates this chemistry and the audience wants something else!

When Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bhaduri were yet to be married to one another, their movies did very well, as did their respective brands. When they got married, things turned different. The Amitabh-Rekha movies were forever a hit, right up to Silsila. The chemistry was intact. I do believe it still is. Audiences love this chemistry.

A marriage of two big mega brands from Bollywood, therefore, does not result in a bigger-still brand post-marriage. Instead, it is a smaller brand of Ash and a slightly bigger brand of Abhishek. I, however, hope I am wrong this time.

Hollywood, on the other hand, is different. A Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston and now a Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie are indeed bigger brands as a whole than their individual parts. Bollywood is different.

The World Cup is barely two months away and we don't see any ads highlighting cricketers like we did even during the last World Cup. What's up?

Dhruv Vashisth, Delhi

Dhruv, cricket is still on the backburner of the marketing company. Remember, it is still on the burner, but the brand-cricket-policy is that much more cautious. Let's remember, cricket itself is a brand. A powerful brand that evokes emotions positive and negative among large sets of consumers in this country. As a sub-set of the big mother brand, cricket, exist the brands of cricketers. A Sachin, a Saurav and a Dhoni are all but sub-set brands. Both are indeed complementary to one another.

In the current case, cricket the mother-brand reigns supreme even today. The lack of performance of the sub-set player brands has created the current lacklustre cricket-advertising environment.

Cricket as such is an over-hyped game in the sub-continent, in any case. The valuation commanded by the stars of cricket make people in discerning marketing companies sit up and think. Now even more so, as the team does not perform up to expectations. But wait and watch. Every match can make a difference!

If you look back at 2006, what was the biggest marketing idea of the year at large?

S. K. Sampath, Chennai

Sampath, the biggest idea of 2006 was not a single brand idea; instead it was a very big idea at large. The idea of the Indian.

This was not an idea put forth by any advertising agency. Instead, it was the India story at large dominating the psyche of the Indian and the world-citizen. In the old days, the dominant thought was: `India Happens!' The year just gone by has transformed that thought to a very hip `India Happening.' Everyone, therefore, wants a piece of the action.

This Big Idea has percolated the consumer psyche not through a top-down brand-building process. Instead, it is a thought that has happened bottom-up. It is, therefore, that much more solid. More real, as contrasted to thoughts built by advertising inputs of the high-decibel kind! The India brand and the India story is what I would vote as the biggest of the big ideas.

Please explain the paradox of a no-name brand with special reference to agricultural products.

Jayant Joshipura, Pune

Jayant, I personally do not believe in a no-name brand. The brand is essentially a name, for a start. A name that is recognition and a distinction from everything else around.

No-name brands are surely a paradox in themselves. Do remember, a brand is meant to command and elicit a premium from its consumers. A premium that sets it apart from the commodity at large. A no-name brand is never successful at this.

Agri-products must participate in the branding movement if they are to truly capitalise on true value.

(Harish Bijoor is a businessstrategy specialist and CEO, Harish Bijoor Consults Inc. Email:askharishbijoor@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Brands | Ask Harish Bijoor

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Is Star struck?

Shock & awe ... the future's now

`Service providers need deep pockets'

The `new' and `improved' integration!

A golden initiative

What's the big idea?

Getting bigger bang for the buck

Abhi, Ash, the brand thereafter ...