The Hindu Business Line : Why Jet should not change

Newspapers are full of advertising. And yet rarely does advertising make news. Newspapers seem keener to write about mergers and acquisitions than about advertising campaigns, probably rightly so.

The UB Group's acquisition of Whyte and Mackay dominated the headlines. And not long ago, the ad campaign for Kingfisher Airlines, a group company of UB, also made news in relevant circles when it took on the leader Jet Airways. At the risk of carrying coals to Newcastle, let me repeat what citizens of Mumbai saw, probably noticed, and perhaps even commented on.

Jet Airways, which recently changed its identity, had a hoarding message that read, "We've changed." Kingfisher Airlines, which is trying hard to overtake Jet in market share, went - quite literally - a step higher. It erected a hoarding above Jet's with the cheeky line "We made them change." And GoAir, which clearly is nowhere in the league of these two giants, did a bit of oneupmanship as well. It placed a hoarding higher than Kingfisher's with the line pompously saying, "We've not changed. We are still the smartest way to fly."

While that last claim is debatable, what is certainly not debatable is that these campaigns have been eminently noticeable. They have been written about, unlike several others which probably cost several times more than these hoarding campaigns run by the airline companies.

It has also brought into focus the relevance of advertising that is cheeky, irreverent, and takes pot shots at the competition (simultaneously tickling readers and ruffling feathers) as a serious strategic option. That is really what I would like to explore before I give my take on the campaign and what Jet needs to do. And, at the risk of letting the cat out of the bag, I think Jet should certainly not change its advertising tone of voice and react to the competition. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The maverick in some of us

Challenging leaders with advertising that is tongue-in-cheek, cheeky, irreverent, and attention-getting is not new. Apple has shown IBM a thing or two as to what an agile, nimble competitor can do to a giant like IBM, even if the giant is not exactly slumbering. Pepsi has also been doing it for ages. It is interesting to look at Pepsi, the perennial challenger, making Coke look older, more staid, and at times even a bit silly.

Who can forget the MC Hammer commercial where a prancing, jiving MC has his Pepsi secretly changed to Coke? MC suddenly starts singing Frank Sinatra-style to a shocked audience until a kid has the good sense to give him a Pepsi, to which the singer responds by returning to his usual feisty style of performing. One also recalls the Pepsi `salesman' commercial where Coke and Pepsi salesmen meet at a restaurant. The Coke salesman offers a sip of Coke to the Pepsi salesman, who drinks it surreptitiously and quickly slides the can back. Then the action shifts to the Coke salesman who too takes a secret swig of Pepsi. The fun starts when the Pepsi salesman wants his can back. The Coke salesman is so smitten by the taste that he refuses to give the Pepsi back! These are just a few of the barbs that Pepsi has frequently directed at Coke. That is the brand's character. Closer home was after Pepsi lost the official sponsorship of the 1996 World Cup, when it launched its `Nothing official about it' campaign featuring Courtney Walsh, Dickey Bird, and Dominic Cork amongst other distinguished cricketing celebrities.

Apple, the original Valley brand, has demonstrated the value of being cheeky. It is the `original different' brand. And its difference manifested itself not only in its philosophy and its products, but most visibly in its advertising. In the "presentation" commercial done several years ago, there was a presenter struggling to get his presentation on Windows going. As he struggles and fidgets, lots of advice comes to him from the crowd on how to get the show off the ground. None of these works and a wag in the crowd shouts "Hey, get a Mac!"

That was Apple for me - truly irreverent and definitely aggressive, as evident in its `Welcome IBM' ad when the giant entered the home PCs market. I am sure there are other brands as well that compete for the `aggression' tag. And yet it would be worthwhile to perhaps reflect on the strategies of these two brands. These are part of the brand's long-term strategy. It is just not something to score brownie points over the competition or a demonstration of oneupmanship. In a sense, it is a part of the DNA of these brands. And that gives rise to my slight sense of disquiet with Kingfisher's campaign, which in all fairness is definitely noticeable. Let's return to the campaign that got this piece going.

The battle for the skies

I have a lot of admiration for Jet Airways. I must confess that I am a critical traveller, quick to criticise, slow to appreciate. (One wonders whether a lot of husbands are like this ... ) And yet Jet has delivered — not only to me, but to several thousand Indians over the years. They demonstrate the great opportunity that India provides to develop quality service brands and to me as an Indian, Jet Airways is a constant source of pride and wonder, especially when I travel abroad. Just like the resident of Bangalore who appreciates the true worth of the city when he is away from it, I always value what Jet brings to the table when I travel by other airlines, particularly international ones.

And what about Kingfisher? It is a clear challenger, even in acquisitions. It is a vibrant, lively brand with a host of service innovations and a courteous, friendly staff who are trained to treat passengers as guests. Guiding the destiny of the brand is the irrepressible Vijay Mallya: flamboyant, charismatic, newsworthy. Are there shades of the Virgin brand in Kingfisher? Probably, though I am not so sure. Virgin started out as the underdog entering sectors where the customer was being poorly served. The brand, like the owner, was irreverent. So what is the Kingfisher Airlines brand about? The original advertising and service offering was friendly, professional, courteous. True, it is a challenger, but is that the stand it wishes to take? Or is this effort a one-off marketing skirmish that it has clearly won?

Interesting times ahead

Both brands are poised for the battle for supremacy. The wars have to be fought on service delivery, not communication. Kingfisher has the advantage of being seen as more dynamic and on the ball, no doubt characteristics of its founder. Jet is a solid, dependable brand. And yet it runs the risk of being clinically efficient and as a consequence could be dubbed as staid or even fuddy-duddy.

It is perhaps a time to step back and reflect. One-night stands are fun, but it is the long run that will determine who will rule the skies tomorrow. It would be easy for Jet to get rattled by all this and to try to be something that it is not. Its core competence is service. It must stick to its knitting and not react hastily. As for me, I am hardly complaining. When giants compete, consumers like us will benefit.

(Ramanujam Sridhar is the CEO of brand-comm).

More Stories on : Advertising | Airlines | Jet Airways (India) Ltd | Third Umpire

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

Stories in this Section
Hedonism, the eternal appeal

`Consumers here are ready for our brand, and luxury'

`India ready for Dior'

A business of ideas

Why Jet should not change

All eyes for Discovery

Turn your ideas into cash