There were also doubts about the efficacy of mosquito repellants. In 1998,
studies conducted by the Malaria Research Center (MRC [2])
found that none of the leading brands provided 100% protection against
mosquitoes. Also, in the 653 households surveyed in eight cities, 193 people
complained of various health problems linked to mosquito repellants. They
suffered from breathing problems, headaches, eye irritation, skin rashes,
suffocation, itching, bronchitis, cold and cough, asthma, nausea, throat and
ear pain. Of the 286 doctors questioned, 50% reported cases of acute toxicity
following the use of these repellants.
Though these problems concerned the industry as a whole, specific complaints
against All Out had also begun to surface. All Out's advertisement in 2001,
claiming that the brand had 'Extra MMR' had been severely criticized. The
Director of the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL [3] ,
Dr V Ragunathan said, "The advertisement was designed to sound as though MMR
was a wonder substance that would eliminate the mosquito menace. In reality,
the term is just an abbreviation for 'mosquito mortality rate'. If you look at
the product and packaging, there is no mention of what exactly it contains. It
contains a variant of a toxic compound called d-Allethrin, and 'Extra MMR'
would only mean more toxic components."
All Out also faced criticism for some other aspects of its advertising
strategy. Reports indicated that television viewers were unhappy about the
brand's advertisements before every song, dance and fight sequence in all the
films being telecast. Experts said that now that the brand was firmly
established, repetitive advertising was not advisable, and could even prove
counterproductive.
KAPL's biggest competitors were large multi-product companies, with the
financial muscle to introduce and sustain long and costly advertising and
promotional campaigns. In spite of its success, KAPL remained essentially a
single product company. With the product and the brand facing various
problems, it was difficult to predict how long All Out would remain the leader
in the vaporizer segment of mosquito repellants.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Analyze the reasons behind the success of All Out, commenting separately on
the attention paid by KAPL to each element of the marketing mix. Why do you
think players like GSLL were not being able to compete with All Out?
2. In the light of intensifying competition and the allegations of 'toxic
hazards' in the mosquito repellant industry, do you think All Out would be
able to maintain its success in the future? What steps can the company take to
ensure that its market share does not suffer? Give reasons to support your
answer?
ADDITIONAL READINGS & REFERENCES
1. On the Mat, Business Standard, June 19, 1997.
2. Srinivasan Vidya, The Killer Instinct, Business Standard, August 28,
1997.
3. Singh Namrata, New Entrants Bite into Tortoise Mosquito Repellant's
Share,
www.expressindia.com, March 15, 1998.
4. Pande Bhanu & Chandrashekaran, Chasing Pests and Competition,
Business Standard,
December 8, 1998.
5. Singh Namrata, On the Mat-Prices Drop by 15%, www.expressindia.com,
November 17,
1999.
6. Venkatesh M & Singh M Mayanka, Buzzing With Energy, A&M, April 15,
2000.
7. O&M Gets Agency of Year Award, Business Line, September 1, 2000.
8. The Arya Brothers, A&M, September 30, 2000.
9. Mir Tariq, Heed the Buzz: Mosquito Repellants May Be Bad For You,
Indian Express,
December 26, 2000.
10. Thukral J Jyotika, Tortoise Loses Race, Market Share Drops to 12%,
www.responseservice.com, March 2001.
11. Daksha Hathi, Mosquito Mats & Coils: The Real Story, Deccan Herald,
June 3, 2001.
12. An Environmental Greenwash, Business Line, June 21, 2001
13. Saxena Madhu & Vajpeyi Roopa, Repellants That Kill Slowly, Tribune
India, August 16,
2001.
14. Sen Shunu, In Good Times, Not in Bad Times, Business Line, October
4, 2001.
15. www.indiainfoline.com
16. www.godrejsaralee.com
17. www.etinvest.com
18. www.equitymaster.com
More Classifications...
