 Sunfill was introduced in 2001 and Coca Cola

intended to take on Rasna in the Rs 180 crore soft

drinks concentrate market in India.
 Sunfill was Coca Cola's foray into the Soft Drink
Concentrate market in India. Globally it was the
company's first foray into the powder concentrate
segment.
 This product died after 4 years primarily because
the company did not consider worthwhile to focus
on marketing this product.
 Rasna was dominating the market with a share of
over 85%.
 The biggest challenge for any FMCG/SDC
products was distribution. Sunfill found innovative
method to reach the market. It had alliances with
other FMCG firms in reaching the market. The
brand had its own channel + third party alliance
(Hybrid network) to ensure that the brand is
available in all stores.
 But somehow the product failed in the market.
The issue was with regard to product and the
promotion.
 The product had some quality issues. Some of the packs
had very bad quality concentrate.
 At one point of time, the product was not available in the
stores. The issue in promotion was regarding the
positioning. When Sunfill came into the market, Rasna
countered Sunfill with its own range of powder
concentrate with added sugar.Hence the differentiation
became negated for Sunfill.
 The promotion investment for Sunfill was not adequate to
counter the huge brand equity that Rasna enjoyed.
 Promotions for the product which ultimately lead to the
death of a high potential brand
 Moti originally was a brand of Tata Oil Mills Company
(TOMCO).
 TOMCO merged with HLL. Moti was a special soap which
had certain differentiation. The first differentiation point
was the Shape. Unlike other soaps which came in cake
form, Moti was round soap.
 Moti was promoted as a premium soap . The soap was
expensive and during the eighties, the soap was priced
around Rs 25.
 Moti came in popular fragrances like Gulab (Rose) and
Sandal.
 Tomco also promoted this brand heavily. Most of the
campaign had a signature brand imagery of the soap.
Those ads were in most of the magazines during the
peak stage of this brand.
 The reason for this brand's death may be
because it did not fit into the brand portfolio of
HLL. While Hamam ( another Tomco brand )
thrived, Moti was never in the picture. Then with
the Power Brand strategy, brands like Moti never
had a chance to survive.
 The brand had prospects if HLL had done some
serious product development. In the branding
perspective.The name and the imagery were
wonderful.
 The problem was with the product. There was
something missing in the soap which ultimately
lead to the death of this brand.
 Another factor was at the segmentation side.
 The company may have felt that Moti did not have
a future as a premium soap. And it may
cannibalize some existing brands if the prices are
rationalized. Moti may had to be repositioned if it
had to survive . But HLL was not prepared to
invest in a brand which had a minuscule 2% of
the market. So the decision was to slowly kill the
brand.