Text analysis exercise 1

Instructions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow
A boy and his inseparable partner, a cute pug-faced dog. Aamir Khan in a string of
refreshing new avatars, telling us the matlab of thanda. What do some of these highly
memorable images from the last one years advertising tell us about the changing role of
advertising in the building of a brand?
They reflect the maturing of a trend thats been a few years in the making:Brands
attempting to capture basic category valuesrather thantheir remaining content to fight at
the margin, on the battleground of differentiation.For decades,advertising has defined its
primary role as the sharp etching-out ofwhat makes a brand stand apart.The thinking was
powerfully kicked off by Rosser Reeves and his concept of the USP. Searching for a better
mousetrap became the brand managers holy mission.
Over time, the idea ofdifferentiationcame to include softer, emotional differences in
brand value, but the tacitly assumed role of advertising remained the same: To tell the
story of how exactly a brand wasdifferent from or better than a host of competitors.
This thinking served us well for a long time. In the India of the 90s,for instance,with a
steady influx of new players with new stories to tell, it made sense for advertising to point
towards the dramatic new features or brand values that these players brought with them.
Powerful brands were built on the back of such concepts asGolden Eye and Zip Drive,
ZPTO and PSPO.Nimbu and amla became the panacea for FMCG marketers of all hues.
Differentiatedtariff schemes were enough to build brand preference in new categories
liketelecom, computers and financial products.However,with increasing competition and
the steady onset of product and price parity, the arguments at the margin began to sound
thin. It was difficult for the consumer to remain fascinated with the precisedifference
betweenthe chaos punch action of a washing machine and turbo jet; or, to handle the
surfeit of communication about tariff schemes.
Its not surprising, therefore,that today we are seeing the birth of campaigns likeHutchs
Boy & Dog(based on a feature thats been at parity for years, but rendered unique by the
way in which it forges anoriginal connection with the viewer at the human level).
Or,Airtels Express Yourself,which again takes afundamental category value common to
all players but manages to appropriate it to the brand through a unique emotional connect
with the user.

Even soft consumer brands that had already gone beyond product-based arguments in
their communication still tended to be fixated with etching out theirpoint of difference. In
soft drinks,for instance,Pepsitended to focus a lot of its energies on telling us how it was
the younger cola (e.g., Nothing official about it);Cokestruggled for years to tell a
differentiatedstory on how it embodied values like belonging and brotherhood as a
counterpoint to Pepsis individualism;Thums Upran the aggressive grow up campaign in
an attempt to tell us how it was differentfrom Pepsi.
Butover the past year or so, see how the communication in this category haschanged.
Today,Cokeis content in telling us engaging stories that use simple insights on the way we
speak as a people, and which comenot fromthe brands point ofdifferencebut
fromtheappropriation of the category nomenclatureof thanda.Pepsiincreasingly tells us
stories about young people and their attitudes, in an absolute rather than a comparative
sense.Thums Upslatest work is focused a lot more on telling its own storyrather thanon
how it is overtlydifferent.Examples aboundacross product categories.Close Uphas moved
out of marginal arguments like mouthwash into the basics of what fresh breath is all about,
but has made this category benefit work for itself by communicating it in a uniquely
engaging way.Dabur Chyawanprashnow has the Big B exhorting us to march on
regardless, undeterred by illness or physical weakness a category benefit that is far more
motivating than propositions like the inner-strength giving properties of amla that had
been the brands staple for years.VIPhas chosen to try and own the very idea of happy
journeys, as against marginally differentiated benefits of looks or features. Ditto for a lot of
the work thatFevicol, Nokia, Saint-Gobain and Amaron batteries are doing today.
These brands advertising is far more involved withbefriending the consumer through the
dramatisation of interesting category truths,rather thanonarguing subtle points of
difference.So, are we saying that there is an inherent problem with the idea
ofdifferentiationas the basis of communication strategy in todays context? Not really. If
an inherentlydifferentiatedmessage still provides enough creative latitude to tell a highly
engaging story a la Will shock you for Centre Shock or Now send pictures for Nokia, fine.
However, the problem is that as the argument increasingly shifts to the margin, it tends to
straitjacket creative ideation. How many creatively breakthrough ways are there, for
instance, to tell a story on the balm that penetrates thrice as deep to cure from the
roots?The point being made is,the idea of differentiationis perhapsbecoming
secondarytothe need to connect with consumers emotionally, through the telling of
simple, engaging stories. And if going back to the basic category benefit helps provide more
latitude for the telling of such stories, so be it.

Which of the following best captures the main idea of the passage
a. Advertising as a method of brand building

b. various methods of building brands

c. Coke Pepsi and thums ups new campaigns
d. Changing trends in advertising
e. Brands working on basic category values rather than differentiation based methods
The author mentions the Chaos punch action washing machine in order to
a. serve as an example of differentiation based advertising
b. serve as an example for Emotional connection with customers philosphy
c. Serve as an example of reduced effectiveness of differentiation based ideas
d. Serve as an example of modern methods of brand building
_________________________________________________________

A boy and his inseparable partner, a cute pug-faced dog. Aamir Khan in a string of
refreshing new avatars, telling us the matlab of thanda. What do some of these highly
memorable images from the last one years advertising tell us about the changing role
of advertising in the building of a brand?
They reflect the maturing of a trend thats been a few years in the
making: Brands attempting to capture basic category values rather
than their remaining content to fight at the margin, on the battleground
of differentiation. For decades,advertising has defined its primary role as the
sharp etching-out of what makes a brand stand apart. The thinking was
powerfully kicked off by Rosser Reeves and his concept of the USP. Searching for a
better mousetrap became the brand managers holy mission.
Over time, the idea of differentiation came to include softer, emotional differences
in brand value, but the tacitly assumed role of advertising remained the same: To tell
the story of how exactly a brand was different from or better than a host of
competitors. This thinking served us well for a long time. In the India of the 90s, for
instance, with a steady influx of new players with new stories to tell, it made sense
for advertising to point towards the dramatic new features or brand values that these
players brought with them. Powerful brands were built on the back of such concepts
as Golden Eye and Zip Drive, ZPTO and PSPO. Nimbu and amlabecame the panacea
for FMCG marketers of all hues.
Differentiated tariff schemes were enough to build brand preference in new
categories like telecom, computers and financial products. However,with increasing
competition and the steady onset of product and price parity, the arguments at the
margin began to sound thin. It was difficult for the consumer to remain fascinated
with the precise difference between the chaos punch action of a washing machine
and turbo jet; or, to handle the surfeit of communication about tariff schemes.
Its not surprising, therefore, that today we are seeing the birth of campaigns
like Hutchs Boy & Dog (based on a feature thats been at parity for years, but

rendered unique by the way in which it forges an original connection with the
viewer at the human level). Or, Airtels Express Yourself, which again takes
a fundamental category value common to all players but manages to
appropriate it to the brand through a unique emotional connect with the
user.
Even soft consumer brands that had already gone beyond product-based arguments
in their communication still tended to be fixated with etching out their point of
difference. In soft drinks, for instance, Pepsi tended to focus a lot of its energies on
telling us how it was the younger cola (e.g., Nothing official about it); Coke struggled
for years to tell a differentiated story on how it embodied values like belonging and
brotherhood as a counterpoint to Pepsis individualism; Thums Up ran the aggressive
grow up campaign in an attempt to tell us how it wasdifferent from Pepsi.
But over the past year or so, see how the communication in this category
has changed. Today, Coke is content in telling us engaging stories that use simple
insights on the way we speak as a people, and which come not from the brands
point of difference but from the appropriation of the category
nomenclature of thanda. Pepsi increasingly tells us stories about young people and
their attitudes, in an absolute rather than a comparative sense. Thums Ups latest
work is focused a lot more ontelling its own story rather than on how it is
overtly different.Examples abound across product categories. Close Up has
moved out of marginal arguments like mouthwash into the basics of what fresh
breath is all about, but has made this category benefit work for itself by
communicating it in a uniquely engaging way.
Dabur Chyawanprash now has the Big B exhorting us to march on regardless,
undeterred by illness or physical weakness a category benefit that is far more
motivating than propositions like the inner-strength giving properties of amla that
had been the brands staple for years. VIP has chosen to try and own the very idea of
happy journeys, as against marginally differentiated benefits of looks or features.
Ditto for a lot of the work that Fevicol, Nokia, Saint-Gobain and Amaron batteries are
doing today.
These brands advertising is far more involved with befriending the consumer
through the dramatisation of interesting category truths, rather
than on arguing subtle points of difference. So, are we saying that there is an
inherent problem with the idea ofdifferentiation as the basis of communication
strategy in todays context? Not really. If an inherently differentiated message still
provides enough creative latitude to tell a highly engaging story a la Will shock you
for Centre Shock or Now send pictures for Nokia, fine.
However, the problem is that as the argument increasingly shifts to the margin, it
tends to straitjacket creative ideation. How many creatively breakthrough ways are
there, for instance, to tell a story on the balm that penetrates thrice as deep to cure

from the roots? The point being made is, the idea of differentiation is
perhaps becoming secondary to the need to connect with consumers emotionally,
through the telling of simple, engaging stories. And if going back to the basic category
benefit helps provide more latitude for the telling of such stories, so be it.