Presented by:

Akash Pal (23MB0003)

Arjun Singh (23MB0013)
Asif ali khan (23MB0014)
Deeptangshu Mishra (23MB0021)
Himanshu Saini (23MB0027)
 Magic (TOMCO)

Surf (HLL)

1956 1959 1960 1966 1969

RIN bar HLL

Det (Swastik) Success NIRMA

(200kg/day)
1. OK (TOMCO)
Tata Tej 2. Shunu Sen encountered NIRMA
(TOMCO) (share 11.9%)

1970 1973 1974 1977 1980

HLL dominated 5% market of NIRMA prize draws K. Patel introduced Milan

NSD. Abroad it was 35% 30000-45000 Indian advertiser at Moscow Olympics

 Uniqueness rating 82% NIRMA detergent Bar

No.1 Brand in Asia Launch

1982 1984 1985 1986 1987

NIRMA Uniqueness rating Nirma market share 50% HLL, started R&D for a new
53%
Unmechanized to mechanized production. detergent
HLL Lalitaji, Sunlight
WHEEL became profitable

NIRMA 8000 unskilled NIRMA, stable 55% market

share

1988 1989 1990 1992 …

WHEEL WHEEL- 2 nd largest selling

detergent
1. Product for low income generators
2. Price was the only concern for this segment
3. Quality was an added benefit for such price sensitive
customer base
4. Basic ingredients, easy making
5. Loyal distribution channel with lower profit margin
than HLL
6. 1/3rd of Surf’s price
1. Product for higher income generators
2. Quality was important for the customer segment
3. High quality product with different chemicals suitable
for a better wash.
4. Gentle to clothes and hands/skin
5. Added fragrance
6. Expensive and out of reach for the customer segment
where Nirma was targeting and positioning.
 2
Sunlight:

1
HLL launched Sunlight detergent powder in 1985.
Ala & Rin: Successful in Western and Northern India.
- Introduced by HLL in the early 1980s as low-cost detergent powders. Moderate success in Eastern and Southern India where Nirma
- Priced 35% lower than Surf but failed to attract customers. was less dominant
- Highlighted HLL's initial attempts to compete in the low-cost segment.

3
Lalitaji Campaign:
- Launched by HLL in 1985, featuring Lalitaji, a sensible housewife.

- Emphasized the value proposition of Surf over low-priced detergents.

- Resonated with consumers and helped increase demand for Surf.

4 Packaging Innovation:
Sunlight detergent powder packaged in plastic
bags, departing from traditional cardboard
boxes.
Expansion to Surf:
Extended plastic bag packaging to Surf
detergent brand.

RESPONSES
HLL(SURF) VS NIRMA HLL’S RESPONSES
 ANSOFF MATRIX

HULL(SURF) VS NIRMA
 Market Research
Research and Development

1 2 3 4 5

HLL and other high-quality Nirma’s dramatic rise forced HLL

Mr. Sen’s first interaction Cheap packaging of the yellow Mr. Sen wrote to the HLL

manufacturers failed to offer to re-evaluate the market and

with Nirma took place in the coloured detergent in contrast branch manager in

any significant competition to customer

year 1977 near Ghaziabad. to the sleek, blue Surf Ahmedabad, asking for

Nirma needs and apply appropriate

packaging information on Nirma

strategies
 Difference between the marketing strategies of
Nirma and HUL

Nirma followed Marketing 1.0 marketing strategy where the main objective was selling products whereas HUL(Wheel)
started following Marketing 2.0 approach where emphasis was given to satisfy and retain consumers . 1
Nirma treated the consumers as mass buyers with physical needs whereas HUL(Wheel) treated the consumers as
smarter consumer with mind and heart. 2
Nirma had the key marketing concept based on product development whereas HUL(Wheel) had the key marketing
concept based on differentiation.
3
Nirma had value propositions which were basically functional whereas HUL(Wheel) had value propositions which were
not only functional but also emotional. 4
HUL were technologically much more advanced as compared to Nirma as they also gave much more emphasis on
Information technology as their enabling force.
5
 HLL’s Flanking Move

In business terms flanking may be focusing

on a particular product, customer segment,
or geography where your competitor is not
the strongest.

“Maine mangi thi safai, aur

tu ne di hathon ki jalan”
 How it Flanked NIRMA

• Identifying a Vulnerability

• Repositioning a Familiar Name

• Distinct Value Proposition

• Dynamic Pricing

• Engaging NIRMA in a Warfare

 Distribution Channel

1.Mobile Vans: HLL increased the number of mobile vans from 40 to 1,200, extending their reach to rural consumers
and ensuring product availability in a wide range of towns and villages.
2.Wholly Owned Subsidiary: HLL established Stepan Chemicals as a wholly owned subsidiary responsible for Wheel's
marketing and distribution activities. This subsidiary played a crucial role in implementing the redesigned distribution
model.
3.Direct Delivery to Stockists: To enhance cost efficiency, Stepan Chemicals bypassed clearing and forwarding
agents, opting for direct delivery to stockists. This streamlined the distribution process and reduced associated costs.
4.Extensive Reach: The distribution strategy aimed at reaching over 3,000 towns and almost 60,000 villages, reflecting
a comprehensive approach to covering diverse market segments.
5.Market Penetration: The increased distribution network helped HLL penetrate deeper into the market, particularly in
rural areas, where the potential for growth was significant.
 Packaging
1.Uniform Packaging Message: The packaging likely carried a consistent message
emphasizing Wheel's features such as extra lather, safety on hands and clothes, aligning
with the advertising campaigns.
2.Differentiation: The packaging might have been designed to differentiate Wheel from
competitors, showcasing its unique selling points and potentially justifying the premium
pricing.
3.Branding: Packaging likely incorporated HLL and Wheel branding elements to
establish brand recognition and trust among consumers.
4.Product Information: The packaging would have included essential product
information, usage instructions, and potentially communicated the brand's commitment
to quality.
 Adequacy of HLL's Strategic Responses

1.Expanded Distribution Network: HLL significantly expanded its distribution network by increasing the
number of mobile vans, enabling them to reach a vast number of towns and villages. This move was strategic in
targeting rural consumers, where Nirma had gained a strong foothold.
2.Cost Efficiency: The decision to bypass clearing and forwarding agents and deliver directly to stockists
helped in reducing distribution costs. This cost-effective approach is crucial in a price-sensitive market where
Nirma was gaining traction.
3.Market Penetration: The extensive reach of the distribution network allowed HLL to penetrate deeper into the
market, particularly in rural areas. This countered Nirma's widespread presence and disrupted its dominance in
those regions.
4.Product Differentiation: HLL's advertising campaigns focused on Wheel's unique features, such as extra
lather and being safe on hands and clothes. This product differentiation helped in establishing Wheel as a
competitive alternative to Nirma.
 Impact on NIRMA

1.Market Share Decline: With the launch of Wheel, Nirma faced a decline in market share for the first
time. HLL's effective distribution and marketing strategies with Wheel inhibited Nirma's growth.

2. Competitive Pressure: HLL's ability to position Wheel as a prominent brand in its portfolio exerted
competitive pressure on Nirma. The introduction of a compelling alternative at a competitive price affected
Nirma's market position.

3. Strategic Adaptation: HLL's strategic flexibility not only countered Nirma but also helped overcome
threats from other competitors like Procter & Gamble. This adaptability showcased HLL's resilience in the
dynamic market, forcing Nirma to adapt to the changing landscape.
CONCLUSION
T HANK YOU