A different kind of a h...
(Posted 8th March 2017)
Gol gappas or gold meda...
(Posted 1st January 2017)
Strategic importance of...
(Posted 28th June 2016)
The art of taking on gi...
(Posted 6th June 2016)
Anushka’s trolling come...
(Posted 15th May 2016)
Goose pimple stuff: All...
(Posted 15th May 2016)
Well played sir!: All t...
(Posted 15th May 2016)
Mobiles, mobility and t...
(Posted 15th May 2016)
Where in the food chain...
(Posted 12th February 2014)
Return of the angry you...
(Posted 4th January 2015)
Amul – ye butter hai ya...
(Posted 18th December 2014)
Who’s your enemy?
(Posted 15th November 2014)
Six pack abs, designer ...
(Posted 18th September 2014)
Are we falling in love ...
(Posted 12th September 2014)
Is your brand missing i...
(Posted 15th April 2014)
Brand rejuvenation: is ...
(Posted 27th March 2014)
Aren’t the new age bran...
(Posted 12th February 2014)
Why brand managers shou...
(Posted 25th March 2014)
Why the cricket team’s ...
(22nd January 2012)
Shallow shlacking: why ...
(Posted 1st February 2012)
Shall we stop targeting...
(5th February 2012)
How do you sleep at nig...
(17th June 2012)
Is there a problem in y...
(25th January 2012)

Who’s your enemy?

Large brand ideas have an ideological stance. A point of view on how things should be. Not just in the category context, but the world at large. Yesterday, while discussing three such campaigns in a session at MICA, a difference in approach emerged. Not in the idea itself, but in their choice of the enemy.


When you choose to stand for something, it requires taking a stance against something as well, the enemy. The more provocative expressions of such ideologies do not shy away from underlining the enemy, instead, they give it centre stage. Therefore, the choice of enemy becomes of critical importance.

All three campaigns have chosen powerful enemies to go after. Be it Dove’s campaign against unreal standards of beauty, Pantene’s against stereotypes that women face at work or Tata Safari’s attack on the success rat race.

However, there is an important difference.

Do you choose an issue that’s a problem ‘out there’ or do you choose one that your own category accentuates? Let’s look at the three cases.

The success rat race is a problem that plagues us in many spheres of life – our jobs, designation, pay package, home, spouse, vacation, kids school, college, their job…. However, our car is possibly one of the biggest signifiers of this that the world sees us with. Tata Safari’s view on success therefore becomes that much more powerful, because it comes from a car brand.

For the same reason, Dove’s view on unreal beauty standards is specially evocative, because the personal care category is as guilty if not more in accentuating this problem.

It is here that Pantene’s choice of the enemy is not as powerful. The stereotypes on working women has a weak connection with what the personal care/hair care category propagates. And it shows.

Although Pantene do attempt the strong hair – strong women connection, the centrality of the brand and category in this ideology is not as strong (no pun intended!). Already, one can see that in their ‘not sorry’ campaign, it faces the classic I-remember-the-ad-but-which-brand-was-it? challenge.

Will they be able to able to finding a more meaningful connect? Let’s wait and see!