This document summarizes the brand war between Rin detergent produced by HUL and Tide detergent produced by P&G in India. It describes the introduction and growth of each brand. In the late 2000s, Tide gained market share threatening Rin's leadership position. This led to price cuts and competitive advertising campaigns by both brands. In 2010, HUL directly challenged Tide's claims of being "natural" in court and launched an advertisement comparing Rin favorably to Tide. In response, P&G took HUL to court over the comparative advertisement.

1. BRAND WAR
RIN V/S TIDE

2. Introduction of Rin
 It is a product of HUL.
 Rin was launched as a bar in 1969 and
powder in 1994 with the iconic lightning
bolt .
 This was hugely successful in
establishing a superior brand image in the
consumer's mind

3. Introduction of Tide
 It is manufactured by Procter & Gamble.
 The brand in India was launched with only
two types of products namely Tide
detergent and Tide bar.
 Consumers believe that white clothes
once dirtied or stained can never look new
again.
 Tide wanted to change this very belief of
the consumers by bringing to life the Tide
dirt magnets property.

4. The War Begins
 Initially Tide was trailing behind Rin but
since 2007, sales picked up, and its
market share rose posing a threat to HUL
whose share started eroding.
 The year 2009 saw a substantial gap in
the value share, where Tide was capturing
8% of the market share and Rin only had
5.1% of the market share.

5. The Price Wars
 In December 2009, P&G Home Products
introduced Tide Natural, a new version of
Tide, at a price lower than HUL’s Rin brand
targeted at the rural segment.
 Competitive intensity had increased after the
launch of Tide Naturals by P&G in the mass
segment.
 HUL had responded with aggressive price
cuts in Rin and thus the war begins .

6. One of The Advertisement Campaign

7. AttainingThe Supreme
 February 25, 2010 HUL challenged the Tide Natural's claim in the Madras
High Court.
 HUL challenged P&G in the court that Tide Naturals did not contain lemon
and chandan and convinced the court that P&G should drop the word
‘Naturals’ from the name and merely displaying a disclaimer "It does not
contain lemon and chandan" was not enough.
 The advertisement was considered to mislead the customers at large as it
promoted Tide Naturals as a natural detergent, whereas it was actually a
synthetic detergent. P&G admitted in the court that Tide Natural used only
the fragrance of lemon and chandan.
 Thus, P&G was instructed by the court to clarify to the customers the fact
that its product did not contain the ingredients as claimed by it.

8. The Advertisement War
 Finally, on February 26, 2010 the Indian market saw the very
bold comparative advertising on the television screens that
took comparative advertising to new heights.
 Rin launched a commercial comparing Rin and Tide naturals.
In the ad the boy using rin questions “ AUNTY CHAUNK
KYU GAYI ?” with the obvious reference to tide caption “
CHAUNK GAYE !” Thus claiming better whiteness than tide
naturals at an affordable price.
 The advertisement took the advantage of the break in the court
due to a long weekend. HUL was well-equipped with the fact
that the courts decision would take at least three days to be
announced and hence it continuously showed the ad during
the period so as to do maximum damage to the competitor's

9. The Advertisement Campaign

10. Reaction of Tide
 P&G takes HUL to court over Rin
advertisement.
 The practice of pulling down rivals in one’s
marketing communications is not new in
India, yet, the ad took the industry by
surprise because it was an open war
declared by one powerful company against
the other.
 P&G has filed a case in the Calcutta
High Court against Hindustan Unilever's new
ad campaign, which openly challenged the
superiority of its product Rin over P&G's Tide

11. Thank You
By
Nabanita Biswas
(BBA, 3rd yr)