Rin, a product of Hindustan Unilever, recently launched a comparative advertisement against Tide, a product of Procter & Gamble, showing Rin to be brighter and superior. This has escalated the long-standing rivalry between the two companies. While HUL claims the advertisement is factual, P&G has challenged it in court for being disparaging. There is debate around the legal and ethical implications of such comparative advertisements, as they could mislead consumers but companies argue they are protected under free speech laws if claims are substantiated.

1. CONFLICT IN CORPORAT
WORLD......
RIN VS TIDE
PRESENTED BY:-
PAYAL MISHRA
PGDM 1ST YR

2. Well if you have seen the recent advertisement of Rin, it would
definitely have raised some issues over its propriety, if not
legality. In the advert, Rin has been shown to be a better
product than Tide. The issue of comparative advertisements is
not new. Sometimes these advertisements are banned by the
Government or removed by the players themselves, but not
without creating an euphoria and also creating a dent in the
mind of the viewer.
Rin is a washing product of Hindustan Unilever limited. Tide is a
washing product of Procter & Gamble. Needless to say HUL and
P&G are competing with each other. Rin has released a
advertisement recently which makes Tide’s product ‘inferior’.

3. • It appears that Rin, that respectable Indian brand, has taken
the initiative to alter the rules of the game; if the new Rin
advertisement is anything to go by, it certainly seems like Rin
or Hindustan Unilever Limited, probably has taken upon itself
the responsibility of changing the hitherto “comparatively”
demure face of Indian ads. The ad runs something like this:
• There are two women, the first one (let’s call her Woman 1
like they do for extras in movie credits) praises Tide, with a
Tide packet featuring prominently. A bus, presumably school
bus, arrives with their children. Woman 1’s son steps out of
the bus first and his shirt is a dull shade of white. A second
boy alights and his shirt is an immaculate white. He moves
towards Woman 2 who uses Rin, of course. Woman 2’s son
asks Woman 1 “Aunty Kyun Chaunk Gai ?”with the obvious
reference to Tide’s caption “Chaunk Gaye !”

5. • This campaign claims that Rin provides more
brightness in comparison to Tide Naturals, which is the
new product that P&G launched a couple of months
ago in the mass segment positioning it against Rin as
well as Wheel. Declining market share forced HUL to
get aggressive in its advertising strategy to regain
market share.
• The ad not only speak the product attributes of Tide
which they claim but also hit their marketing theme.
[..] The rivalry between these two brands is on since
long when HUL reduced its price by 10-15% percent
when Tide was offering 20% extra washing powder

6. • HUL claims that the Rin commercial is in line of
advertising regulations laid by the industry. HUL terms
its claim to be factual, accurate and substantiated
based on laboratory tests done through globally
accepted protocols in independent third party
laboratories. ASCI has even issued a notice to HUL to
substantiate its claim.
• P&G has also moved to High court against the
disparaging advertisement of HUL's Rin. Prior to this,
HUL had challenged P&G's claim in its advertisement
on Tide Natural. On being directed by ASCI, P&G seems
to have modified its advertisement.

7. • On the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the
guiding principles for us should be the following:- (i) An
advertisement is commercial speech and is protected by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (ii) An advertisement must
not be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive. (iii) Of course,
there would be some grey areas but these need not
necessarily be taken as serious representations of fact but
only as glorifying one’s product. To this extent, in our opinion,
the protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is
available. However, if an advertisement extends beyond the
grey areas and becomes a false, misleading, unfair or
deceptive advertisement, it would certainly not have the
benefit of any protection. ...

8. Ethically it is incorrect to indulge in such
kind of ad-campaign under the garb of
comparative advertisements...
One can call one's product to be superior
but, comparing it with other products
(without any scientific reasoning) and
showing other products as inferior is
unacceptable...
THANK YOU.....