This document summarizes the brand war between Rin detergent produced by HUL and Tide detergent produced by P&G in India. It describes the launch and marketing of each brand. Initially Tide was losing market share to Rin, but after 2007 its sales increased and it posed a threat to HUL. This led to intense price competition between 2009-2010 as each company tried to gain market share through advertising claims and price cuts. The document outlines the key legal battles between the two companies over advertising claims during this period.

1. BRAND WARS
RIN V/s TIDE

2. 


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.
Introduction of Rin

3. 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.

Introduction of Tide

4. The war

5. 
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.
The War Begins

6. 
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 .
Price Wars

7. 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.

Attaining the supreme

8. 
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
product.
The Ad Campaign

9. 


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.
Tide Vs Rin