Anda di halaman 1dari 30

Case: All Out- Marketing a

Mosquito Repellent.
Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (KAPL)

KAPLs Brand All Out is almost a generic name for
liquid vaporizers.

Liquid Mosquito Vaporizers is a 4 bn Segment in India
with All Out having 69% market share in 1999.( Result
of conversion of large no. of customers to vaporizer
KAPL managed to wrest market share amidst stiff
competition from corporate giants like Godrej Sara Lee
Ltd (GSLL) and Hindustan Lever Ltd (HLL).

Indian market profile:
With 255 species of mosquitoes believed to be
responsible for spreading diseases like malaria &
dengue fever; India has a large and growing market for
mosquito repellents.
Common methods: traditional methods, Creams, Coils,
Mats, Sprays, Vaporizers.
Anyhow the use of mosquito repellents in India was
fairly low:
Table 1:

Table 2:
Urban Areas Metros Rural Areas
% of households 16.4% 22.6% 6.9%
Segments Mats Coils Vaporizers
Market Value 51% 21% 7%
Competitive Profile in the mosquito
repellent segment:
Company Name Brand Name Year of
Coils Bombay Chemicals
Ltd. (BCL)
Tortoise 1970
Sprays and Mats Bayer Baygon Spray, Baygon
Power Mats and Baygon
Creams Balsara Hygiene Odomos
Mats and Coils Tainwala Chemicals Casper
Coils Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Jet Fighter
Goodknight Jumbo
Goodknight Instant
Goodknight Smokeless
Jet Jumbo

Product Category Company Name Brand Name Year of
Mats Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (GSLL)

Aerosols Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (GSLL)

Chalks Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (GSLL)

Hit Lines

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (GSLL)

Spray Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (GSLL)

Mats & Coils Reckitt & Coleman (R&C) Mortein
Mortein King
Mortein Red
Coils Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) Raid
Company Brand 1998 1999 July 2000
GSLL GoodKnight 45 43 51
GSLL Jet 13 18 14
GSLL Banish 4 3 2
R&C Mortein 9 12 15
HLL Raid 4 7 4
- Others 25 17 14
Total 100 100 100
Company Brand 1998 1999 July 2000
GSLL GoodKnight 0 0 12
GSLL Jet 18 20 17
R&C Mortein 30 33 33
HLL Tortoise 37 28 20
- Others 15 19 18
Total 100 100 100
Category Market Share (in %)
Year 1996 1999
Mats 63 38
Coils 27 46
Creams 5 3
Vaporizers 5 13
Total 100 100
Category Market Share (in %)
Year 1996 1999
All Out 55 69
GoodKnight 40 21
Baygon 0 9
Jet 5 1
Total 100 100
Points to be noticed in the data given in
the tables:
The new entrants like GSLL and R&C , with the strategy of
heavy advertising and aggressive sales promotion emerged as
market leaders in mat segment very soon after entering the
But the point to be noted here is that while other companies
concentrated on the coils and mat markets, KAPL was focused
on the promotion of vaporizers.
By mid 1990s, vaporizers attained a market share of 5%
dominated by KAPL whose sales reached Rs.153 mn. GSLL
couldn't ignore this and launched GoodKnight vaporizer in 1996-
GoodKnight soon acquired a 40% market but this did not affect
the sales of KAPL because instead of eating up All Outs sales
ended up expanding the vaporizer market.
But GoodKnight couldn't sustain its success and by 1999, the
brands market share went down to 21%- a major portion of the
19% taken up by All Out.
The growth of All Out:
KAPLs promoters: Arya brothers.
Anil, Bimal and Naveen Arya. (winners of Marketing
Persons of the Year award at the 2000 A&M awards).
Background of Arya Brothers.
Formation of KAPL.
KAPLs technical collaboration with Japanese
manufacturers. (Earth Chemical Co. Ltd.: A part of
the $8 billion Otsuka Group).
Earths refusal to transfer the technology for the
manufacture of the vaporizer.
Product development began (with certain imports) at
Baddi in Himachal Pradesh in 1989.
Brand Name Decision: Freedom / Choo Mantar
Commissioning of well-known packaging unit in
Hyderabad. After a delay of 6 months All Out was
finally launched in April,1990 in Mumbai.

Slow pick up of sales (as April was a lean month and
mosquito repellants are more in demand during rains).
Advertising: Agency Avenues came up with a
baseline, All Out for modern mosquitos. Arya
brothers lost patience after 6 months and the
advertisement account shifted to HTA who released a
series of six ads using humor to promote the product.
However the Arya brothers still were dissatisfied as
they thought that they were paying too much for the
ads, but the ads lost out on what the brand wanted to
KAPL decided to take the ads on its own and then
launched the animated Japanese man eating
mosquitoes. (the ad costed only Rs.50000 to KAPL).
Ads on Videocassettes of Hindi Movies- criticism of
Anils reply: cost a fraction due to around 20
duplications of videocassettes in grey market.
Cost Effective Ads : Use of evening news program on
FM Radio and test cricket commentary on state owned
AIR. On TV KAPL preferred to sponsor news programs
rather than costly and more conventional soaps or
game shows like KBC.

Concept of sponsoring song/dance and fight sequences
in movies on many satellite TV channels like SitiCable
and Doordarshan.

The above strategy resulted in the brand attaining a
very high mind-share amongst consumers.
Share of Voice (SOV) for All Out = 31% , whereas
SOV for GoodKnight = 5%.

High price to cover the cost of expensive components
purchased from Matsushita Electronics.
Later reacting to market sentiments the price was
reduced by increasing the in house manufacturing of
All Outs pricing and sales promotional Offers:
Price (Rs) Year
Cord Model 225 1990
Cord Model 135 1994
Pluggy 90 1995
Twin Pack (pluggy+cord) 135 1996
Deadly Offer
99 1998
Deadly exchange
27 1999
Pricing by the competitors:
GSLL while struggling to maintain its MS
launched a 60-night refill pack priced at
Rs.63.(against All Outs 45-night pack at
GSLL had to support this new scheme
using promotions.
GSLL MS decreased by 9.3% after KAPLs
Deadly Exchange Scheme. Further
reduction of price by GSLL had little effect
on its decreasing sales.
Distribution Network:
Of the 9 lacs outlets across the country
that sold repellants, KAPL was available in
only 18% (120 distributors).
Percentage of outlets:
R&C 55%
GSLL- 54%

Thus KAPL started working towards
increasing its presence.
Future Prospects of the Indian
Mosquito Repellent Market:
Industry Experts expected the IMR market
to grow rapidly in the early 21
due to the following reasons:
Improvement in literacy in rural areas

Improvement in health consciousness in
rural areas.

Low per capita usage of repellants (scope)

Hampered Growth: Reasons
1. Health Hazard:
Increased concern over harmful effects on health of
the chemicals used in MRs.
Allethrin was reported to be very dangerous,
potentially harmful to eyes, skin, respiratory tract
and the nervous system.
Industrial Toxicology Research Center showed that
rats suffered brain, liver and kidney damage after
the prolonged exposure to liquid mosquito
Research in Sweden and USA also showed that
prolonged usage of Allethrin products could cause
brain cancer, blood cancer and deformity of fetuses.

2. Doubts about the efficacy of LMRs:
Malaria Research Center found out that
none of the leading brands provided 100%
protection against mosquitoes.
193 out of 653 households surveyed in 8 cities
complained of various health problems linked to
LMRs. (breathing problems, headaches, eye
irritation, skin rashes, suffocation, ithcing,
bronchitis, cold and cough, asthma, nausea,
throat and ear pain).
Of the 286 doctors questioned, 50% reported
cases of acute toxicity due to use of LMRs.

Specific Complaints against All Out
Severe criticism of the 2001 ad claiming
about extra MMR.
Dr. V. Raghunathan, Director (Central
Insecticide Laboratory) said that the as
tried to prove that MMR was a wonder
substance which would kill mosquitoes but
in the packaging there was not mention of
it. Extra MMR extra Allehtrin or extra Toxin
Criticism of other aspect of Ads: People
were unhappy about the brands ads
before every song, dance , fight sequence.
Repetitive ads of an established brand is
not advisable.
KAPLs competitors were large multi-
product companies whereas KAPL
remained as a single product company.

The large companies had financial
strength to sustain long and costly ads
and promotional campaigns.

In such a scenario it is difficult for
marketers to predict the span of market
leadership of brand All Out.

Questions for Discussion:
1. Analyze the reasons behind the success
of All Out, commenting separately on
the attention paid by KAPL to each
element of the marketing mix. Why do
you think players like GSLL were not
being able to compete with All Out?

Soln: The main reason for All Outs success
was its balanced handling of the
marketing mix. Now we analyze its
success and competitive edge with
respect to the elements of the marketing
The 1
P: Product
Pioneer Effect: First of its kind.
Technically Sound: Dependable Japanese
Smoke Free, no residue, almost odorless.
Long lasting.
Ease of Use.

The 2
P: Price
Premium Pricing, creating an impression of
a premier product.
Flexible pricing to accommodate market
KAPL was proactive with its flexible pricing
strategy. It set a trend in the process.
GSLL followed it up with a similar strategy.
(Goodknights 60-night refill pack priced at
Rs.63 in response to All Outs 45-night
pack at Rs.54.)

The 3
P: Place
GSLL and R&C were multi-product giants
whereas KAPL was a newcomer with a single
product. Hence the former companies (before
launching vaporizers) already had well
established distribution networks.
The only P in which KAPL was behind its major
competitors was Place.
Of the 9 lacs outlets across the country that sold
repellants, KAPL was available in only 18% (120
Percentage of outlets:
R&C 55%
GSLL- 54%

The 4
P: Promotion
The ads of All Out were unique and immediately
caught the imagination of the masses.
The ad had high mind recall.
Since KAPL themselves handled the account the
advertisement cost was quite low.
Other strategies:
1. Hindi Movie Video Cassettes
2. FM Radio
3. News Program Sponsors
4. Movie Song/Dance/Fight Sequence sponsoring
on satellite TV Channels.

The 5
P of Packaging
KAPL paid special attention to the
packaging details of its product. It
commissioned a well known unit in
Hyderabad to ensure that its packaging
was of high quality.

Few points about the competitors
GSLL and R&C were followers in this
segment right from the start.
GSLL even came up with a similar
pricing strategy as All Out (Good
Knights 60 night refill pack against All
Outs 45 night pack.)

2. In the light of intensifying competition and
allegations of toxic hazards in the mosquito
repellant industry, do you think All Out would
be able to maintain its success in the future?
What steps can the company take to ensure
that its market share does not suffer? Give
reasons to support your answer.
Soln: All Out has faced stiff competition to
establish itself in the market.Through its
efforts it has garnered considerable customer
loyalty.The one glitch it faced was in the
toxicity parameter.

The Mosquito repellant industry has a perennial
double edged sword hanging over it. On one
side there exists the peril of deadly
mosquitoes from which protection is
extremely necessary and on the other hand
their lurks the danger of toxic emissons.There
exists a very thin line between these two.
All Out made for itself a concrete position in the
market. It would not be an easy task for the
competitors to put All Out out of the race.
The way out for All Out is to work further on
its R & D and lessen the toxic composition of
its product keeping the good properties
intact.Definite steps in this direction will
surely put All Out back on track.
To maintain its market share All Out must
implement the above suggested changes and
communicate this to the public through ads,
something along the lines of Cadbury (the
DairyMilk worm case).
This will consolidate the image of All Out in the
publics mind.It can emerge a leader in this
section as well by implementing the changes
before anyone else does as this toxicity
problem is an industry wide
phenomenon.This will give it an edge over its
Also it should revise its advertising strategies
making its ads less mundane and more
These are the steps that will put All Out back in
the game.
Thank You.