6 comments on “Print Media Battle Royale : Who decides the winner?

  1. Interesting post. I couldn’t help noticing one of your tags as ‘marketing warfare’. If we are talking about Marketing Warfare then attacking your competitors is OK, but typically if you are #2 or lower in position to the leader. The company / product / brand that is #1 should attack itself by constantly changing its product or service so that it creates a moving target for the competitors. The company’s not holding the dominate position should be attacking in areas that cause the leader to lose customers, and specifically attack the weakness within the strength. And by attacking, I mean bringing all to bear on the attack: print, TV, internet. This tactic, when executed well is devastating, because the leader will not give up a strength easily, but that strength can then be turned into a weakness.

    • Hi Tim,

      I agree with your point that the #1 should constantly attack itself with an objective to reinvent. Gillette is a prime example of this when they launched Gillette Fusion as a superior product of their own market leader Gillette Mach-3.

      In this specific case, both the players are attacking each other’s strength areas, using all sorts of media vehicles for the communication. I am okay with the attack on a competitor brand, but not happy with the attack on the users of that brand. They are your future TG, and you can’t afford to attack them!

      Keep reading and commenting 🙂


  2. Nice write up… but I guess you are missing the whole point here by discounting the fact that the target group is not really getting influenced. The key point of advertising here is the creation of the aspiration target segment and it can be valid for both the newspapers. Or shall I put it creation of the desires.. you really need to see the ads from the perspective of the end users. Don’t be a victim of Marketing Myopia!

    • Hi Neha,

      I didn’t get your point completely.
      But about looking from the perspective of end-users, I too firmly believe that it is the end-user who ‘decides the winner’, as I say it. About creating desires for the end-user, while the two campaigns try to create the desire to choose something different, they do so by belittling the existing choice the end-users have already made, which is what I am questioning here. My view is that they should talk about creating an aspiration only by talking about their own brand, and not on the basis of comparison with any other brand.

      Keep Reading and Responding!! 🙂

  3. I agree, the recent print campaigns of the Hindu have gone viral on Facebook, and are quite popular. In fact, these print ads are pretty good and to-the-point. It is the TVCs which are slightly awkward in my opinion. And TVCs have a much farther reach than Facebook.

    HT ads didn’t go viral for the simple reason that they were more on video format then print. Even with the Hindu ads, you wouldn’t find the Hindu TVCs being circulated. It is the print ads which are being circulated, because it is easier to share them.


  4. Very nice article sirjee..in particular, the point about not attacking your customers is very valid…on a different note however, dont you think that advertisements by The Hindu have become more popular than those by Hindustan Times..does that not create any benefit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s