IIMK EPGP 04: Marketing Communication Management Assignment 2: Submission | Date: 10 June 2013 By: Aabhas Zaveri | Roll

ll No: EPGP-04C-001

Q1: Comment on the bake-off assignment and implementation plan followed by Gillette. Ans. 1: The Bake-Off Assignment: BBDOs effort to create an effective campaign for Dry Idea was a complete failure and the team at Gillette firmly believed that the campaign needed an urgent and complete makeover. The Bake-off assignment was a result of this belief in the Gillette team. Kicked off in Nov 1983 the Bake-off assignment was to be released in April 84 with an execution span of 6 months. It divided into 3 parts Developing a New Campaign Develop overall strategic business plan Develop a strong candidate for Solid form concept testing

Ames was roped in to bring fresh outlook to the creative while BDDO was used for its vast experience working with Gillette to brings in the concept of Efficacy is dominant than Aesthetics. The bake off Implementation plan has 3 major parts: Brand orientation for bake-off participants Both agencies to work on new Campaign assignment Consumer testing of new Advertising. BBDO was fairly clear on Gillettes brand orientation due to long association

In Jan 84, BBDO came up with 2 new campaign and suggestions for product line extension to new Aerosol and solid form. They also suggested the use of new tool called PRIZM. One of the campaigns was, Never Never that cost $95,000; while the new agency Ames created a business plan for product extensions from Aerosol to solid products. To test the Bake-Off technique, Gillette used the ASI Plus and Audience reward techniques. The first of six bake off copy test was done during March 26th 1984 and went on for three weeks.

Q2: Based on the case facts, Exhibit 3,4 & 5, who won the bake-off? Justify. Ans 2: Key Recall Data: Related Recall Total Males Total Females Female Roll-on Get Together 12 12 16 Body at work 14 13 13 Never Never 14 19 22

1. Recall Plus test expectation: In Recall Test, Never Never scored good enough for 1 and 2 when compared to the ISI norm of 13 and 17 of 1984. When looking at Female roll- on user, Get Together and Never Never scored much better.

2. Sales message recall test - When compared to the Spokesman, all the three categories showed less impact for all 3 campaigns - On specific sales recall, Never Never can do better on Efficiency in the category of Total Females and Female roll-ons 3. Audience reward expectation: The key element of strategy is to Attain higher average score on news Bra brand reinforcement and empathy Low confusion and Alienation To influence Target segment to view the brand favourably

a. Never Never achieved - Better influence on Total Males Relevant news but brand reinforcement wasnt too great - Never-Never performed better in Males, Female and Female roll-on category related to Negative dimensions of Confusion b. Get together Empathy factory was better influenced by Get Together Scored better significantly on Vigor and uniqueness compared to Never-Never Get together campaign had better familiarity showing possible continuation over existing campaign. Get together campaign supported the Alienation parameter as well

Conclusion: Indicators show that the Never-Never campaign can be more successful than the previous campaigns.

Q3: How would Gillette-BBDO relationship be impacted? Was the bake-off decision an appropriate for the Dry Idea problem? Ans 3: Gillette-BDDO relationship improved by BDDO proving that the commitment to Gillettes long term business plan by showing they can work together to make a successful campaign. BDDO showed that they can create campaigns under pressure and showcasing their previous stand. BDDO strategy was in line with the long term strategy of Gillette and which convinced the Gillette management that BDDO can be their strategic partner The Bake-off assignment opened new avenues in the long term business relationship of both firms and infused the much needed creativity element in the content of Dry Idea. Overall it helped strengthen the relation and competitive advantage of the two firms.

****************