"Sneha needs to build an element of modernity through packaging and advertising creatives'' S. Srikant, Principal Consultant, PwC India

Suneet, the young CEO of a family-owned business, is keen to change the name of its popular candy, Sneha, to something with an international ring to it. But what's in a name? Can a brandname by itself create success? Or could it be so important that it pulls a product down?

Before we embark upon the journey to specifically analyse the Sneha case, let us cast an eye over what history has to show us in this regard. Heinz, the most famous ketchup brand in the world, was named in 1869 after its founder Henry Heinz. John Cadbury's chocolates, named after him in 1824, are eaten all over the world. Closer home, one cannot deny the success of ethnic brand names like Rasna, Godrej, and Nirma. The point is this: consumers have a strange way of dealing with brandnames.

Going back to the basics, we need to understand the business value of Safe Foods and the drivers of such business value. We do know that the business is large (Rs 200 crore in turnover), has been growing steadily and, therefore, must have something going in its favour. While market research has shown some of the impending concern areas, it has not captured the drivers behind the brand's journey to reach the No. 3 position. Sneha's success in small towns could come from a unique product, competitive pricing, and wide distribution. This success also reveals that the name Sneha has not only been accepted but is quite well-established. Given this, it is evident that the problem of brand-recall that Sneha faces in the metros can't be a recent one. It is equally evident that all's well in smaller cities.

So what's the problem? Research reveals something that should cause concern to the management of Safe Foods-Sneha is losing brand awareness relative to its competitors within its target group in the smaller towns. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The other problem, of being weak in the metro markets, is a long-term one. Therefore, my prescription for Sneha would be as follows:

• Brand awareness in smaller towns-through greater marketing effort (advertising and promotions).
• Build an element of 'modernity' in its brand identity-through packaging and advertising.
• Nurture all aspects of its business, which have created value so far-for example, a unique candy, which competitors have not been able to replicate and good relationship with trade as evidenced by the interactions with Chibber.
• Focus on improving the profitability of Sneha.
• Use contract manufacturing for Sneha; this will release internal capacities for a new brand.
• Re-invest profits from Sneha to develop a new product and build this into a new, modern brand to battle the MNCs in the metro markets. This will help Safe Foods to leverage the Sneha brand to build a new future for itself.

Suneet's idea of killing Sneha and relaunching it with a new international name is fraught with risk. On the one hand, this would call for a large investment in re-packaging, advertising, trade communication and in writing-off obsolete inventory. On the other hand, the business in the company's stronghold (smaller towns) could be adversely affected because of consumer confusion. This could turn out to be a double-whammy for Safe Foods-and Suneet could well end up travelling in an auto-rickshaw instead of the Lexus GS 430 of his dreams.

"Safe Foods should not dump Sneha; it should keep the brand positioning statement intact'' Harish Bijoor, COO, Zip Telecom

Suneet Singh is young, impulsive, and brash. He does not understand brands. Safe Foods is certainly not safe in his hands.

Let's understand the basics. A brand is a name. An identity. A symbol. A distinction. A brand is an entity that represents a character, a personality and a charisma as well. Re-invent is a big word. Easily said, but difficult to implement in a marketplace that is large, traditional and brand-besotted. Re-branding Sneha is going to be a long-haul task if attempted. Let us not forget that this is a Rs 200-crore brand that is growing at 10 per cent per annum. Never mind that the growth rate of the brand is half that of the category in which it operates. The brand is alive and impacts consumer choice and preference even today.

Let me take a puritanical stance. This stance does not take into consideration any of the soft issues of emotion and superstition the geriatric Chairman of Safe Foods might want us to consider. The stance is simple. A brand is a name. In addition, it is a bundle of other sets of attributes and emotions that have a tendency to build and consolidate over a period of time. Sneha packs much of this even today. Don't change the name. Hold on to it as a precious property.

As you hang onto this property, do everything else there is to do to make the offering contemporary. Make those changes in the packaging and in the advertising appeal of the brand. But don't dump Sneha. Keep the brand positioning statement intact. Keep tinkering with the advertising positioning statement all the while in your bid to keep the brand appeal contemporary.

The brand is in trouble in some ways. There has been a gradual erosion of appeal among the contemporary set. There seems to be a large number of consumers who have outgrown the appeal of the brand. This is a serious state to be in.

This brings us to the question: How does a brand stay contemporary? A brand attempts this by doing all those little things that keep it within the space of the lifestyle of its current set of consumers. In a category such as confectionery that depends on an ever-changing set of customers who grow in and grow out of the category, brands need to ask the all-important question, "Should a brand age with its customers or should it stay evergreen, pitching itself at an age-profile that is static?"

The answer lies in the fact that a brand is forever. While a customer walks into its franchise, walks out, and eventually dies, a brand is forever. But a brand that ages with its customers suffers the same fate as its loyal customers. It dies.

''Safe Foods should use Sneha to its advantage and create a swadeshi image'' R. Ravi, Head (Sales), Godrej Appliances

With the entry of MNC brands, Indian brands continue to see consumers shifting to foreign brands. Consumers prefer foreign products for their fit, feel, and finish. The strength of Indian products, however, lies in their quality.

Suneet wants to rename Sneha as he thinks the name is outdated. A mere change of label to a trendy foreign name will not up sales if the quality is not good. Hari Singh has mentioned that "even today, no competitor has been able to make the kind of candy that we do". If this is true, Safe Foods should leverage it and try to reposition Sneha.

In fact, Safe Foods should use the only Indian-sounding confectionery brand in the market to its advantage and create a swadeshi feeling in the minds of the people. In the Chinese consumer durables market, the top two companies in terms of volumes are Chinese, although all major MNCs are present.

Nevertheless, Suneet's suggestion of better advertising and slicker packaging should be implemented immediately to help Sneha compete with the savvier multinational brands. The ethnic name coupled with the new contemporary look can prove to be a unique combination.

The finding of the survey is of serious concern and Safe Foods should take up an aggressive advertising campaign to capture the attention of the youth. Market penetration into metros through innovative advertising, and an emphasis on distribution and reach for a better opportunity to see (OTS) and opportunity to buy (OTB) are required immediately. Promotional offers, I think, will rekindle interest among bored consumers. Safe Foods should not give up the advantage that it enjoys in the upcountry market.

Building a brand is very difficult. Having built Sneha over all these years, it is only prudent that Safe Foods strengthen it by making it as attractive as MNC brands. Building a brand is about being consumer-oriented and it starts with the right value delivery for the consumer.

If Suneet wants the brand to imply and promise consumers quality, he can add catchy and powerful slogans without changing the name. For example, BPCL, which has been in existence for years, has a new campaign recently (Pure for Sure) that has become a smash hit.

The company should take note of Chibber's remark and remember that it is essential to know the consumer's pulse at the appropriate time in order to change with times.

Safe Foods should now reinvent itself by giving Sneha a new and colourful look.

Finally, Safe Foods should leverage its ethnic brand image and make it a winner, rather than go in for a change of name. Suneet should remember that Safe Foods has its strengths and weaknesses just like its competitors. If the strengths outweigh its weaknesses, Sneha-and Safe Foods-will win.