THE HIGH-POWER PANELISTS: (From lef) Sanjiv Gupta of Coke, Sandeep Kohli of Yum! Restaurants International (India), moderator Suhel Seth, Kartik Raina of Dr. Morepen, and Siddharth Varma of Reebok India

Instead of answering that question itself, Business Today decided to pitch it to four heavy-weight marketers at the BT Crossfire 2002 held in New Delhi on July 26. Moderated by the inimitable Suhel Seth, CEO of Equus Redcell, the panel comprised Sanjiv Gupta, Deputy President, Coca-Cola India; Sandeep Kohli, Managing Director (Indian Subcontinent), Yum! Restaurants International (read: Pizza Hut); Kartik Raina, Managing Director, Dr. Morepen; and Siddharth Varma, Managing Director, Reebok India Company.

Predictably, sparks flew as the marketing honchos weighed in with their arguments and counter-arguments. At the end of the hour-long debate, all answers fell into place. The verdict: Imitation is not bad as long as it pays off both for the marketer and the consumer. Here unplugged is the first in a series of four bt Crossfire 2002.

Suhel Seth: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here. Last year when I was briefed about Crossfire, the phrase that defined the moment was that we should draw blood. I invite you to draw blood this evening. The format is very simple. We have four panelists who will be requested to speak for about three-to-four minutes each, making their opening remarks. After which, I will hastily probe them on some of the points they've made, so that they begin to disagree with each other and just as they're about to claw into each other, we'll leave it open for the audience to do the rest of the act. To kick off, may I request Sanjiv Gupta to speak for three-to-four minutes. Sanjiv...

SANJIV GUPTA Deputy President, Coca-Cola India Indian entrepreneurs have innovated and delivered new products, while Indian MNCs have by and large fallen prey to blind aping

SANDEEP KOHLI MD (Indian Subcontinent), Yum! The marketer's challenge is to identify what is common and not what is different in executing the strategy

SUHEL SETH CEO, Equus Redcell What's the DNA differential between Indian entrepreneurs and the multi-nationals?

Sanjiv Gupta: In my view, and I thought about this for two agonising days, we should dissect this topic in three or four ways. First, draw a distinction between Indian entrepreneurs and MNCs because their behaviour as marketers is vastly different. According to me, Indian entrepreneurs have really innovated, have understood consumer insights, have delivered new and innovative products, while Indian MNCs, specially those who arrived after the liberalisation, have by and large fallen prey to blind aping. The second issue is whether we are looking only at advertising, or are we taking a much more holistic view of marketing? If we restrict ourselves only to advertising, we won't be doing justice to the topic. The third way I think we should dissect this topic is to answer the question "is all imitation bad?" Are you imitating or picking up universal consumer motivations and then contextually putting them into India? And fourth, if Indian marketers are essentially imitators, how have they performed when they've gone to international markets. Those are the four points I'd like to get into.

Seth: Siddharth, how would you respond to one of the points that Sanjiv raised... "is all imitation bad?"

Varma: All imitation is not bad. But I'd like draw a distinction between global brands such as the ones I work for and exceptional brands that are strictly home-grown like India Today, Amul and so many others. For many of us, the average marketer who deals with brands like Reebok that transcend boundaries, we basically adopt an international blueprint because the universal laws of marketing are the same. You do not trifle with a global and clear brand identity.

I think Indians are natural marketers because they've discovered this very Indian concept of 'jugar', where you take an established product and make it available at the least possible cost. That's happened in many industries such as IT-enabled services and garment exports, where the level of service that you provide-especially in the context of global competitors-is so good that you come out tops. It is in the marketing of these intangibles that the Indian has proved very adept. And it goes to prove that we do understand a little bit about branding and we understand the selling of intangibles. Call it what you want, imitation or translation, it makes good business sense. There're no R&D costs involved, there's no learning curve, you don't have to pay for designers based out of London and New York, and if somebody else is willing to pay for all these developmental costs, then best of luck to those markets. We don't bear those costs, and that make us so much more profitable.

Seth: Three major comments: let's not call it imitation, call it translation and adaptation. The second point, and that kind of worries me, is that we don't have to incur R&D costs. The third point was why can't we take the easy way. Is laziness something that we can live with? Let's see what Sandeep has to say.

Sandeep Kohli: I read a quote the other day that was very appropriate; it says "half the people like to work and the other half don't." Maybe it's the other way round. So it doesn't matter which half invented what we are trying to do as long as we do it intelligently. My interpretation of this whole discussion is "so what if it's imitation?" As long as it's intelligently done, adapted properly, something that is tried and tested, as long as you can improve upon somebody else's mistakes, why not? The thing is not to take whatever has been done abroad blindly, but to adapt to and adopt what is relevant. At Pizza Hut, we came up with something that is global and yet very local-a range of pizzas with masala sauce. There's no harm in imitating. If you can adapt and adopt, you should do it.

Seth: Kartik (Raina), as somebody coming from an industry long accused of violating every form of patent law, why do we seem to think to imitate is ok? Is it because of our intrinsic belief that if someone has done it why can't we?

KARTIK RAINA MD, Dr. Morepen The significant difference between Indian entrepreneurs and MNCs is in the concept, which I define as 'value of the brand'

SIDDHARTH VARMA MD Reebok India There are certain elements of the (marketing) mix you imitate and certain you adapt to based on the local marketing needs

Kartik Raina: Every organisation has a business model. The pharma industry, I presume that's what you're refering to, decided to position itself primarily on price. The only way it could compete on price was by ensuring that it didn't carry the baggage of R&D, which is really the point Siddharth made. On the other hand, it had fantastic capabilities that it could actually deliver pretty world-class products at incredibly low prices.

Seth: India as a market has linguistic dilemmas, patterns of behaviour that are distinctly different from region to region. How do you bring all that to one level by saying that "look, we will replicate or adopt best practices". Is it as easy as that?

Gupta: When you're able to put (marketing) in the context of India, you're able to come out with a well-adapted product. Marketers become imitators when they let market research take over their instinct and experience.

Kohli: I agree with Sanjiv. A marketing person needs two types of qualities. First, to be able to analyse and sift through data. There's no denying the fact that data is important and research is important. But to base all decision-making on data itself is a sure-shot recipe for disaster. The marketer's challenge is to identify what is common and not what is different in executing, be it a global strategy, be it a strategy pan-India or whatever.

Seth: So, we look at South East Asia, the SAARC region where we're an integral part and we say "let's look at the lowest common denominator that binds Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh and hope for a winning marketing strategy?"

Kohli: No, I'm not saying that at all. You need to look at a different strategy on a pan-India basis as well. So there is no lowest common denominator. You're marketing in the metros, you have a different strategy, you're marketing in B-class towns, you have a different strategy, you go to rural India, you have a different strategy. Depends on which product you're talking about. So there is no lowest common denominator in the whole thing.

Seth: If you're saying that you adopt different strategies for different regions within India, then the possibility of replication or imitation is pretty low.

Kohli: Hopefully, but whatever you can imitate easily you should.

Seth: So, we're looking at the easy, lazy route of marketing. Sanjiv says processes alone don't make fine marketing people.

Q&A "Do Deep Pockets Help?"

Samir Modi of Modicare asking a question Some questions that the audience of 200 threw at the panel. Is our academia designed to induce imitation rather than innovation? Kartik Raina: I am connected closely to at least three management institutes and have been designing syllabi, and there's a change happening over the years-an Indianisation in many areas. A rather enterprising entrepreneur from Ullasnagar decides to imitate Reebok's products, and sells at one third the price. What do you do? Siddharth Varma: These are challenges you face all the time, where people come in with products very similar to yours at far lower prices. Unless you're able to convince consumers about the value you deliver, you won't be in business very long. Do deep pockets of MNCs help? Sanjiv Gupta: I don't think deep pockets translate into more sales. There are countless examples-Amul and Mother Dairy in ice creams, and Nirma in detergents. I think it's the brand and marketing insight that count. And I strongly believe that Indian entrepreneurs are smarter, faster, and more risk taking.

Raina: If we can develop local processes and techniques, we get better.

Seth: Do we, at some stage, dilute the thin line that divides processes and substance?

Raina: No, I don't think so. Gut feel and instinct do have a role to play. If we can develop processes that are closer home and are more focussed, then it'll improve the quality of the substance you offer.

Seth: We've talked consistently of the difference between Indian entrepreneurs and MNCs. What's the DNA differential between the two? And why do they have that differential if they're addressing the same consumer?

Gupta: I think the DNA is vastly different because in terms of the people who handle marketing. By definition, the entrepreneur has got much more experience and a bigger span of control on the entire value chain and is, therefore, able to understand insights and convert them into products much easier and quicker. So, speed, innovation and risk taking are the DNA of the entrepreneur. A lot of MNCs are understanding this behaviour and are putting in the concept of 'intrapreneurs' so that they don't lose out on any new trends that emerge.

Seth: Sandeep, are we risk-averse in India because of our conditioning and, therefore, it reflects in the marketing initiatives we take?

Kohli: Are you talking about MNCs?

Seth: No, in general...

Kohli: No, I don't think so. Even MNCs are changing, they're getting more and more aggressive and creative when they come to a lot of these initiatives. For example, the entire Pepsi range of Leher products, which is lemon and other ranges, Mangola etc. We have a lot of freedom to do what is locally relevant. People are changing. I think we're not risk averse at all. We have some fabulous entrepreneurs who take risks all the time. So I wouldn't agree that we're risk averse.

Raina: Just to add to what Sanjiv said earlier, I'd say the significant difference between Indian entrepreneurs and MNCs is in the concept, which I define as 'value of brand'. The Indian entrepreneur is extremely conscious of brand value, as in brand valuation.

Seth: Last quick question. Is imitation a need or a desire for the Indian marketer?

Varma: I don't think there's a sweeping truth on this one. There are certain elements of the mix you imitate and certain you adapt to based on local marketing needs. I think those you imitate are part of conscious strategy and not by desire or default, because it pays. And those you don't adapt to because it just doesn't work.