Bigger is better, or not! – Package size experiments in Modern Retail

It was in 1990s when FMCG companies struck the right chord with its rural consumers riding on a concept introduced by CK Prahalad. Serving those at the ‘Bottom-of-pyramid(BOP)’, turned out to be phenomenal success. The success did not constrain itself in the rural markets and proliferated to urban areas as well.

‘Low unit packing’, or (LUP) was an action borne out of the call made to serve the BOP customers which helped to create newer markets and penetrate existing ones for FMCG companies in rural as well as urban areas. Some examples of LUP were ‘chota coke’ at 5 Rs, shampoos and hair oil sachets at 1Rs (started with even 0.50 Rs) and Biscuits at 2 Rs.

While much has been written about the concept for all the long years since, then, this post points out to a contrasting selling and purchasing behavior emerging now, completely opposite to what led to the rise and rise of LUPs in late 1990s and much of 2000s.

To establish the contrasts, let’s briefly look at the reasons which led to the success of LUPs in rural markets. It was when rural and poor urban markets weren’t considerably tapped by FMCG companies. Products in most categories posed high purchase risks for customers in these markets and at most times, were simply unaffordable for them. Lower disposable income with high seasonal effect, daily or weekly income pattern since most of the consumers worked as daily wage laborers in fields and sites, bare minimum expense on hygiene products and branded food items, and unavailability of affordable yet beneficial options in local shops were some of the major factors that made LUP a winner.

Smaller units available for consumption on one hand helped the price sensitive BOP customers to sample the product without much financial risk, and on other hand paved way for international brands in rural areas as well as in urban pockets. Consumers were now exposed to quality products from international FMCG companies like HUL and P&G raising their expectations from the products they used and consumed. For example, consumers were able to use urban- & metro- brands like sunsilk, pantene and head & shoulders shampoos, close-up and pepsodent toothpastes, lux and rexona bathing bars etc.

Fast forward 20 years and a new trend seems to be emerging, especially with the advent of modern retail (departmental stores, hyper markets, super markets etc) and fast changing consumer profile. Make no mistake, two-third of Indian population still lives in villages and many living town and cities still have smaller incomes, hence LUP as a rural marketing concept is not going anywhere any soon. However, urban pockets are seeing an upsurge of two competitive concepts as antithesis to LUP. While their presence and their strength, at this point is minimal, but it can sure not be ignored. I call these –

• Big unit packing (BUP)
• Multi-unit packing (MUP)

A Big unit packing, BUP is a large size packing for the product without any other change. The BUP offers the product in a 2 to 10 times the package size which it is normally offered in. The package dimension and the body copy on the package are adjusted to suite the size while the content remains the same. The pricing of the BUP is almost always kept more attractive for the obvious higher economic, psychological and social risk the manufacturer wants the customer to take by buying the bigger pack. The discount can range from a meager2% to almost 80% in some items. Some product example are  1000 ml shampoo bottle, 2 Kg corn flakes pack, 2.5 liters cold-drink pet bottle, 500 gm butter, 6x100 gm noodle pack etc. (see images)

BUP - Indian  Snacks

BUP - Corn Flakes

A Multi unit packing, MUP is bundling of multiple units of the normal size pack together as an offering, without changing any other attribute of the pack. More often than not the final package is just tied together with an adhesive tape or with temporary adhesive to create a bundle(or simly given out as loose multiple units). The MUPs are not tampered with in terms of per unit pricing but rather offer a free unit (sometimes more than one free unit) when bought as a bundle. Hence, these discounts may range from 20% (for Buy 4 get 1 free) up to 50% (for buy 1 get 1 free), latter generally in case of private brands at (modern retail stores). Obviously, MUPs offer higher per unit discount than BUPs but these are also ridden with controversies. Claims like bundling is resorted to sell products which have reached or about to reach their expiry dates are common. Also, MUPs for some products like soaps, have also come under fire as forced marketing where a customer is deliberately not given an option to buy a single unit. Some examples of MUPs are Buy 3 get 1 free soaps, Buy 3 get 1 free biscuit packs, Buy 2 get 1 free deodorant can etc.

MUP - Bathing Bars

MUP - Fruit Juice

The trends and realities leading to these two new packaging concepts are pretty much opposite of what led to the LUP’s success. These attributes can be segmented under the following heads.

• Consumer

• Higher disposable income with higher spend on food and hygiene categor
• Wants to reduce the physical risk in terms of efforts spent on reaching out to the stores to buy small items, by purchasing in bulk
• Wants to reduce economic risk by getting benefit in terms of per unit reduced price and discounts (& free units in case of MUP) attached to BUPs and MUPs
• Increased brand awareness and brand loyalty creates a favorable perception for bigger brands and companies, leading to reduced perceived health risks and hence higher confidence in buying products in bulk
• Mitigate psychological risk by reducing the frequency of information search and alternative selection process employed during buying cycle (pain of buying something repeatedly)
• 
  
• Companies

• Helps in improving top-line and bottom-line performance
• Lower attached costs like- packaging, logistics & distribution costs, storage & handling costs etc
• More stable revenues and volume predictions and forecasts for planning
• Ensured of higher number of days of product usage without switching. Very important for products that consumers may take time to get used to or for benefits to be visible.
• Bulk size leads to higher per serving consumption, hence leading to increase in purchase frequency per SKU
• Higher visibility of products in the shelves at the stores due to packaging size. Attractive discounts also help in securing additional promotional space within the stores (Eg. Pepsi in the image)
• Reduced pilferage and wastage costs

• Retailers
• Higher volume turnover and revenue generation
• Lower attached costs like- logistics, storage and handling costs, manpower & admin costs etc
• Reduced pilferage and wastage costs at storage and retail point

However, this new wave of opportunity in retailing hasn’t come without its own share of challenges for stakeholders like –

• Cumbersome to manage due to larger space requirement and weight

o   Size/bundling should not be increased to an unmanageable level

• Requires greater per unit investment from the retailer and consumer

o   Strong brand value, channel partnership and higher margins will encourage the retailer to stock BUPs and MUPs

o   Strong brand promise and its credibility and reduced buying risks for customer will influence the customer for purchase

•  Brand value erosion

o   Quality and packaging must not be compromised in BUPs, MUPs must not be encouraged. Cross brand selling with smaller value item is acceptable though (Example, a washing bar cake with 1 kg of washing powder)

• Reference price degradation

o   Consumers process pricing information in many ways, one of them being reference pricing which is based on fair price, last price paid and usual discounted price among other attributes. BUPs and MUPs affect ‘reference price’ in consumer minds for future purchases negatively

Standard Packaging - Patanjali

• Loss of LUP customers

o   LUPs should not be withdrawn from traditional channels and can be used in modern retail as part of cross-sampling with related products

o   LUPs, BUPs and MUPs can together go as greater depth(product variants) in product assortment rather than one substituting the other

 As mentioned earlier LUP is a very strong marketing innovation and is not going to be replaced or withdrawn in near future for economic as well as distribution reasons. Still, BUPs and MUPs are emerging concepts and are much visible in modern retail, while the traditional channel seems to have not been involved in this change to a great extent, for good. How are these concepts developed further by companies and their channel partners; and how are these accepted, ignored or worst, protested against by the consumers, will be an interesting development to watch.

Ad Review (Print) - Snickers

Recently, an otherwise dormant print ad world was rejuvenated, thanks to a clever ad campaign by Snickers. The campaign effectuated rounds of feedback, arguments and counter-arguments, a much needed boost to the old school ad channel. The ad series was published in a sports illustrated swim suit edition.

The campaign, through its series of ads  depicted professionals messing up at their work due to hunger and its effects. The hunger snack bar segment has been a space strongly held by Snickers and this series only reinforces that positioning, quite convincingly.

In one such ad, an intentionally flawed photo-shopped picture, showing a swimsuit model is shown with a strange  hand on her shoulder with no sign of the body of the person. The funny double twinkles in the model's eyes (which may not be as obviously visible as the hand, unless the picture is zoomed in) and a disaster 'navel' placement, clearly forms a visual message of blunders at retouching work, while the ad copy closes the ad with a witty message solving the puzzle about the blunder.

These visual mistakes immediately attract the viewer's attention and the textual message in the ad copy closes the story by squarely blaming the editing professional's hunger behind this editing disaster. Hence, the message is delivered home convincingly cleverly riding on humour without missing the objective of the ad.

This campaign is a clutter breaking effort, especially making a mark in print ad channel, which some critics are dubbing as a dead space.

Snickers blasts in itself strongly in the hunger killing candy bar segment with this ad, also going a step beyond from depicting irritated people due to hunger to dire consequences of hunger, especially at work. The ad packs punch in humour as well as relevance for the brand in terms of messaging and connect and is a 'hit'.

WhatsApp and millenials - 'Cause'-marketing and its effect

Social relevance and cause championship are the new buzzwords for brands, especially of greater importance  while trying to win over millennials.

Championing social causes has become a compulsory part of marketing to keep brands relevant and even ahead of the competition. Owning a 'social space' is as important as owning a 'mind-space' for a holistic marketing plan.

Millenials are quick to recognize this aspect about brands and are more likely to accept, own and flaunt brands which put them at the forefront of social causes.

Obviously, brands that have millenials as their major and strongest customers as well as critics, are doing everything to remain ahead of the curved and be the favourites of their TG.

WhatsApp, now owned by Facebook, recently revamped their emoji offerings for chat, with a host of new options, taking a lead on the matter of equality in races and sexual orientation. Recently it added options to choose from a fixed set of colours of skin for certain emojis, hence taking a race neutral stand, substituting the 'white-only' option they had earlier. This was hailed as a remarkable step and was much talked about. The move, which may have appeared as a small step initially, invoked a wider debate and sensitized the issue of colour and segregation based on it. Millenials loved the move and appreciated WhatsApp for its bold initiative.


 Soon after, WhatsApp has gone ahead and added emojis with same sex couples, with and without children. This is another bold move especially at a time when the matter of LGBT rights has gained much attention. WhatsApp's recognition of this community's rights in a billion people's group by placing these new emojis along with the earlier ones, asserts it's support for the community.

Millenials have embraced this move with great spirits and have shown their love for WhatsApp on various online portals. WhatsApp, with this small but bold step has managed to be ahead of the curve in terms of association with the social cause of fighting for equality irrespective of race, colour and sexual orientation.

Millenials love to flaunt their association but it is rarely mindless. The method behind this madness is a mix of contrasts - self-indulgence balanced with joy of 'giving back', brand loyalty meshed with curiosity for newer brands, ambitious yet conscience-driven goals and most of all, openness to new ideas while having beliefs and opinions of self.

Brands generally need to solve these complex contrasting equations in order to strike a chord with millenials, but social cause championing is one of the reliable methods to break clutter and be their BFF. WhatsApp has achieved it wonderfully with its subtle yet strong move to assert it's support for equality.

Celebrity endorsement - Never 'just do it' !

Nike and its tumultuous history with its brand ambassadors is a real case study. After Tiger Woods, Oscar Pistorious, Lance Armstrong, and very recently , it is now the Tennis sensation Maria Sharapova who has given a headache to Nike and heartache to her fans world wide.

Nike recently terminated its contract with Manny Pacquaio after what they termed as his 'abhorrent' comments on LGBT community.
In the latest round of strained relationships with its brand ambassadors, Nike this week severed ties with the 28 year old five times grand-slam champion Maria Sharapova after her shocking revelation of having been  tested positively for a banned substance - meldonium at Australian open earlier this year.

Back home, Snapdeal had to bear the brunt for its brand ambassador Amir Khan's comment on the intolerance issue in the country which took a political turn.

Such incidents demonstrate the risks that brands are exposed to, while nominating a brand ambassador. While having a celebrity brand ambassador is almost a norm and not a choice in several industries and product categories, the risks of associating with a celebrity are as high as the reward.

Obviously, any such association demands a great deal of focus on personality alignment between the brand and the prospective ambassador, an important but grossly ignored concept.

It is imperative to mention here that the celebrity personality in today's highly networked truly global world is no more only about how they do their job, like  modeling, acting or sports etc, but also their social, political and cultural views and inclinations. Again, while these are more public in nature, due diligence is of utmost importance about their personal lives. Tiger woods' and Oscar Pistorious' cases testify this argument.

Brand managers blindly expect the positive  personality rub-off from the celebrity to their brands without taking into consideration a host of other factors that must be looked into.

Some of the important factors are -
# The individual and the collective personality of the celebrity
# The desired brand image of the product
# The synergy between the first two personalities
# The overlaps and counter-laps between the endorser and product personality

While the first two factors are extremely important to derive at what are we dealing with in terms of possible association between two personalities, the third factor helps in understanding whether or not there is a broad alignment between the product and the celebrity. However, it is most often the fourth factor which is blatantly ignored, and often to one's own peril.


The counter laps or the points/occurrence/frequency of contrasts between the two personalities(the endorser and the product) must be closely researched and debated before closing a brand endorsement decision. The most important decision here is what aspects of the celebrity's personality may not/are not - align/aligned, with the core brand personality and its desired brand image.

Finally, a brand endorsement is a very expensive decision for any marketing manager and a thorough due diligence is not a choice but a compulsion to avoid foot in mouth situations that hurt the brand and the company. This may very well help in avoiding some issues altogether while mitigate ill-effects of others.

Product Placement/Collaboration - A Journey from Vicarious to Personal Experience

Product Placement is formally defined as - "any form of audio-visual commercial communication consisting of the inclusion of or reference to a product, a service or the trade mark thereof so that it is featured within a programme..". Its about time we change the "..featured within programme" part in that definition, as the product is not placed far away in a movie reel anymore, it is within its actual intended customer's reach, and sometimes literally in his hands!

From FedEx in Cast Away to Coke in Taal and from modern family's apple ipad show to the Safari Storme's presence in the Indian TV series 24, the product placement was pretty much a vicarious experience, with its relevance preserved and communication cascaded through the scene's. The TG not only related with the product through the associated actor and story line, but also the brand message was succinctly absorbed. But the tactic soon started to be overused to an extent that the two essential component for product placement's success, relevance and integration were given a back seat and mindless visibility drove the fad. Soon, more often than not, the placements started to be first ridiculed and then conveniently ignored by the audience.

This trend was slightly arrested by bringing a higher credibility to the product's relevance and its integration with a real-life situation (instead of story line), by taking products a little closer to 'reality'. The wave of product placement in the so-called "Reality Shows" struck and we started seeing bottled beverages consumed by the judges' and motorbikes being ridden by the contestants. Since, the audience generally believed that the reality shows are for real (yes, it did then and it still does!), the products were brought closer to the real target audience with much ease, piggybacking on the credibility and fan-following of judges and contestants of these shows.

Parallel to this, another wave of product placements brought this marketing tactic even closer to its audience by the means of enhancing the 'reality' content to highest level thus far. It must be noted that the product placement in sports has been there for a long time, but never been given so much prominence, as it is been given now. The strongest argument in favour of product placement in sports is that it is as real as it gets (fingers crossed!) and hence the audience is able to relate to the product communication and promise in an empowered way, as the customer attributes the purchase decision to a strong and credible show of trustworthiness by the product/brand through sports ambassadors in a real sporting event.

While, many would have thought that this is as closer as the product placement can get to its customer,  i recently came across two on-field executions  where the product is placed further closer to its target audience(literally in audience's hands!). Relevance and Seamless Integration - the two basic pillars for a successful product placement strategy are excellently preserved.

The first one was Ms Hema Malini promoting "The World's Best RO Purifier"(What?) at 30000 fts, while the very welcomed 'complimentary' paper cup with water (assuming RO purified!) is served (How?) in an Indigo flight (Where?). A simple cup of water served with an ad by an aggressive and innovative water purifier company, in a set-up where everyone has lots of time to notice, watch and analyse (When?), a sweet spot is hit.

The second execution was of mindfully placed 'Tempo' hand sanitizers on each table at a McDonalds restaurant. A beautiful multi-pronged placement strategy -

• Promoting an easy to use hand sanitizer with a pleasant fragrance (What?)
• Invoking hygiene and health concerns when people are about to eat food (When?)
• Making the product available at arm's reach on the same table where the food is placed (Where?)
• Allowing customers to try the product for free (How?)
• Gain customer mind-share, especially with a very dominant player present in the segment

The above two product placement (& collaboration) strategies with their multi-pronged targeting demonstrates a never ending world of opportunities to market product and brands with placement anc collaboration strategies.

Also, these executions open hosts of other avenues for product placements/collaboration well beyond the traditional audio-visual commercial avenues that forms the basis of the widely accepted definition of product placement.

Certainly, the product placement as a marketing strategy has brought the products once marketed by TV actors in the movies and vicariously experienced by the audience, to the very hands of its target customers where the story line is not just real, but is also personal and tha too, to each one!

Cheers,.

The Indian e-commerce Industry – Boom or Bubble?

The e-commerce euphoria in Indian business landscape is accentuating and investors are queuing up for putting their money into the ‘future’. Within the last 15 months foreign hedge funds, asset managers and investment firms have invested almost $4 billion in just 26 Indian technology and e-commerce start-ups.

A recent report published by UBS on e-commerce in India suggested that Indian e-tail market—which is currently valued at $16 billion will grow to an astonishing $50 billion by 2020. The report also projected that the ‘loss making’ sector will begin to make clear profits by 2020.


While such positive projections for the sector is definitely encouraging, some deep dive is needed to bring out the realities of this seemingly simple but grossly misunderstood business. Indian e-commerce industry is at a fascinating point of its journey, but one needs to have a more realistic view on its growth engine.

The Rosy Picture

The Indian e-commerce sector received more than $5 billion in funding in 2014, compared to $1.6 billion in 2013 and $760 million in 2012. Of this, in 2014, Flipkart raised some $1.9 billion while Snapdeal found about $1 billion in funding.

Together, these two online shopping firms are now valued much, much higher than the total market capitalisation of India’s major brick-and-mortar retailers, which have dozens or even hundreds of physical shops

A major reason cited for strong growth of online retailers compared to brick and mortar retailers is latter's capex and operational efficiency requirements  which restrains their ia do not have enough bandwidth or speed to counter e-commerce retailers.This bestows upon a huge opportunity for scaling e-commerce segment to new heights, considering an estimated $ 500 billion retail market in India.


The phenomenal valuations for India’s e-commerce companies are based on the premise that Asia’s third-largest economy presents a vast opportunity for online retailers. Specific reasons cited for optimism around the industry are as follows:

• Internet population - With 200 million active Internet users, India is next only to America’s 250 million and China’s 550 million internet users 
• Rising incomes levels – India’s per capita income has risen to $1,500 increasing the purchasing power, especially for 350 million strong middle and upper class 
• Demography – Two-thirds of India’s population is under 35 -- the demographic that makes up the largest share of the country's Internet users 
• Expected long term profitability of e-commerce firms – With the market maturing and consolidating, the discount regime will fade away improving profitability of the companies 
• Drawing parallel between India’s e-commerce market with that of China’s – India is often looked upon as China of mid 2000s and lot of analysts draw a parallel between how the Chinese markets grew from then till now, to how the Indian market will grow from now to till the next 10 years

A Rose without thorns? Not exactly…

To the anguish of many, the highly anticipated deal between Alibaba and Snapdeal fell apart in the month of March earlier this year. The reason behind the deal was disagreement on the valuation that the Indian firm sought. Apparently Snapdeal was looking for a valuation between $6 billion and $7 billion while Alibaba wanted to commit for a valuation under $5 billion.

Revenue vs Losses

Many analysts believe that the valuation of e-commerce companies is a tricky area as there is lot of untrend-ed future cash flow, which is largely aspirational, and a high level of gut feeling that comes into play during valuation discussions. Interestingly, more often than not, these e-commerce firms who are seeking funding based on certain valuations aspirations, are not making any money at the moment.

Mr K. Vaitheeswaran founder of Indiaplaza.com says, “E-commerce is a hard business. You need time and scale to make money. But at some stage there must be an intention to make money. I think there is no plan to make money because of the infinite supply of investment capital. I’m not surprised they are not making money because they are not even planning on making money”

According to the USB’s report, Flipkart, Amazon India and Snapdeal reported a combined revenue of $85 million and a loss of $163 million in FY14. To put it simply, for every $ earned, $ 3 were spent by the companies.

Globally, Amazon.com, has not had sustained earnings even after two decades of operations. It became profitable in 2007 but since then earnings have been dwindling. It reported a net loss of $241 million in 2014.

Apart from the intrinsic issues pertaining to the valuations, profitability and business models of e-commerce companies, external issues such as government’s digital investment, digital infrastructure, regulations and policies are major challenges for the Indian e-commerce industry.

• India has been placed at 115th rank on broadband speed in a recent united nations’ study on ecommerce environment 
• India’s regulatory environment for e-commerce remains unclear as the government is strongly opposed to the idea of 100% FDI in B2C ecommerce, often citing close environment in China and Japan 
• India’s tax authority has also had troubles in aligning tax laws for the e-commerce industry leading to arbitrary actions which has affected the overall business ease in the segment. 
• As per The United Nations, India ranked 83rd out of 130 countries in terms of its e-commerce environment, judged by factors such as the number of Internet users, availability of secure servers and credit-card usage 
• The AT Kearny’s 2015 Global E-commerce index based on parameters such as online market size, Consumer behaviour, Growth potential and Infrastructure was published recently. India failed to even make into the 30 country list.

Just as China, India? No way…

Flowery comparisons have been made between Indian and Chinese e-commerce markets and many have conveniently believed that just like the e-commerce sector grew by leaps and bound in China, the fate of the Indian e-commerce market will be a replica.

E-commerce market of top-10 countries and the growth recorded on last year

Unfortunately, there remains host of differences between the two markets which need a sincere mention:

• At $1,500, India’s per capita income is less than a quarter of China’s $6,800 which does not seem to be catching up anytime sooner 
• China has the biggest e-commerce market volume in the world at $ 426 billion which happens to be about 85 times that of India’s e-commerce market, just too big to compare at this point 
• Chinese internet users are much more sophisticated users than that of Indian users. One third of its online users are connected continuously while 58% are online between 2- 4 times a day 
• Also, China, has an e-commerce market which is more than 10 times bigger in terms of contribution than that of India. Interestingly, China also happens to have a bigger online market contribution then more developed countries like US, Japan, France and Germany. UK is the only market in top-10 markets which has a higher contribution of e-commerce in overall retail market than China 

Online retail contribution as a % of total retail

Hence, the comparison between the two markets and countries on this front suggests that it may not be a fair assumption that Indian now is what China was 7-8 years back and what worked for China then, will work for India now.


Conclusion

With only 39 million online buyers, that translates into approximately 3.2% of the total population, online market place still is at a nascent stage in India, Though the 27% growth in the e-commerce market in India in 2014 looks flattering, the high growth figure is actually due to its very small base. The sector is currently seeing headwinds in terms of sky rocketing valuations and huge employee benefits, but monetising and making the industry profitable will remain a challenge in these times.

Top-10 e-commerce markets by the AT Kearney's Global e-commerce incdex

Government support is absolutely critical on infrastructure point of view to increase user penetration. Also, a more transparent policy on regulation and tax structure will go a great way to strengthen the fundamentals of e-commerce industry in India.

E-commerce industry in India is going through an aggressive transformation and while it can be the sunshine sector for growth, it is imperative to understand the limitations and risks in the sector, and handle these risks effectively. Addressing these risks should be our top most priority to avoid this boom turn into a bubble. It is possible only when euphoria over virtual cash flows, imaginary cash rich P&L statements and outrageous valuations makes way for a structured growth plan across the business parks and government corridors, backed by more realistic aspirations, but of course, with the same enthusiasm.


Cheers,

EpicFail #StarbucksRaceTogether

A seemingly well intentioned campaign to encourage conversation on 'race' at the starbucks has gone supremely awry.

Why should a benign act of trying to encourage conversation on coffee about a very sensitive but recently battered issue face such backlash? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer is simple - Inability to on-board your internal and external stakeholders, both on emotional as well as practical aspect.


The Baristas who were to set forth the campaign by tagging and encouraging people to write "Race together" on their coffee cups, were never on-boarded. It came across as a irrelevant exercise for them which made their daily job more tiring with no visible change.

This gap also led to a sense of insincerity to flow across, right up to the customers which led to what is explained in the next paragraph, revulsion. Great campaigns can fail if your field team is not convinced about the vision and objective of the campaign. To add, ease and practicality of implementation must be thoroughly planned and demonstrated before pushing the campaign down the chain up to the foot-soldiers, to avoid making it a boo boo.

 Race is a sensitive topic and with the recent flare ups in US on the subject have led to an open yet sometimes an ugly debate with opinions and counter opinions being blasted. While the intention may be absolutely honest, this sudden campaign rubbed the general public the wrong way as it did come out as a marketing gimmick.

As mentioned above, there was no serious attempt to actually diffuse tensions and encourage positive environment. The operational way of tagging #RaceTogether(rather than an emotional effort by the Baristas) made the customers feel that Starbucks is trying to piggy back a sensitive issue for its own marketing advantage.

The campaign is ordered to be halted prematurely.

Lesson learnt the hard way!