Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer

Preference Study of Hindustan Unilever Limited

and Procter & Gamble

Ankita Jain* and Ritu Sharma**

The main objective of this paper is to examine the preference of consumers towards flagship and flanker
brands of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Procter & Gamble (P&G), and identify the impact
of various factors which influence the buying choices of consumers. Hair care and home care (detergents)
product categories were selected for the purpose of this study. It is found that the flagship brands of both
HUL and P&G command sizeable market shares, and the market shares of the corresponding flanker
brands are considerably lower. It is also found that there is a significant difference in the preference of
consumers towards the flagship and flanker brands of HUL and P&G on the basis of price, quality and
brand image.

Introduction
In general terms, flanker brand or fighter band is a lower-priced product similar to the
main offering, introduced by a company to target competitors who are endeavoring to
under-price the main product. According to Hyatt (2008), the use of a flanker or fighter
brand is one of the oldest strategies in branding history, and was first followed to promote
cigarettes in the 19th century. This strategy is often used in difficult economic times.
Ritson (2009) pointed out that as customers switch to lower-priced offers due to
financial imperatives, managers at mid-tier and premium brands are confronted with a
classic problem: Should they handle the risk head on and reduce existing prices, knowing
that it will reduce profits and potentially commodify the brand? Or should they maintain
prices, hope for better times to return, and meanwhile lose customers who might never
come back? With both choices often similarly unpalatable, companies often select the
third option of launching a flanker or fighter brand. When the strategy works, a flanker
brand not only defeats a low-priced competitor, but also opens up a new market. The
Celeron microprocessor is an example of a successful flanker brand. In spite of the success
of its Pentium Processors, Intel confronted a major danger from less expensive processors
such as AMD K6 that were better placed to serve the developing market for low-cost
personal computers. Intel needed to ensure the brand value and price premium of its
* Associate Professor, Department of Management, The IIS University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
E-mail: ankita.jain@iisuniv.ac.in
* * Research Scholar, The IIS University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India; and is the corresponding author.
E-mail: ritu61865@gmail.com

© 2018 IUP
Flagship and. All RightsBrands:
Flanker Reserved.
Consumer Preference Study 7
of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
Pentium chips, but also wanted to avoid AMD gaining a foothold in the lower end of the
market. This led to Intel’s creation of the Celeron brand, a cheaper, less capable form of
Intel’s Pentium processor, as a flanker brand to serve the lower end of the market.

Flanking Strategy
In the military context, a flank is the right or left limit of the combat unit relative to the
direction of its movement, and is often a weak point, as the unit cannot apply much direct
fire from the flanks (Offense and Defense, 2012). It is because of this, that flanking as a
military strategy is commonly employed in battle, and commanders employ flanking tact
to engage these weak points. Generally, the act of flanking, refers to the movement of a
smaller combat unit around the enemy’s defenses to attack its flanks; and in doing so,
distract the enemy so that the main forces can carry on the main attack (Lind, 1985;
German et al., 1991; and Offense and Defense, 2012).
In the business context, there are two main interpretations of the flanking strategy. Firstly,
a flanking attack is similar to the military concept of flanking, and is where a firm attacks an
uncontested market area, distracting the competitor’s attention away from the main market,
while avoiding direct confrontation with the competitor (German et al., 1991; Ries and Trout,
1993; and Crittenden, 2010). A flanking position on the other hand, is a defense position that
the firm engages, by launching products in peripheral or secondary markets to protect potential
weak spots in its market position (Finnie, 1992; and Crittenden, 2010). When Apple launched
the iPhone 5c, it was launched as part of a defensive flanking strategy (Nguyen, 2013; and
Johansson and Carlson, 2014). The iPhone is generally positioned as a premium product,
leaving much room for lower-priced competitors to compete for a share of the customers’
wallet. Emerging markets such as China and India are dominated by brands which offer a
similar value proposition as the iPhone, but at a much lower price (Johansson and Carlson,
2014; and Ribeiro, 2015). Thus, the iPhone 5c could be considered as a means of defending
Apple’s market share against low-priced competitors.
Price sensitivity is the main reason which influences consumers to look for alternatives
at different price levels. This drives marketers to launch similar products under the same
category in order to increase market share by targeting the consumers of each income
level, i.e., high, middle and low. For instance, in the detergents category, Hindustan
Unilever Limited (HUL) offers Surf Excel for high-income level consumers, Rin for
middle-income level consumers and Wheel for the economy market, whereas in the toilet
soaps category, ITC has Fiama di Wills, Vivel and Superia in the premium, mid-range and
economy categories, respectively. By launching flagship and flanker brands, firms can
simultaneously target high, middle and low-income level consumers.
Flagship brand is the main brand offered by a company to its customers. Generally, the
flagship brand caters to the needs of high-income consumers, for whom price is not the
prime consideration. For example, Procter & Gamble (P&G) offers Ariel as its flagship
brand in the detergents category, HUL offers Dove in the hair care category, while Fiama
di Wills is ITC’s flagship brand in the toilet soaps category.

8 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

 Flanker brand is a secondary brand brought into the market by an organization that
already has an established brand in the same product class. The new brand is intended to
capture additional market share in the same product class by focusing on a distinct set of
customers, without harming the market share of the flagship brand. The main purpose of
a flanker brand is to attract and retain customers at a lower price point, without having
to reduce the price of the main brand. It also helps to target customers not catered to by
the main brand, and which may at times, not be catered to by competitors as well. Flanking
strategy can be implemented by focusing on a specific consumer segment or geographical
segment, where competitors are unwilling or unable to immediately strike back.

Classification of FMCG Industry

Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are also termed as consumer packaged goods.
These are items of frequent and regular consumption by end-consumers, and are of
comparatively small unit value. They include foods and beverages, personal care and home
care items. The FMCG industry in India is quite large and has been growing at a steady
pace. The FMCG industry is volume-driven and has low profit margins. The products are
often branded and are supported by extensive marketing, heavy advertising, attractive
packaging and strong distribution networks. The FMCG market is characterized by
premium, mid-range and popular (or economy) segments. The premium segment caters to
the needs of consumers belonging to the higher/upper class who are not price sensitive,
but are brand conscious. At the other end, the popular/mass segment or price sensitive
segment comprises consumers from the lower-income group, often from semi urban and
rural areas, who are not particularly brand conscious. Products sold to this segment have
significantly lower prices than their premium or superior counterparts.
Several leading firms such as HUL, P&G, Dabur and ITC offer multiple brands
(flagship and flanker brands) in different FMCG segments (Refer Table 1). HUL is the only

Table 1: Products Targeting Consumers of Different Income Levels

Product Category High Income Middle Income Low Income

HUL (Hindustan Unilever Ltd.)

Home Care Surf Excel Rin Wheel

Hair Care TRESemmé and Dove Sunsilk Clinic Plus

Oral Care Close Up Pepsodent –

Personal Care Pears and Dove Lux Breeze and Lifebuoy

Skin Care Lakmé Pond’s and Vaseline Fair & Lovely

Tea Taj Mahal Lipton, Brooke Bond Taaza

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 9

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
 Table 1 (Cont.)
Product Category High Income Middle Income Low Income

P&G (Procter & Gamble)

Fabric Care Ariel Tide –

Hair Care Head & Shoulders, Pantene –

Wella

Dabur

Hair Care Almond Hair Oil Amla Hair Oil Vatika Coconut
Hair Oil

Oral Care Dabur Red Meswak Babool

ITC

Personal Care Essenza Di Wills and Vivel and Savlon Superia

Fiama Di Wills

one which offers flanker brands in several product categories, i.e., home care, hair care, oral
care, personal care, skin care and tea in order to meet the needs of consumers at all income
levels. ITC offers flanker brands in the toilet soap category only, although it offers several
products under flagship brands in other categories such as food, stationary, apparel, etc.
P&G offers flanker brands in hair care and fabric care categories. According to Nielsen’s
reports, P&G’s market share in detergents and shampoos has been falling, and the main
reason is that it does not offer cheaper options in either of these product categories. Dabur
offers flanker brands in the hair care and oral care categories at reasonable prices to cater
to the needs of price-sensitive Indian consumers.

Literature Review
Kumar and Dasgupta (2015) studied different dimensions of consumer perceptions
regarding the fighter brand (Nima Rose) vis-à-vis the flagship brand (Nirma Beauty or
Nirma). Their work can be viewed in the context of modern-day branding strategies and
brand management practices. In this study, the authors established noticeable differences
in the positioning strategies of flanker/fighter brands from mainstream/flagship brands of
the same organization.
Jost (2014) analyzed brands’ response to new competitors entering the market. Three
strategic options are suggested by the author, i.e., price adjustment of the premium
product/flagship product, quality adjustment of the premium product and portfolio
adjustment by adding a fighter/flanker brand. These options are suggested to protect the

10 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

premium product and offer flanker brands to price sensitive consumers in order to capture
a larger market share.
Chang and Yang (2013) examined brand counter-extensions strategy as a means of
fighting back against strong competitors. This study considers the market position and
extension outcomes, as well as the firm’s own technological capabilities in order to develop
the fight-back strategy of brand counter-extensions and brand appeal strategy with the
aim of earning the support and purchase intention of consumers.
Sinha et al. (2013) opined that introducing fighter and flanker brands in a new channel
would help to increase revenue and profitability, and also have a positive impact on brand
ranking. This study also suggested that flanker brands should be introduced with proper
planning in relation to the competitor’s brand so that the more profitable flagship brand
can retain its desired position in the market. Flanker brands should be designed very
carefully, so that they are neither so attractive that they take away sales from their higher-
priced comparison brands, nor are they designed so cheaply that they reflect poorly on the
flagship brands.
Godey and Lai (2011) highlighted the various steps involved in the development of
international brand portfolios and issues specific to each of the steps. The authors also
paid attention to launching flanker/fighter brands. Flanker brands increase barriers to
entry for competitors and generate profit and growth in the company’s portfolio. Fighter/
flanker brands protect the flagship brands from rivals.
Glynn (2011) examined the success factors for second-order brands within wine brand
portfolios. Line extensions (a new product from the same brand, but within the same
product category) are more frequently used by wine producers to launch new products.
Pricing and quality also play an important role in the offerings of flanker brands for price
sensitive consumers who put value for money first. In this study, the main emphasis was
on overcoming any negative distancing aspects between the second-order brand and the
flagship brand, as flagship products appear to benefit from price cuts, while flanker brands
benefit more from everyday low pricing.
Ritson (2010) worked on the use of fighter brands to offset low-price competition. A
fighter/flanker brand is designed to fight against competition while attracting new
business that complements existing sales. Market orientation and the creation of strong
fighter brands are keys to success. Great care should be taken while launching flanker
brand campaigns, because if the flanker brand strategy fails, it will negatively affect the
organization. One must ensure that the fighter/flanker brand is strong enough to compete
not only with low-priced rivals and meet the needs of price sensitive consumers, but also
do these profitably.
Ritson (2009) explained that many leading flagship brands are losing market share due
to intense competition from low-priced rivals. Managers face a dilemma between cutting
prices to increase sales, and risking damage to their profits and brand equity. To address
this situation, organizations often choose to launch a fighter/flanking brand. A fighter/

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 11

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
flanking brand is designed to protect a premium offering by combating and ideally
eliminating its cheaper competitors. The author further explained the importance of
avoiding some major hazards when launching fighter brands, such as cannibalization of the
premium product’s sales, failure to create an offering that can compete, unprofitability,
inattention to consumer needs and drain on the management’s time and resources.
Pontes and Jevons (2010) analyzed the pricing effect on line extensions. Line
extensions can be either horizontally or vertically differentiated. Horizontal extensions
are based on flavor, color, size and fragrance. A vertical line extension represents the
introduction of a new product under the same brand name at a lower price point and
quality level in comparison to the core brand or flagship brand, such as Intel Celeron as
a lower-priced alternative to Intel Pentium. Pricing plays a crucial role in the offering of
a flanker brand, as this is meant to take on specific low-priced competitors.
Hyatt (2008) reported about fighter brand strategy and economic condition in the US.
He stated that fighter brand is a low-priced version of the flagship product of the company,
which is meant to attract price sensitive customers. Several companies have adopted this
strategy including P&G, Delta Airlines and Anheuser Busch. Marketers create fighter/
flanker brands to attract value conscious consumers in tough times; but such brands will
succeed only if they can be produced at a significantly lower cost than the main brand.
In order to make flanker brands more attractive, they may have to be promoted through
coupons, rebates and other incentives.
Lindsay (2008) suggested that every organization tries to launch a new product which
acts as a fighter in order to protect the share of the flagship product from its rivals. By
launching a flanker brand, the organization restores its position in the market by
expending a small share of resources. While launching a flanker brand, the product quality,
advertising and pricing policy should be adopted very carefully in order to target the
desired market segment.
Bolan (2005) explained that it is easier for an organization to launch a flanker brand
than to launch a new product, because this requires less advertising and can leverage
awareness from the flagship brand. When done well, flankers can boost the franchise, but
if done poorly, a flanker can itself fail and also hurt the main brand as well. Flankers have
proven as a successful marketing alternative to investing large amount of time and money
into new products. Flankers can also revive the original brand, extend its life-cycle, bring
newness to the category and it would be easier to execute than a “start-up”. Therefore, it
can be concluded that flankers are sometimes a simple and quick solution to a larger
problem.
Johnson and Myatt (2003) discussed the importance of product line pruning and
launching flanker brands. The authors opined that several factors must be considered by
an organization while launching a fighter brand, such as consumers’ preference, income
profile, geographic area and demographic background.

12 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

 Chen and Paliwoda (2002) explained that multi-branding strategy enables the
company to lock up more distribution shelf space and protect its major brand by setting
up flanker brands. The new brands will also bring internal competition into the firm and
improve working efficiency. Sometimes, the appearance of a new brand in the market
produces a new stimulus and establishes brand image. Multi-branding helps the company
to target different market segments, spread risk, and meet the consumers’ need for variety
seeking. The authors suggested three options for growth, i.e., diversification growth,
integration growth and intensive growth. Brand extensions are the route to diversification
growth, i.e., companies simply extend the existing brand into a new product line not
currently served by this brand. In integration growth, the company enters new segments
by offering products with new features such as new flavors, package sizes, colors and
compositions, which are termed as line extensions. When a company considers intensive
growth, it may intensify market penetration with existing products.
Keller (1999) stated that the purpose of flanker brands is typically to create stronger
points-of-parity with competitors’ brands so that more important (and more profitable)
flagship brands can retain their desired positions. Many firms introduce discount brands
as flanker brands to compete with store brands and private labels and protect their high-
priced brand companions.

Data and Methodology

As the study is empirical in nature, it is based on survey research. The survey sample for
this study was drawn from respondents in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The total sample size was 150,
out of which 137 respondents participated in the survey, including 56 males and 81
females drawn using simple random sampling method. Primary data was collected with the
help of a questionnaire specifically designed for this study (Refer Appendix). The
questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section captures demographic details of
the respondents and the second section contains questions related to preference and
buying behavior of consumers towards hair care and home care (detergents) products,
consisting of flagship and flanker brands of HUL and P&G.

Objectives
The work was designed to achieve the following specific objectives:
• To examine the preference of consumers towards flagship and flanker brands of
HUL and P&G.

• To identify the impact of selected factors which affect the purchasing decision
of consumers.

Hypotheses
H01: There is no significant difference in the preference of consumers towards flagship and
flanker brands of HUL and P&G on the basis of price.

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 13

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
 H02: There is no significant difference in the preference of consumers towards flagship and
flanker brands of HUL and P&G on the basis of quality.
H03: There is no significant difference in the preference of consumers towards flagship and
flanker brands of HUL and P&G on the basis of brand image.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Profile of Respondents
Demographic profile of the respondents is given in Table 2. A majority of the respondents
were females in the age group of 26 to 40 years, graduates, employed in a salaried job and
had monthly income in the range of 25,000 to 100,000.

Table 2: Demographic Details of Respondents

Particulars Variables Frequency Percentage

Male 56 40.9
Gender
Female 81 59.1

Below 25 11 8.0

26-30 57 41.6
Age (Years)
31-40 46 33.6

Above 40 23 16.8

School Level 7 5.1

UG 88 64.2
Qualification
PG 35 25.5

Professional 7 5.1

Student 5 3.6

Employed 91 66.4
Occupation
Business 31 22.6

House-Wife 10 7.3

Below 25,000 3 2.2

25,000-50,000 48 35
Monthly Income ( )
50,000-100,000 66 48.2

Above 100,000 20 14.6

14 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

Preferred Brands
The most preferred brands of hair care products are Dove (31.4%) and Head & Shoulders
(16.8%), which are the flagship brands in this category of HUL and P&G, respectively. The
dominant flanking brands are Clear (13.1%) and Sunsilk (12.4%) in the case of HUL and
Pantene (15.3%) in the case of P&G. The data is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Preferred Hair Care Brands

25

20

15
Count (%)

10

0
Below 25,000 25,000-50,000 50,000-1 lakh Above 1 lakh

Income ( )

None of the Above TRESemmé Sunsilk Pantene

Head & Shoulder Dove Clear Clinic Plus

The most preferred home care products (detergents) are Surf Excel with 35%
preference, followed by Ariel and Rin (17.5% each), Wheel (15.3%) and Tide (13.9%).
The data is represented in Figure 2. Here again, the flagship brands of HUL and P&G,
i.e., Surf Excel and Ariel, respectively, command the highest levels of preference among
consumers.

Differences in Purchase Decision Based on Selected Factors

Table 3 shows one-way ANOVA to know the difference in purchasing decision of
consumers regarding flagship and flanker brands of HUL and P&G. A significant
difference was found between the purchase decisions of respondents on the basis of price.
At p < 0.05 level for the three conditions (F (3, 136) = 4.132; p = 0.008).

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 15

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
 Figure 2: Preferred Home Care (Detergent) Brands

30

25

20
Count (%)

15

10

0
Below 25,000 25,000-50,000 50,000-1 lakh Above 1 lakh
Income ( )

None of the Above Tide Wheel

Surf Excel Rin Ariel

Table 3: ANOVA – On the Basis of Price

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 12.954 3 4.318 4.132 0.008
Within Groups 138.988 133 1.045
Total 151.942 136

Table 4 shows one-way ANOVA to examine the difference in the purchasing decision
of consumers regarding flagship and flanker brands on the basis of quality. A significant
difference was found between the purchasing decision of consumers towards the flagship
and flanker brands of HUL and P&G. At p < 0.05 level for the three conditions, (F (3,
136) = 4.275; p = 0.006).
One-way ANOVA was also conducted to examine the difference in the purchasing
decision of consumers regarding flagship and flanker brands on the basis of brand image
(Table 5). Once again, significant difference was found between the purchasing decision
of consumers towards the flagship and flanker brands of HUL and P&G on the basis of
brand image. At p < 0.05 level for the three conditions (F (3, 136) = 3.841; p = 0.011).

16 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

 Table 4: ANOVA – On the Basis of Quality
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 13.891 3 4.630 4.275 0.006

Within Groups 144.050 133 1.083

Total 157.942 136

Table 5: ANOVA – On the Basis of Brand Image

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.581 3 4.194 3.841 0.011

Within Groups 145.200 133 1.092

Total 157.781 136

Table 6 presents a summary of the findings of the three hypotheses tests.

Table 6: Hypotheses Test Summary

S. No. Null Hypotheses Test Sig. Decision

1. There is no significant difference in the ANOVA 0.008 Reject the null

preference of consumers towards flagship hypothesis.
and flanker brands of HUL and P&G
on the basis of price.

2. There is no significant difference in the ANOVA 0.006 Reject the null

preference of consumers towards flagship hypothesis.
and flanker brands of HUL and P&G
on the basis of quality.

3. There is no significant difference in the ANOVA 0.011 Reject the null

preference of consumers towards flagship hypothesis.
and flanker brands of HUL and P&G
on the basis of brand image.

Table 7 summarizes the results of the t-test, which shows that significant difference was
found between male and female respondents’ choice of the preferred channel for
purchasing products, whereas there is no significant difference in other aspects of the
purchasing decision of consumers, such as influence of media, source of influence (i.e.,
influence by others) and reason for switching brands.

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 17

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
 Table 7: Independent Sample’s Test
S. Purchasing Decision Aspects Sig. @
Mean SD t
No. of Consumers p<0.05
1. Influence of media 2.05 (Male) 1.151 1.086 0.931
1.84 (Female) 1.123 1.081
2. Preferred channel for purchasing 2.29 (Male) 1.074 –1.378 0.027
products 2.52 (Female) 0.896 –1.333
3. Source of influence 2.73 (Male) 1.104 1.014
2.54 (Female) 1.049 1.005 0.555
4. Reason for switching products 2.02 (Male) 0.981 –1.521 0.217
2.30 (Female) 1.104 –1.553

Conclusion
The study on consumer preference towards flagship and flanker brands of HUL and P&G,
specifically in hair care and home care (detergents) category, shows that the respondents
are more concerned about quality, price and brand image of the products purchased by
them. Further, it was also found that the preferences of male and female respondents differ
with regard to the preferred channel for purchasing the products.
In the hair care category, among the flagship brands of HUL and P&G, Dove and Head
& Shoulders were preferred by 31.4% and 16.8% respondents, respectively, whereas among
the flanker brands, P&G’s Pantene was on top of the list with 15.3% preference, followed
by HUL’s flanker brands—Clear, Sunsilk and Clinic Plus, with 13.1%, 12.4% and 5.8%
preference, respectively.
The most preferred brand in home care (detergents) category was HUL’s flagship brand
Surf Excel with a preference share of 35%, whereas P&G’s flagship brand Ariel was
preferred by 17.5% of the respondents. Among flanker brands, HUL’s Rin and Wheel were
preferred by 17.5% and 15.3% of the respondents, respectively, as compared to 13.9%
preference for P&G’s flanker brand Tide.
HUL’s products topped the list in both hair care and home care category. The reason
behind HUL’s popularity is that it offers a variety of flanker brands in several product
categories such as hair care, home care, skin care, oral care, food and beverages as
compared to its competitors. In the hair care category, it offers Dove, Clinic Plus, Clear,
Sunsilk and TRESemmé, whereas on the other hand, P&G has only Head & Shoulders
and Pantene. In the home care (detergents) category, HUL offers Surf Excel, Rin, Wheel
and Sunlight (not included in study due to less awareness), while P&G offers Ariel and
Tide. Thus, P&G has to offer more alternatives at various price points in order to
increase its market share.
The main reason behind launching flanker brands is to counter new entrants in the
market. Flanker brands also protect the premium product (flagship brand), as they cater
to price sensitive consumers and help to capture a larger market share. By introducing

18 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

flanker brands, a company can increase its revenue and profitability, and also enhance its
brand image and ranking. Flanker brands can also help to retain business and market share
during periods of economic downturn (recession), in view of their lower cost and price.

References
1. Bolan C (2005), “Flanker Fever is Rampant”, Global Cosmetic Industry, Vol. 173,
No. 10, pp. 22-26.
2. Chang F K and Yang W H (2013), “Brand Counter Extensions for Fight Back &
Appeal Strategies”, Journal of Management Decisions, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 839-853.
3. Chen J and Paliwoda S J (2002), “On the Application of Multi-Branding Strategy”,
American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings: Chicago, Vol. 13, pp. 43-50.
4. Crittenden V L (2010), “Brand Growth Strategy”, in R A Peterson and R Kerin (Eds.)
Wiley International Encyclopaedia of Marketing, John Wiley & Sons.
5. Finnie W C (1992), “The Basics of Business Warfare”, Competitive Intelligence Review,
Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4, pp. 10-15.
6. German M, Donahue D A and Schnaars S P (1991), “A Chink in Marketing’s Armor:
Strategy Above Tactics”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 74-78.
7. Glynn M S (2011), “Success Factors for Second Brands in Wine Brand Portfolios”,
6th AWBR International Conference, pp. 1-6.
8. Godey B and Lai C (2011), “Construction of International Brand Portfolios: Impact
on Local Brands.” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 402-407.
9. Hyatt J (2008), “And in This Corner, the Price-Fighter”, CFO Magazine. Retrieved
from http://ww2.cfo.com/strategy/2008/12/and-in-this-corner-the-price-fighter/
10. Johansson J K and Carlson K A (2014), Contemporary Brand Management, Sage
Publications.
11. Johnson J P and Myatt D P (2003), “Multiproduct Quality Competition: Fighting
Brands & Product Line Pruning”, American Marketing Review, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 748-774.
12. Jost P J (2014), “How to Protect Your Premium Product from Low-Price Competitors:
Price, Quality, or Portfolio Adjustment?”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 253-265.
13. Keller K L (1999), “Designing and Implementing Branding Strategies”, The Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 315-332.
14. Kumar S K and Dasgupta T (2015), “Fighter Brands & Indian Consumers: A Study
of Brand Narratives Using Ad Content Analysis”, Indian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45,
No. 9, pp. 7-21.

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 19

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
15. Lind W S (1985), Manoeuvre Warfare Handbook, 1st Edition, Colorado, Westview
Special Studies in Military Affairs, United States of America.
16. Lindsay M (2008), “Build Your Brand by Thinking Like a Fighter”, Advertising Age,
Vol. 79, No. 23, p. 27.
17. Nguyen D S (2013), “Waiting for a Waterloo in Marketing”, Myzone Bistro. Retrieved
from http://nguyenducson.vn/waiting-for-a-waterloo-in-marketing-758/
18. Offense and Defense (2012), Washington. Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/
epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/adp3_90.pdf
19. Pontes N and Jevons C (2010), “Price Effects on Vertical Brand Extensions: A
Conceptual Framework”, Monash University. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/
101555/1/Tuesday_priceandbrandingII_Jevon.pdf
20. Ribeiro J (2015), “Chinese Vendors Triple Smartphone Share in India”, PC World.
Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/581664
21. Ries A and Trout J (1993), “Marketing Warfare”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 77-82.
22. Ritson M (2009), “Should You Launch a Fighter Brand?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 87, No. 10, pp. 86-94.
23. Ritson M (2010), “The Good Fight”, Marketing News, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 10
24. Sinha A, Sahqal A and Mathur S K (2013), “Category Optimizer: A Dynamic
Assortment, New Product Introduction, Mix-Optimization & Demand Planning
System”, Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 221-228.

20 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

 Appendix
Questionnaire
Section 1: Personal Details
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Age (Years): Below 25 25-30
31-40 Above 40
3. Qualification: School level UG
PG Professional
4. Occupation: Student Business
Employed House-wife
5. Income (Monthly) ( ): Below 25,000 25,000-50,000
50,000-100,000 Above 100,000
Section 2: Consumer Preference and Buying Behavior
1. Which of the following products do you generally use for hair care?
Clinic Plus Clear Dove
Head & Shoulders Pantene Sunsilk
TRESemmé None of the above
2. Please tick the products you use for home care (detergents).
Ariel Rin Surf Excel
Wheel Tide None of the above
3. How long have you been using the above products?
Last 6 months 6 months to 1 year
1 to 2 years More than 2 years
4. Which is your more preferred channel for purchasing the above-stated products?
Departmental Store Convenience Store
Super Market Online
5. Which media influences your purchasing decision?
TV Newspaper
Pamphlets Word-of-Mouth

Flagship and Flanker Brands: Consumer Preference Study 21

of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Procter & Gamble
 Appendix

6. Who influences your buying behavior for your preferred products?

Family Friends
Advertisements Self
7. If you would like to switch from your preferred products, give reason for the same.
Want to try a new product Price
Quality Not Satisfied
8. Rank the importance of the following factors which motivated you most while
buying your preferred products.
Factors Most Important Neutral Less Least
Important(5) (4) (3) Important(2) Important(1)
Price
Packaging
Quality
Influence by Others
Location of the
Retail Store
Advertisements
Availability
Promotional Offers
Brand Image

Reference # 25J-2018-09-01-01

22 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XV, No. 3, 2018

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.