The Hindu pwns Times of India (ad war)

[Vijay.Sharma]

Awsome :hysterical: but really who needs news papers now a days when we can get instant news from inetrnet

That is so true...haven't purchased a newspaper since July 1999

[Stuge]

what is FTW?

I bet it not wirtten in Veda's :P ftw=For the win :P or F**k the world

[Stuge]

Cheap shot from the Hindu. Ad inspired by the famous American idiots video.

Infact it is a cheap shot .Even though its funny .

[Yoda-esque]

Indirectly hitting a competitor in an advertisement is is usually frowned upon in the world of advertising. Especially ads like these. It's not a good practice. Either have the balls to directly show that you are better - compare growth rates' date=' compare subscription numbers etc. Or just go and promote your product. I wonder if the Advertising Standards Council of India will step in. They probably wont if TOI does not complain.[/quote'] In fact Hindu was clearly admitting that most people read the other newspaper.:) Even if TOI file a case, they will lose

[Prakat]

There is no case here. The only place this can be arbitrated is in the ASCI if ToI insists. The max that will happen is a slap on the wrist. ToI mgmt will also know from personal experience from the other side of the table that making a noise about it will give more publicity to the campaign which they will want to avoid. ;)

[hari504504]

In fact Hindu was clearly admitting that most people read the other newspaper.:) Even if TOI file a case, they will lose

A bold prediction.. there is a case. Although ToI should rather fight this with another one.. true media style.

[Prakat]

The Hindu is one of the most conservative papers in the country. It's laughable to assume that their legal team would let something go out that can make them liable in a court of law. Let's look at the evidence, The ad does not "show" or "mention" the ToI in any way. The only remotest suggestion is in the baseline "Stay ahead of the times" which is a very, very common phrase in english, unlike, say "Stay ahead of the pioneer" or "Stay ahead of the telegraph". ToI has no case in a court of law. And going to the ASCI will only make it look like a crybaby, especially because they fired the first shot.

[Yoda-esque]

The Hindu is one of the most conservative papers in the country. It's laughable to assume that their legal team would let something go out that can make them liable in a court of law. Let's look at the evidence, The ad does not "show" or "mention" the ToI in any way. The only remotest suggestion is in the baseline "Stay ahead of the times" which is a very, very common phrase in english, unlike, say "Stay ahead of the pioneer" or "Stay ahead of the telegraph". ToI has no case in a court of law. And going to the ASCI will only make it look like a crybaby, especially because they fired the first shot.

Exactly my point

[hari504504]

The Hindu is one of the most conservative papers in the country. It's laughable to assume that their legal team would let something go out that can make them liable in a court of law. Let's look at the evidence, The ad does not "show" or "mention" the ToI in any way. The only remotest suggestion is in the baseline "Stay ahead of the times" which is a very, very common phrase in english, unlike, say "Stay ahead of the pioneer" or "Stay ahead of the telegraph". ToI has no case in a court of law. And going to the ASCI will only make it look like a crybaby, especially because they fired the first shot.

Then how do all of us clearly without a doubt know that they are targetting ToI ? Youve been drawn to the obvious.. the line used by Hindu is outright brilliant. But thats not the problem. Its the beeped out part that is the culprit... while the moving lips clearly show what they are saying. When media wants to censor something they usually beep and pixelate the lips so that the viewers can't understand it.

[Prakat]

The ad works simply because what is being suggesting in the ad, "that the times peddles trash", is common knowledge. If all of us didn't think that, we wouldn't make the connection at all. ToI's first volley also helps to connect that dots. And there is no such thing as a thought crime. As long as the name is not mentioned the ad is safe. The fact that the admakers had the ToI in mind is not culpable. Your point about lip-reading won't hold water either. Defense will say they censored it to keep the ad within the bounds of libel laws.

[DomainK]

For those fighting over whether a case can be filed or not, it wont go to a court of law, it will be heard by a panel from the regulatory board and the regulatory board understands subtle references and can rule on subtle references. In fact the board is made for that purpose - to keep a check on what extent advertisers go on direct as well as indirect references. Advertisements are usually more about subtle messages than about direct messages. When the regulatory board banned Amul Macho ads, there were no direct reference to sex or about the woman's sexual desires. There was a subtle indication. That was enough for the board to step in and ban the ad.

[vvvslaxman]

To be honest TOI is just a tabloid. Not a news paper.

[hari504504]

The ad works simply because what is being suggesting in the ad, "that the times peddles trash", is common knowledge. If all of us didn't think that, we wouldn't make the connection at all. ToI's first volley also helps to connect that dots. And there is no such thing as a thought crime. As long as the name is not mentioned the ad is safe. The fact that the admakers had the ToI in mind is not culpable. Your point about lip-reading won't hold water either. Defense will say they censored it to keep the ad within the bounds of libel laws.

"common knowledge" is not really something that is defined.. i can;t publicly humiliate someone with a scandalous line and then be called up for defamation and then say - " oh..but it is common knowledge that he is a so and so.." A very old ad originally had horlicks as 'Cup H' and complan as 'Cup C' and then bragged about the virtues of one versus the other ( I am not entirely sure who was the defendant and who was sued). Anyway the ad was changed under legal pressure(into Cup X and Cup Y I think), so there is precedent. We are not talking about reading brainwaves.. lip movement is one of the basic modes of communication/interpretation.. a message is not truly censored until the sound is beeped as well as the lips are pixelated

[hari504504]

This is what i was talking about http://www.scribd.com/doc/73804856/Complan-Vs-Horlicks

The advertising war between Horlicks and Complan continued in 2000s. . In 2004,Complan came out with an ad based on the format of a health talk show. In the advertisement, twocups marked ‘C’ and ‘H’ were used, with C implying the brand Complan and the cup ‘H’ indirectly 4refers to brand Horlicks. It advt explained how brand ‘C’ was better than brand ‘H’ in terms of itsprotein content. GSK, which owned the Horlicks brand, went to court, and obtained an orderrestraining Heinz from airing the advertisement. Later, the advertisement was aired with the requisitechanges and the letter ―H‖ was replaced with the letter ―X

[Prakat]

"common knowledge" is not really something that is defined.. i can;t publicly humiliate someone with a scandalous line and then be called up for defamation and then say - " oh..but it is common knowledge that he is a so and so.." A very old ad originally had horlicks as 'Cup H' and complan as 'Cup C' and then bragged about the virtues of one versus the other ( I am not entirely sure who was the defendant and who was sued). Anyway the ad was changed under legal pressure(into Cup X and Cup Y I think), so there is precedent. We are not talking about reading brainwaves.. lip movement is one of the basic modes of communication/interpretation.. a message is not truly censored until the sound is beeped as well as the lips are pixelated

I'm sorry but you are missing the point here. 'Common knowledge' is what makes this ad potent, with the reputation that the ToI already has in the market. The Complan V Horlicks case is different because one company was trying to create an image about another company's brand. ToI brought this upon themselves by claiming that they won't put their readers to sleep - they are exciting, sensational, sexy etc. And why are we getting into the whole lip-reading thing when we have established that no court will hear this 'case'?

[Yoda-esque]

^ Good analysis Would like to hear M's views

[Prakat]

For those fighting over whether a case can be filed or not, it wont go to a court of law, it will be heard by a panel from the regulatory board and the regulatory board understands subtle references and can rule on subtle references. In fact the board is made for that purpose - to keep a check on what extent advertisers go on direct as well as indirect references. Advertisements are usually more about subtle messages than about direct messages. When the regulatory board banned Amul Macho ads, there were no direct reference to sex or about the woman's sexual desires. There was a subtle indication. That was enough for the board to step in and ban the ad.

The difference in the Amul Macho ads was that it was brought up for 'indecency' and the case had aspects of 'public good' to it. There is no such issue here.

[hari504504]

I'm sorry but you are missing the point here. 'Common knowledge' is what makes this ad potent, with the reputation that the ToI already has in the market. The Complan V Horlicks case is different because one company was trying to create an image about another company's brand. ToI brought this upon themselves by claiming that they won't put their readers to sleep - they are exciting, sensational, sexy etc. And why are we getting into the whole lip-reading thing when we have established that no court will hear this 'case'?

Make no mistake, I am not defending ToI here, I don't know if they are good or bad or whatever it is for I have never read it, but that doesn't really matter cause the courts don't hear the case based on what the judge personally feels about it.. just saying why this would be an interesting case if it does come to that. And what is common knowledge really in legal terms ? you mean to say that its the perception of you and people around you..maybe not everyone in India..so not really a universal truth.

The Complan V Horlicks case is different because one company was trying to create an image about another company's brand

Really? how different ? ..it is an implied comparison with a specific competitor. In its original ad..ToI did what any brand would do.. say that their product is something worth buying. I don't see anything wrong in that. They didn't really say 'The Hindu' is boring specifically... Comparative advertising is a very touch-and-go thing.. it is allowed when comparing quantifiable attributes..ie..numbers like how insurance companies compare their net returns. It can't be used for qualitiative comparison where A is better than B cause A is interesting and B isn't. That is the whole point of contention... why will no court 'hear' this case ?..just as Cup H was deemed as Horlicks and Cup C was deemed as complan , allowing the lips to be seen is essentially telling everyone who they are comparing with

[Prakat]

Make no mistake, I am not defending ToI here, I don't know if they are good or bad or whatever it is for I have never read it, but that doesn't really matter cause the courts don't hear the case based on what the judge personally feels about it.. just saying why this would be an interesting case if it does come to that. And what is common knowledge really in legal terms ? you mean to say that its the perception of you and people around you..maybe not everyone in India..so not really a universal truth.

This is exactly what I am saying, not only is common knowledge a term used within the context of our discussion, it is also the last thing the defense would mention in a hypothetical case. That would be implicating themselves. I brought it up to highlight how the ad works, because that's what allows them to make it work without actually showing the newspaper or mentioning it by name.

Really? how different ? ..it is an implied comparison with a specific competitor. In its original ad..ToI did what any brand would do.. say that their product is something worth buying. I don't see anything wrong in that. They didn't really say 'The Hindu' is boring specifically...

If you look at the Hindu Ad carefully you will find that they don't say anything about ToI either. The ad is completed in the audience's mind. This is what makes it work and this is why it passes the legal team's internal test - which is why it made it out in the public. It's called plausible deniability. This is also why no court will hear it. The Hindu will just say that this ad wasn't about the ToI at all. Imagine you were bringing this case on behalf of ToI. How will you prove that this ad was about your client?

That is the whole point of contention... why will no court 'hear' this case ?..just as Cup H was deemed as Horlicks and Cup C was deemed as complan , allowing the lips to be seen is essentially telling everyone who they are comparing with

Again, the the hypothetical case, I do not see any prosecution, proving without doubt that non-deaf people can lipread. Beeping the word out protects the defendant completely.

[bulbul]

why do people thinks knowledge gain happen mainly because of News papers..there are lot of other methods to improve u r knowledge many people who subscribe for daily paper wont even read half the paper