1.

Analyze the reasons behind the success of All Out, commenting separately on
the attention paid by KAPL to each element of the marketing mix. Why do
you think players like GSLL were not being able to compete with All Out?

Soln: The main reason for All Out’s success was its balanced handling of the
marketing mix. Now we analyze its success and competitive edge with respect to
the elements of the marketing mix.

The 1st P: Product

 Pioneer Effect: First of its kind.

 Technically Sound: Dependable Japanese Technology.

 Smoke Free, no residue, almost odorless.

 Long lasting.

 Ease of Use.

The 2nd P: Price

 Premium Pricing, creating an impression of a premier product.

 Flexible pricing to accommodate market sentiments.

 KAPL was proactive with its flexible pricing strategy. It set a trend in the
process. GSLL followed it up with a similar strategy. (Goodknight’s 60-night
refill pack priced at Rs.63 in response to All Out’s 45-night pack at Rs.54.)

The 3rd P: Place

 GSLL and R&C were multi-product giants whereas KAPL was a

newcomer with a single product. Hence the former companies (before
launching vaporizers) already had well established distribution networks.

 The only P in which KAPL was behind its major competitors was “Place”.

 Of the 9 lacs outlets across the country that sold repellants, KAPL was
available in only 18% (120 distributors).

 Percentage of outlets:

R&C – 55%

GSLL- 54%
The 4th P: Promotion

 The ads of All Out were unique and immediately caught the imagination of
the masses.

 The ad had high mind recall.

 Since KAPL themselves handled the account the advertisement cost was
quite low.

 Other strategies:

1. Hindi Movie Video Cassettes

2. FM Radio

3. News Program Sponsors

4. Movie Song/Dance/Fight Sequence sponsoring on satellite TV Channels.

The 5th P of Packaging

KAPL paid special attention to the packaging details of its product. It commissioned
a well known unit in Hyderabad to ensure that its packaging was of high quality.

Few points about the competitors

 GSLL and R&C were followers in this segment right from the start.

 GSLL even came up with a similar pricing strategy as All Out (Good Knight’s
60 night refill pack against All Out’s 45 night pack.)

 Q2. In the light of intensifying competition and allegations of “toxic hazards”

in the mosquito repellant industry, do you think All Out would be able to
maintain its success in the future? What steps can the company take to
ensure that its market share does not suffer? Give reasons to support your
answer.

 Soln: All Out has faced stiff competition to establish itself in the market.
Through its efforts it has garnered considerable customer loyalty. The one
problem it faced was in the toxicity parameter.

 The Mosquito repellant industry has a perennial double edged sword hanging
over it. On one side there exists the peril of deadly mosquitoes from which
protection is extremely necessary and on the other hand their lurks the
danger of toxic emissons.There exists a very thin line between these two.
 All Out made for itself a concrete position in the market. It would not be an
easy task for the competitors to put All Out out of the race. The way out for
All Out is to work further on its R & D and lessen the toxic composition of its
product keeping the good properties intact. Definite steps in this direction will
surely put All Out back on track.

 To maintain its market share All Out must implement the above suggested
changes and communicate this to the public through ads, something along
the lines of Cadbury (the Dairy Milk worm case).

 This will consolidate the image of All Out in the public’s mind. It can emerge
a leader in this section as well by implementing the changes before anyone
else does as this toxicity problem is an industry wide phenomenon. This will
give it an edge over its competitors.

 Also it should revise its advertising strategies making its ads less mundane
and more exclusive.

 These are the steps that will put All Out back in the game.