Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1962)

istoiv <>l the product class. We arnecl thai Fitch Dandrull Shamdo started the market in 1898. Eolwed by Ogilvie Sisters in 1912, onti Castille in 1925, and Breck i 1929. These early shampoos eren't really much different than bar of soap. Only they came in ear liquid form. They left the in manageable, and easy to comb, owever, alter shampooing, they it the hair with an oily and unean texture. To remedy this sitition, Procter and (.amble introiced Drene Shampoo in 1933. ere was the first shampoo formuled of synthetic detergents, and stalled a whole trend. Every mar and minor toiletry company in merica followed suit with its own !tergent shampoo. But, although ese new shampoos left hair feelg clean and shiny and looking ean and shiny, they washed so sll that they washed away the oils at bind the hairs together, herefore, consumers had another mplaint: unmanageability. This mplaint has kept consumers conuitly switching from one shamKi brand to another. Research showed us that twoirds of all shampoo users buy ore than three different brands :r year. Not only that, but only te person in ten sticks with the me brand all year. This is the )rst kind of loyalty. But it is to • expected if no shampoo can de'er both cleanliness and manlability. Two large companies tried to eet this problem with a novelty broach, but ended in dismal fades. In test markets, Bristol-Myers troduced Tandem, and Lever others brought out Starlight. tese shampoos tried to solve the imanageabilitx dilemma with a in pack: one side ol the product is .i shampoo, the other a creme Be and conditioner. But the pubwanted one shampoo, one bot', one process thai would give em both clean and manageable ir. Seemingly, the public wanted l.il was impossible. Improving the product. We pui r technicians to the task in earl) 61. Alter many stages of develEhent, a shampoo began to take shape. Almost from the start it was a good shampoo ... as good as the best on the market. But this wasn't enough. After several experiments, we developed a unique feature in the shampoo: Hash suds. This meant thai the shampoo lathered instantly .. . even on the first lathering. Because it could do tins in spite ol impeding oil and grime, the need for a second lathering was eliminated. Yet, although we had a dramatic improvement, this still didn't deliver the much-desired manageability. And in addition, research showed us that people actually want to lather their hair twice. It wasn't until late 1961 that we developed a formula that was client he in the area of manageability. The formula was comprised ol five ingredients: three ingredients created a rich, lasting lather for cleanliness . . . two ingredients served as conditioners to make hah controllable and eas) to manage. To bac k our beliel in the product, we conducted blind product tests. <)ui beliel was overwhelm ingl) confirmed. Ad campaign problems. Work had commenced on an advertising campaign even before the final lotmida was developed. First, our advertising agenc) analyzed the competitive campaigns. Then analysis pointed up another market vulnerability . . . on the advertising level. Il seemed thai all shampoo brands were making similar claims. I til shampoos said the) wcie new. Nine shampoos said they leave hair shining. Six shampoos said thc\ make hair clean, have a rich lather, and come in more than one type. Five shampoos claimed thai the) leave hair soil, health) and easy to manage. Not onl\ were the claims alike. IIIIIIIIIH Alberto-Culver's agency views its client Burton A. Cummings, president ol Compton, made the following remarks about Alberto-Culver's price and ad polity in a speech last month before the ANA on private VS. national brands. I'd like to cite an example in our own agency experience that indicates how sound pricing is essential to a brand's success and, second, that having the lowest retail price need not be the determining factor in making a sale. Two years ago, the woman's hair spray business was in the doldrums. Shelves were glutted with cheap brands and most of the major national brands were so busy fighting each other with trade deals and price-off packages that the category was suffering from under-advertising. At this seemingly unpropitious time, a marketer [AlbertoCulver] with vision and guts introduced a new hair spray under an established name. It was a fine product and it was backed by the most powerful advertising campaign ever put behind a brand in this product category. In a matter of months, it was the leading seller-at the end of a year, it had 20% of the market. At the same time, the entire category took on new life and the market for hair sprays expanded by almost 50%. The quality of the product and the weight of the advertising were made possible by sound pricing. What would have happened had the brand entered the market to compete on a price basis with no more than competitive quality and with a meager advertising budget, we believe, is obvious. QNSOR 10 DECEMBER 1962 37