Saravana Bhavan never fails to dish out hot stuff - within their restaurants; and outside it as well. Chennai’s arguably finest restaurant is in the news again.
But before I get to the news, a few words about Saravana Bhavan if you know precious little about this brand.
Saravana Bhavan was started in 1971 by a guy named Rajagopalan, who started his life as a shop boy and dreamed of making it big in the restaurant business. And boy did be make it big or what!
His hotel – the first choice in south Indian dishes and the last word in taste - became synonymous with impeccable quality and exceptional service. It never advertised in the mass media. The brand’s customers did. Saravana’s customers could never stop talking about its variety of its menu; the delicacy of its offerings; the precision of its servings; and the warmth of its service.
Saravana Bhavan became a case study in more ways than one. Not just in marketing classes and discussions. But in HR practices too. Each one of its employees handpicked from interior Tamil Nadu is trained, ruthlessly, it looks so. Yet treated with utmost care. I understand every employee is insured; given a month’s pay along with leave to visit their loved ones in their hometowns.
No wonder the brand has grown. To more than 50 odd branches – not just here in India, but also all across the globe. If my memory serves me right, Saravana Bhavan has more than a dozen branches in the U.S. alone. And continues to grow at a rate that could put a South American inflation to shame!
Did I say Saravana Bhavan is in the news? Correction; the brand isn’t. Its owners were earlier, and now are again. First, a few years back, its owner Rajagopalan, was caught in a murder case. He was accused of killing a husband whose wife, he had wanted to remarry. That Rajagopalan had a few wives already serving him is another matter altogether. The man who prides in serving 14-idlies, 7-uthampams wanted the same variety in his personal life as well, I presume! The case is still in court and expected to be that way for another decade. His arrest and the case itself continues to hog the headlines to this day.
One of his two sons, Sivakumar, is now in the news. Reason: he had allegedly fabricated visas for four of his employees to take them to the U.S. and get them employed in Saravana Bhavan restaurants there. The press, that constantly craves for brutal rapes, gruesome murders and downright deceptions, has found this news a godsend. It has been hogging the news like it’s the end of the world.
Now, did Sivakumar try to cheat? Is he involved in human trafficking? Did his dad encroach on another’s marital property? Did he murder? Who knows? Who cares? Who bothers?
Not me, definitely.
I don’t care if he and his dad did or didn’t. I don’t give much to their sexual habits or secretive ways. But what interests me is its impact or, more precisely the lack of it, on the brand, Saravana Bhavan.
If you had expected all this negative publicity to impact the brand, you are right in expecting so. Most brands get too intertwined with their founders or the management. Case in point: Kingfisher and Vijay Mallya, Cavinkare and C.K. Ranganathan, Infosys and Narayanamurthy etc., But no, not Saravana Bhavan. The brand continues to march ahead as if nothing happened around it.
I was in two of its outlets these last few days. And it has been business as usual. In fact, I suspect business has even picked up. I had to wait before I could get a chair to park myself to feast on Saravana’s sumptuous offerings. And this was in one of its outlets that had a seating capacity of close to 150! And I was there around 4 P.M. – hardly lunch time you would call.
Is there a lesson for us marketers here? You bet there is. Especially to family-led businesses. The lesson is this: Distance yourself from your brand. Nurture your brand and help it grow and all that. But don’t put your face to the brand. Let the brand have a face of its own. Remember, it could be your baby, but it is public property. It will outlive you; it has to. It grows independently of you. And grows faster. Spreads wider. Lives longer.
Even if you treat yourself on others’ wives or transport human parcels.
17 comments:
Yes, I would completely agree with you sir when you said that these news make a little impact on the brand, Saravana Bhavan. In fact, the best thing that Mr. Rajagopal did was he did was that he didn't project himself as the face of Saravana Bhavan.
When we think of "Microsoft", Immediately we think of "Bill Gates", when we think of "Kingfisher", immediately Mallya comes to our mind and when we think of "Reliance", the Ambanis come to our mind. This is because they all have projected themselves as the face of their brands.
On the contrary, Saravana Bhavan has never projected any personality so far. If I were to describe H.S.B as a person, it would be something like this:
a)a traditionally dressed south indian brahmin man(nothing offensive, just for a description)
b) With vibudhi, sandal on the fore head and
c) someone who looks handsome, in the traditional sense.
Unfortunately, Rajgopal doesn't match all these.
The moment somebody says "Saravana Bhavan", I can only remember those hot idlis, ghee dosa, variety of kootu poriyal etc....
Therefore these news make a very little impact or I should say no impact at all on the brand H.S.B
Hi Sir,
How u doin'?? Long time..!! and gr8 post as usual i must say!! :)
a great post lilian!! by sir as well as you.but stuck here thinkin of something.. can u please tell me how exactly to do it??as in seperate urself from the brand like satheesh sir mentioned?? i mean wat i believe is that wen a brand is born, the owner of it as well!! what did the owners of sarv bhavan did wat the others dint???
yes what exactly sathish sir mean is right , always a brand should stand as a separate entity,the promoters should not mingle the brand with their personal life.
A mind-twisting post from a marketing mindfreak..i would say!
Excellent Post. Filled with humour and the point well made.
I am equally not surprised by the fact that any of the scandals doesn't impact the community brand, the main reason behind is that the founder keeps himself away from its brand. It is quite questionable if the brand would be affected even if they are engaged personally. Consider Vijay Mallya, in a hypothetical situation if he is involved in a sex scam would people not buy KF premium beer, I don't think so. If he is found do produce the beer in illegal way still I won’t think so, however people will stop buy the beer, if he is involved in a scam where he is manufacturing the beer using inappropriate ingredients. I agree with Lillian that people project themselves as the brand and it works to a great extent for its brand, Tata for example projected as Trust, unless or until he is involved in something that is in line with Trust, his brand won't suffer. C.K Ranganathan is know only in the corporate side of the people, will someone who is buying chick shampoo in one of the Towns know that he is the founder, I doubt it. However if there is a scam that ‘the shampoo is harmful’, people might not by the shampoo. The point one has to remember here is that the sexual scam and other things may not bother the brand, the brand will be affected only when, the founder or the product by itself is going beyond the mark of what the brand stands for. Seldom does the brand founders and their sexual and other scams.
The other fact is that though people project themselves as the brand, it doesn’t mean the brand will die with them, there are enough possibility that people might move on to the new person who has taken over. The best case here is Mr. Ambani, he was the face of the brand until he was there, and did the brand die with him, no. His sons took over and despite the huddle stones between the brothers the company goes on to grow even stronger than the previous year.
So the point is ‘Unless or until the core of the brand is shaken’ by its founder or anyone who is into the brand.
This is in response to Mr.I-will-disagree-for-the-sake-of-it: There were two things that I was driving at with my post. One, it doesn't necessarily add anything to the brand by projecting the promoter's image on to it. Two, more importantly, if at all it can only damage the brand. Not necessarily from a loss of sale point of view. But also in terms of the damage from a financial standpoint. For instance, CavinKare and C.K. Ranganathan are so intertwined that, God forbid, something happens to him, how many financial institutions might be willing to lend to the company when there is a crisis. The same with some of the other such companies. What benefit does it accrue to the brand by projecting the promoter? I don't get it. And on your reference to Ambani, I don't think there was any scam about them to have it damage the brand's reputation. It would also be pertinent to note that the spat between the two brothers has had an effect on its share price - a good indicator of how the market is viewing the brotherly fights! Something that my post was trying to highlight.
so do u suggest that CKR should slowly start drifting away from the brand CAVINKARE?? but i always thought either ways it will affect the brand, even if he is the face or not...it is still going down....=)
I don't think any visa scam or sex scandal can bring down the image os Saravana Bhavan. In fact, there is not much of a correlation between these controversies and the business they are into.
Suppose if Saravana Bhavan owners are held for some scandals which is closely connected to their business like
* food being adulterated
* unhygienic method of cooking
* harmful ingredients and so on
may be scandals like these will have an impact on the brand.
Sathish sir is right in saying that a brand grows independently of it's owner. All I can say is brands like Sarvana Bhavan is about food and that is what matters.But there are some anomalies, the past presents.If you see the case of Balu Jewellers, once flourishing is now reduced to a size of a oversize potti kadai(pan-shop),courtesy Mr.Balu the proprietor. In social circles Mr. Rajagopal's image might have got tarnished or he has probably entered a higher league of criminals. I don't think anything can tarnish a food related brand but half boiled idlis and water-laden sambhar vadais. But there are brands which get bruised because of the show runners. Couple of them probably are, I can think of at this moment, Infosys, a time when Nandan Nilenkani was framed for misbehaving with a female colleague. The great Sarvana Stores 'inferno' which now does not find a space in the papers on what is happening. The crowd going there has come down but not alarmingly.Perhaps time is the healer be for good or bad.
But thanks to Satish sir I guess owners can learn from this blog, is try not to associate to much with their brands lest they fall prey to their own fancies.
my friends how come you just go on talk like this with out knowing the basic facts about saravana bhavan,offcourse leave about the facts you people dont even know the basic information about the saravana bhavan.
what he said is the hotel saravana bhavan was started in the year 1971.is that real?.better go through the saravana bhavan website and know the date and year of starting.please donot talk all rubbish without knowing the facts.
please for god sake .
lets see whether life imprisonment on Mr. Raja Gopal will have impact r not...then it will be clear about branding and positioning concept.
Sir,
Can you give me some examples for brand Re positioning
Thanks in advance
Regards
Supriya K
Supriya, Horlicks repositioned itself years back - from being a health drink for elders to being a nourishing drink for kids. Arm & Hammer, in the U.S. repositioned itself from being a baking soda to being a refrigerator deodorant. Trust this answers your query.
i would definitely agree with your statement, that the brand should separate itself from its promoter.
An example would be what happened to the famous (now infamous) Gerald Ratner .He was formerly chief executive of the major British jewellery company Ratners Group (now the Signet Group) .
He made the group into success by putting in his effort for long 30 years until one day a joke he said in a public function about the company made him lose all he had in life.
After the speech, the value of the Ratners' group plummeted by around £500 million, which very nearly resulted in the firm's collapse.
This happened because of the firm association Ratner had with his brand.
You can read more about this if you click on to the link http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2701311.ece
Post a Comment