MASCOTS:When they work and when they don't
Jagdeep Kapoor
Brand Guru; Managing Director,
Samsika Marketing Consultancy

Many years ago when 7-up was launched in India the mascot Fido Dido was used. It became extremely popular, with it being highlighted on television as well as other media. In fact there were lunch boxes, schoolbags, water bottles and many other kid items using the mascot because of its popularity. It is an easy name to pronounce and was young and trendy in its attire and outlook, but did it help the sales of 7-up?
Recently, Gattu, the boy mascot for Asian paints was quietly withdrawn. The brand was being given a contemporary look and was rejuvenated. In the process, the mascot was removed. Was the withdrawal of the mascot a good decision?
The Air-India Maharaja has been a mascot for Air-India for many years clearly welcoming passengers all across the world, symbolizing a Maharaja like treatment to its travellers. In between, a few years ago there was an attempt to change the logo and the styling of Air-India. Has the consistent use of the Maharaja mascot been useful to Air India for its business?
These and many other questions come to the mind of a brand marketer while using or deciding to use mascots in their brand strategy. In my opinion a four-step model needs to be used to be able to evaluate when is it that brand mascots work and when is it that they don’t work.
Before putting forth a model for evaluating brand mascots, I would like to highlight that the real meaning of a mascot is ‘a person or animal or thing that is supposed to bring luck to its users.’ If brand mascots work then the term ‘Brand Mascots’ is appropriate. If ‘Brand Mascots’ do not work then I would like to call them ‘Brand Mass Costs.’ It means that effective ‘Brand Mascots’ increase awareness, sales and profits whereas ineffective ‘Brand Mascots’ do not amass customers or wealth, yet incur ‘MASS COSTS.’
Let us call this model ‘Brand Mascots versus Brand Mass Costs.’

1. Relevance Versus Irrelevance
The first thing in this model is to check whether the category for which the mascot is being conceived is relevant or not. If it is a highly industrial category or a highly technical category, it may be prudent to look at other branding means rather than use ‘BRAND MASCOTS.’ This is because the target audience is serious and there is high probability that they may consider mascots frivolous and casual, thereby destroying the rational product story, the technical competence as well as the product efficacy image. While on the other hand in categories like services, FMCG or other consumer products, a ‘Brand Mascot’ may work out to be relevant and effective. Thus the first step is to check whether a ‘Brand Mascot’ may be relevant to your brand category or not.

2. Attract versus Distract
If the ‘Brand Mascot’ is able to attract consumers towards the brand, not only in terms of awareness, but also in terms of trials, purchase, consumption and repeat purchases, then the ‘Brand Mascot’ is working. However, if the Brand Mascot distracts from the brand and its products and service usage, then it would just be a Brand Mass Cost. In fact many years ago, 7-up lost its product usage because Fido Dido actually distracted consumers from the product. Consumers bought the concept of Fido-Dido - the ‘Brand Mascot’ and did not buy 7-Up, the brand itself. There is a very thin line between attraction and distraction and must be worked on very carefully.

3. Focus versus Hocus-Pocus
Over a period of time there has been a focus on the Air-India Maharaja. Its consistent usage has definitely helped the Air-India business and created a special identity reflecting the culture and splendour of India and its history. The ‘Brand Mascot’ clearly symbolises that the passenger would be treated like a King. This focus has helped. In some other cases constantly changing brand mascots under the garb of boredom leads to a shallow, inconsistent hocus-pocus thus leading to ineffectiveness.

4. Brand Mainline Versus Brand Sidelined
Everything a ‘Brand Mascot’ stands for should keep the brand in the mainline and mainstream to bring out its core values and benefits. It should let either the brand or its benefits get sidelined. There was a feeling that Gattu, the ‘Brand Mascot’ of Asian paints had outlived its utility and the brand was brought back in the mainline with Gattu being removed so that the mother brand does not get sidelined. If a choice has to be made between the brand and the brand mascot, it is better that the ‘Brand Mascot’ be sidelined because ultimately the brand is the hero and celebrity, whereas the mascot is only a support.
Thus we see that as per this model if the 4 parameters are appropriately evaluated, ‘Brand Mascot’ will work, otherwise it may turn out to be just a ‘Brand Mass Cost.’ After all a mascot is supposed to bring good luck to the user, isn’t it?