S. Ramachander remembers...

Marketing Loses a Star

by S. Ramachander

When Prof. Labdhi Bhandari died in the air crash at Ahmedabad on 19 October 1988, the marketing profession in India lost one of its outstanding advocates. He was only 40 years old, but had already compressed into two decades, an exceptional career as a student, researcher, manager, professor and consultant. But then he was always precocious in the best meaning of the term. He was the youngest student on record at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in its second batch and went on to become easily the youngest senior manager at Hindustan Lever. 

A list of his attainments will show an unusual commitment to excellence: he won a top rank at IIM-A overcoming the handicap of an entirely Hindi medium undergraduate background. After a short but brilliant managerial stint, went on to an award winning doctoral dissertation at Columbia University. On his return he rose to be one of the most respected senior members of the faculty not only at the IIM but in the entire country. His consultancy assignments kept following in from the public and the private sectors. He was associated with prestigious, national policy level projects concerning the Tea Board, the Planning Commission, the Public Distribution System for Essential Commodities, and Family Planning, to mention just a few that I personally knew of. Only last year he added two more distinctions to this impressive list: a $10,000 research grant from the US and the STC Chair in Marketing. 

He remained consistently unflustered by the attention and the glamour of the multinational marketing world. Directorships of companies like EID Parry and Enfield India were to him the same as helping a friend out unobtrusively with a small scale marketing experiment which intellectually challenged him. He was very conscious of the fact that he was - and wished to be - a simple person, all of a piece. He never bothered to conceal his roots and cultural origins in semi-urban Rajasthan, to which he came back to do all his field work for his PhD thesis at Columbia University.  

His doctoral research concentrated on the adoption process of family planning by the rural population of Rajasthan and the resulting thesis emerged as the best among all those received that year in the US Universities towards a PhD in Marketing. It was later published as a book. which could serve as a model for any aspiring scholar. 

As a writer, Labdhi's style was like the man himself - spare, lean, precise and without the slightest air of pomp. Not for him the flamboyance of his friends in the ad. world nor the turgid prose of the more typical Americanised researcher. In speech, he came across with a directness and a light touch of humour which was often self deprecating and poking fun at the most irritatingly superficial ways of his own countrymen. He made no bones of the fact that the over glamorizing of the face of Marketing was a serious disservice to it both as a discipline as well as a profession.  

To his students of marketing it was nothing short of a privilege to attend his heavily over-subscribed elective courses which were a runaway success. While he was highly successful as a teacher, he was a stern disciplinarian, demanding very long hours on project work from his students. But he rewarded them with personal attention and detailed feedback often lasting 12 hours in a single day. 

I have had the privilege of knowing him for 23 years and our careers have run a strangely parallel course from Ahmedabad to Lever to the US and back to the Institute. Working closely with him, although as a visiting faculty over the last five years, I have had many a long discussion often late into the night on almost everything under the sun. He was seldom dogmatic or highly demonstrative but always had a thoughtful point to make. His somewhat shy and self effacing manner, particularly noticeable in the early stage of his career, often misled some people to thinking that he could be easily won over. But nothing was further from the truth. He was intellectually strong and had enormous courage. I should like to think that he went equally courageously - with few regrets. But when I next go to the campus, I shall miss the routine walk down the road through a smoky winter evening to his lawns where a welcome cup of tea and snacks invariably awaited me - or a message that he was out of town. 

But let me not be selfish. It has been a privilege knowing Labdhi for half his life. And for that one should be grateful. 

* This tribute to LRB was written by the Late S. Ramachander in 1988, soon after LRB's death. It was published in the IIM-A Alumnus magazine in January 1989. Mr. Ramachander, himself a pioneer of marketing, passed away in 2008. 

LRB resigns from Hindustan Lever

LRB's resignation letter from HLL

On November 30, 1971, after 4 and a half years at Hindustan Lever Ltd., LRB finally submitted his resignation. He addressed the letter to David Webb, the Vice Chairman of HLL and requested that he be relieved by the end of the year. Tte decision to leave had been a difficult one that he had mulled over for a long time (and one that would write about in the future). LRB was leaving to join the faculty of IIM Ahmedabad as a young (he was 23) Assistant Professor to build a career in academics. In a few months, he would move to New York to join the Doctoral programme at Columbia Business School. 

It appears that LRB put a lot of time into composing this short resignation letter. Despite its brevity, the letter's tone, tenor and language has been carefully crafted. He takes pains to convey his reasons for moving on, emphasizing his firm belief that academics is his true calling. Like he would say in an interview years later, he "didn't leave to leave Levers". HLL had made a big contribution to LRB's personal growth and professional development. He had also tasted great success there. It seems clear that he felt a connection with the company and did not want to snap ties or leave his colleagues with an unpleasant feeling. Indeed, the letter acknowledges his deep gratitude and fond regard for the company and talks about staying in touch. The language is of a protege saying goodbye to his mentor. 

Hindustan Lever was sad to see LRB leave. It is very likely that LRB had been identified as a 'lister' - one of a few individuals identified by the company for potential fast-track advancement to top management. Prof. SK Bhattacharya, one of his mentors at IIM-A, once told a colleague that Levers rated LRB very highly, and that "if Labdhi had not left Hindustan Lever, he would have joined the company's Board of Directors in a few years."

On the cusp of his transition from HLL to IIM Ahmedabad, on the 30th of December, 1971, LRB would hear the sad news of the unexpected passing of Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, the visionary founding father of IIM-A. LRB would join the institute on the 3rd of January 1972. 3 days later, on the 6th of January, he would be joined by another young turk - CK Prahalad. That very month, on the the 25th of January 1972, Ravi J. Mathai, the celebrated Director of IIM Ahmedabad, and the man who had done the most to attract LRB and CKP to the institute, would drop a bombshell in the first faculty meeting of the year - he would be voluntarily stepping down from his position. The IIM-A torch was gently being passed to a new generation. 

Transcript of letter

November 30, 1971

Mr. D. F. Webb

Vice Chairman

Hindustan Lever Ltd. 

Through: R. A. Tofts

Dear Mr. Webb, 

It is with deep regret that I request you to accept my resignation from the Company in order to work towards a doctoral degree in the field of management studies in U.S.A. 

It is no secret that I have always been drawn towards academic pursuits and indeed the years with Hindustan Lever have been a highly educative and rewarding experience for me. However, it is only at the University, I believe, that I can find my true vocation - at least for the immediate future. A specific opportunity has now come my way as a result of which I now propose to join the faculty of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, preparatory to my doctoral studies. Towards this end, I request that I be released from the services of the Company by 31st December, 1971. 

I would like to take this opportunity to record my gratitude to the company for all that has been done for my professional training and development. May I add that it is my appreciation of what I owe the Company that makes it difficult for me to consider serving the firm with anything less than total commitment.

I contemplate a career in management education and I hope to be in touch regularly. Should I ever be in a position to be of service to Hindustan Lever, I would consider it a privilege to render such help. 

With kind regards, 

Yours sincerely 

Labdhi Bhandari

Dr. NCB Nath remembers....

I first met Labdhi at Hindustan Lever when he joined as a management trainee in 1967, and I was the head of marketing for vegetable oils. One thing that was interesting about him was that he came from Hindi-medium schools. Normally, the trainees in these companies were from the English-educated lot and belonged to a particular social group. So, Labdhi was a different person compared to the others and when he joined, we were wondering how he would make his mark in the company, But, he did extremely well, and was very respected in his group. All the senior managers thought he was a very promising person. We were very surprised when he left Levers for his PhD and then became an academic at IIM-A. 

Later, I was a visiting faculty at IIM Ahmedabad, where Labdhi was a marketing Professor and we would meet regularly. And, for about two terms, they made me the Chair Professor in International Business at the institute. By this time I had joined as Director with Steel Authority of India and State Trading Corporation. I set up the first course in International Marketing in India and taught it for three years. After I left, Labdhi then took over the course, improved it and then taught it. I remember he met me somewhere and told me about the changes he had made. And I told him, 'you're doing a better job than I had done, so carry on'. 

Labdhi was a very friendly person and he had very few people who spoke ill of him. He was able to get along with a lot of people of different kinds. For instance, the IIM-A faculty consist of a lot of different kinds of characters. He was able to make friends with a lot of them and no one ever said anything against him. In Sanskrit there is a term that applies to him very well, he was "Ajatashatru" - one whose enemies are unborn. 

Labdhi was also a very humble person and didn't show off at all. Normally people who are bright, I think, talk too much about themselves. He came across as low-key, someone who knew his strengths but did not exhibit them. I remember one instance of this. Many years ago, we had a conference in Delhi, organized by the All India Management Association. I remember Ratan Tata was presiding over a meeting, where Labdhi made a very good point which has now become part of the marketing lore. He said that, in developing countries competition does not mean trying to win market-share. Instead, competition is about creating new areas of activity. People used to define competition as a fight for increasing market-share, something like between two armies. Labdhi said this does not apply to developing countries, because the level of consumption is very low. There is a much greater opportunity if you create new areas of marketing. This is called broadening marketing scope instead of fighting for market-share. Years later, this particular concept was articulated and popularized by Prof. Nirmalya Kumar in London as 'market-driving rather than market-driven strategies'. To the best of my knowledge, Labdhi was the first person to advance this thesis. I don't think many people picked it up, but I remember telling him that this is an excellent thought and you should develop it. I don't know if he wrote about it or not, but today it is accepted as a key theoretical idea in marketing strategy. By his nature, he never tried to sell himself, but if he was the pioneer of the concept, he should be recognized. Labdhi's point has stayed in my mind, and I always quote him whenever I talk about marketing strategy. 

*Dr. NCB Nath was a senior colleague of LRB at Hindustan Lever and IIM, Ahmedabad and has had a long career in business and management education. 

Detergent wars: Surf vs Sway, circa 1969

At IIM-A, the dominant pedagogical tool was the case study, a device that utilizes real-life situations for instruction. In writing his early case studies at IIM-A, LRB relied on experiences in his own professional and personal life. His first case-study, entitled "Consumer Products Ltd."  was written while he was still at Hindustan Lever and was co-authored with his colleague and friend at HLL, Diwan Arun Nanda. It is based on his own experience of managing Surf and tackles the problem of countering a competitor's successful promotional campaign. In this post, we examine this case study as a historical document and, with the help of the print advertising record and the testimony of his colleagues and friends, attempt to reconstruct the events that it is based on.

In July 1969 LRB, not yet 21 years old, was promoted to the position of Product Manager in the washing products group at Hindustan Lever. With this, he took over profit responsibility for the Surf detergent powder brand from his boss, BA Vatsal who was busy developing a new product - the RIN detergent bar. The washing products group was a major profit centre for HLL, indeed its most valuable profit centre contributing 70% of the company's revenue and 80% of its profits. And Surf was one of the company's most important brands. It was an important assignment. A year later, impressed by his performance, HLL's marketing director David Webb would promote him, out-of-turn, to the envy of his seniors. We trace that one year - July 1969 to June 1970 -  in LRB's professional life.

Surf was India's leading detergent, or washing powder, as the category was referred to at the time. Washing powders were relatively new to the Indian market. A vast majority of fabric washing was still done with the traditional washing soaps. The case study provides us with an overview of the market as it existed at the time:

A typical washing soap brand produced by a small-scale unit

"The fabric washing market consisted mainly of two product groups: washing soaps and washing powders (detergents). Small-scale units operating in very small, localized areas contributed more than three-fourths of the washing soap. These small-scale manufacturers did not have any national distribution, and their products were generally sold within a radius of 100 miles of the plant location. On the other hand, the production of washing powders (detergents) required greater technical know-how and was located entirely in the organized large-scale sector of the industry. Although the size of the washing powder market was one-tenth of the washing soap market, it compared favorably in profitability because of its higher margins. The use of washing powders was restricted to the urban population, and within the urban population it was concentrated in large towns. The potential for growth of washing powders was high in small towns; at the same time, the market in larger towns was highly competitive. Difficulties of distribution and the high cost of going to the smaller towns did not allow the manufacturers of washing products to employ their own distribution system in these towns. That left the transportation of stocks to the smaller markets to the wholesale trade channel."

The washing powders (detergents) market in India was created in 1956-57 when a company called Swastik Oil Mills, owned by the Ambalal Sarabhai family, launched a white detergent called 'Det' that soon became popular in eastern India. HLL followed suit with the blue Surf which, thanks to their deep pockets, marketing knowhow and extensive network of well-trained salespersons, quickly established itself as the market leader in the rest of the country. Swastik launched another, cheaper detergent called Sway which it sold in bulk tins of 2 kg size. The large blue tins that Sway was sold in were often recycled to be used as kitchen containers, leaving lasting imprints in the memories of people who grew up in those years. In 1966, Tata Oil Mills Company (TOMCO) launched 'Magic', taking some share away from both HLL and Swastik.  By the beginning of 1969, these four products - Surf, Det, Magic and Sway accounted for over 95% of the market. Surf was way ahead with 75-80% of the marketshare, Magic with 10%, Det with 7-8% and Sway with 3-4%.

Swastik (which was, by then, being managed by Dr. Vikram Sarabhai) wanted to challenge HLL's dominant position in this market. However, this was easier said than done. As things stood, neither Det nor Sway could meaningfully compete with Surf because, with its much bigger marketshare and revenue, HLL outspent them by about 7 times in advertising for Surf. Unless Swastik managed to quickly and significantly increase their marketshare, they would not have the revenue to sustainably finance a meaningful level of advertising to challenge Surf's dominant position. Therefore, the first step was to increase sales through a low-cost promotion so that a higher advertising budget could be made available to compete with Surf. Swastik set itself an ambitious target. They aimed to increase their combined marketshare from 10-12% to about 25%.

For this purpose, Swastik chose Sway (marketshare of 3-4%) instead of the more popular Det (marketshare of 7-8%). Sway was the cheapest powder in the market and therefore had the highest margins after variable cost (Rs. 1600/tonne compared to Rs. 1000-1100/tonne for the other three products). Therefore, all things being equal, a jump in sales of Sway would translate into a bigger war chest for future marketing support than a similar jump in Det sales could. Moreover, the company had recently improved Sway's formulation and launched it in two smaller-sized carton packs of 700 gm and 200 gm just like Surf. It was also blue, like Surf, making it that much harder for consumers to differentiate the different quality of the powders inside. The time was ripe and, so, in the beginning of 1969, Swastik decided to execute their plan by launching a very attractive promotion for their 700 gm pack. And thus began India's first detergent war.

Swastik's bucket promotion for Sway

Swastik started printing gift coupons with serial numbers on its 700 gm cartons. Consumers were informed, through a concomitant advertising campaign, that if they collected 6 such packets of Sway, they could exchange them in-store for a free plastic bucket. It was a generous promotion. Plastic buckets had only recently become available in India and were widely perceived as preferable to the traditional, galvanized-tin alternative. They were also more expensive, selling in the market for Rs. 6, almost twice as much as the traditional alternative (a packet of Surf, for comparison, cost Rs. 4.50). A bucket also represented a modern, improved, less tiring washing method - soaking instead of scrubbing - that all detergent manufacturers, and especially HLL, had been evangelizing through demonstrations. Buying a bucket meant an extra expense, however, and thus, the opportunity to obtain a bucket for free was very attractive.

The requirement to collect 6 packs over three months also meant that for consumers who decided to go for the promotion, their purchases would represent all their detergent needs for about 3-4 months. As a result, at least for those three months, they would switch from a competitor's product, likely Surf, and remain loyal to Sway. In addition, though the bucket cost Rs. 6 in the market, Swastik could negotiate deep discounts because of their bulk order. And, as the the bucket was being offered free, there would be no additional retailer's margin. In essence, the retailers were subsidizing the promotion by stocking the buckets without charge.

The promotional offer took competitors, and especially HLL, completely by surprise and they were caught off-guard. Initially, they dismissed Sway as an inferior product that wouldn't work, and expected that the need to purchase 6 packets would deter consumers. Over the next three months, however, with the help of the promotion, Sway made major gains in the market. By the end of the first month, Sway's marketshare had jumped from 3-4% to 10%. By the end of four months, it had further shot up to 20%. The huge increase was mainly at the expense of Surf.

The case-study gives us a flavor of the reaction inside HLL at various levels through a set of representative (though probably imaginary) conversations. It doesn't name the individuals, only their positions. But, by talking to people who worked at HLL at the time, we have been able to put names to those conversations. The first such conversation is between the energetic David Webb, then the Marketing Director and JC Chopra, the Marketing Controller. It shows HLL management's growing concern at their dropping marketshare and an acceptance of the fact that they had a problem at hand.

--

David Webb (Marketing Director): Well, having looked at the marketshare figures up to July and the various reports of the success of Sway, what do you propose we do?

JC Chopra (Marketing Controller): I have thought over this problem. Despite our initial feeling that Sway would be a failure, we now see that it is doing very well. If they carry on at this rate, they will certainly be a major threat to our marketshare. They can afford such heavy promotion due to their cheaper formulation. I personally feel, that we should, as soon as possible, introduce a second brand which would have an inferior formulation but equal to Sway. This new product should be heavily consumer promoted at about the same level of expenditure on promotions due to the higher margins we will make if sold at a price equal to Surf and Sway. Alternatively the product can be sold at a lower price than Sway.

David Webb: That is certainly an alternative we must consider. I suggest that we start working on this straight away and meanwhile we could have a full scale meeting of our entire marketing team and try to decide the course of action that we must take to bring back our marketshare to its original level.

--

The second conversation is between Bhau (KS) Phansalkar, who was then the General Sales Manager of Soaps and Detergents, and a regional Sales Manager. It betrays urgency and some panic amongst the sales force and a strong feeling that the only way out of this situation is for HLL to counter with a similar promotion.

--

Bhau Phansalkar (General Sales Manager): What is the situation of washing powders in your area? 

Sales Manager: Sway is making heavy inroads into our sales with their new pack. In the past, with the bulk pack, this brand represented an insignificant part of the market. The main reason for their success is the very generous consumer offer they have run. At this rate, we will have to come down on our sales estimates. I am not sure I will be able to meet my target. 

Bhau Phansalkar: Well, you see, due to their inferior formulation and a higher margin, they can afford to spend more than we can on consumer promotions. But our product is definitely superior and we should be able to win back our marketshare. 

Sales Manager: Consumer promotion is a very effective sales medium to the retail stores and the consumers. I am afraid if they continue at this rate, we will find it very difficult to keep pressure on our sales and achieve our estimates. We must counter immediately with a promotion as heavy as their or we would lose out. 

Bhau Phansalkar: Well, then your recommendation seems to be that we enter the rat race and promote Surf heavily to the consumer. Are we sure we cannot get away with offering less due to our better product, giving promotions like we have in the past. 

Sales Manager: I am convinced that unless we step up our expenditure per tonne to the level that Sway is spending, we will not be able to sell our product. 

--

By the end of July, it was clear that there was an 'urgent need to act'. It was clear that HLL would have to counter this onslaught. There was a growing belief amongst the sales force and some of the marketing managers that HLL should counter with a similar high-value promotion. But how? Sway's lower cost and higher margin meant that they had an extra Rs. 600/tonne that could be used for the promotion. Indeed, HLL calculated that Swastik must be spending close to Rs. 700/tonne for the  bucket promotion. Given that Swastik started with a very low marketshare, any money they were spending on the promotion would give them new customers. On the other hand, even in July, HLL still had a 68% market share. If they offered a similar promotion, most of the money they would spend on the offer would end up subsidizing a large number of their existing customers (essentially giving them a free bucket) and only a small proportion would go towards wresting back those that switched to Sway. In other words, the same promotion would be much more expensive for HLL than it had been for Swastik. As a result, they would take a hit on profits in the process of regaining their marketshare. Moreover, once HLL got into the game, it would be a vicious cycle, where consumers may begin to expect such offers (or a lower price), thus reducing profitability in the longer-term.

A meeting at HLL. LRB is second the left. Diwan Arun Nanda is 5th from the left.

LRB had grasped this, and took a contrarian view - that HLL should not counter with a similar, high-value promotion. On the contrary, they should put whatever money they could into advertising the superior quality of Surf. The case-study provides us with another conversation, this time between LRB and Diwan Arun Nanda, the two co-authors. Diwan Arun Nanda was the promotions manager, who was responsible for planning and executing the advertising and consumer promotion campaigns to meet the marketing strategy that the management came up with. He was the one who would work with Lintas and other agencies to get the ads made and work with other parties to get them shown. LRB, on the other hand, as Product Manager for Surf was responsible for its profits and therefore decided what the budget for advertising and promotions would be, and therefore had a say on what the money was used for. Both LRB and DAN were good friends, both having graduated from IIM-A from the 2nd and the 1st batch respectively. In this conversation, both of them express two differing views about what should be done to counter Sway's growth.

--

Diwan Arun Nanda (Promotions Manager): Labdhi, I have come to discuss the results of the consumer promotion that Sway has run for the last four months. Their promotion has certainly been an outstanding success as one can see from the marketshare figures as well as the  reports we have received from our sales management throughout the country. I would like, immediately, to get an additional budget for promotion and promote Surf at about the same level as Sway to win back our marketshare. Being better organized, we should be able to mount more effective promotions than theirs, but ultimately the gift should be as attractive to the consumer as the gift that Sway is giving away and this will mean about the same level of expenditure. For this I feel you should cut down on your theme advertising for Surf and divert some of this money to promotions straight away.

Labdhi Bhandari (Product Manager): Arun, I don't agree with you here. I feel that we should not indulge in such heavy promotional expenditure as Sway has done because this will get us into a vicious cycle. We have been selling Surf on the basis of its superior formulation and performance. This fact should be highlighted now more strongly and sharply through heavier theme advertising. We should put as much of our money as we can into theme advertising to convince the customer that when she buys Sway with gifts of such high value, she does so by settling for an inferior product. For this, I would like to place all my money in press, cinema, and point-of-sale material.

Diwan Arun Nanda: Labdhi, the reach of the media in the country, as you well know, is very limited. Apart from point-of-sale material which can be put up in all places, you can only cover a very small fraction of your total target through press and cinema. If, for instance, we had TV as widely as one does abroad, your point would make sense as the target consumers could be reached through theme media. But looking at the difficulties and the inadequate reach of the media in this country, it is essential that we consumer-promote heavily in order to win back what we have lost. Unless we do this, we will be on the losing end and Sway would do well mainly at our expense, we being the biggest brand in the market. We should, and I insist that we must, start consumer promoting Surf at the same level as Sway as soon as possible.

--

The case-study ends, as it is meant to, at this point. It does not tell us what LRB, DAN and the rest of HLL's marketing management decided to do in the end. In future years, students at IIM-A would have to step into the shoes of LRB and DAN, and come up with a strategy that would pass muster of their sharp teachers, including LRB. They would usually start by suggesting the strategy of countering with a similar promotion. Sometimes, someone would make the mistake of suggesting, that HLL offer something 'bigger', and end up earning a sarcastic put-down from LRB: "Like a bathroom, for instance?"

In the classroom, LRB would lead the discussion to the realization that while Surf had lost marketshare, it had not lost sales. Swastik's promotion had brought in new consumers of detergents, likely only for the short-term, and they had swelled Sway's marketshare. Gaurav Shinghal, PGP '82, remembered that when a fellow student put forth a strategy that involved winning marketshare at the cost of lower profits, LRB, in his typical style, would take this line of reasoning to its absurd logical conclusion: "So, in the share-holder's meeting, the company will announce that they had done a fabulous job of increasing marketshare. This has led to a drop in profits. 'So, this year share-holders, we will be distributing marketshare instead of dividends.'" From this indirect evidence, we can probably hazard a guess what LRB did in 1969.

To find out what actually happened, we need to turn to the historical record and the testimony of witnesses. One good way to find out what happened is to look at the advertising from the time. While its no longer easy (or even possible) to find point-of-sale material or cinema ads, we can look for print advertisements in newspaper archives. We carefully combed through the Times of India Bombay editions from 1969 and 1970 to find all the Surf advertisements that appeared in the period.

The 'strong and sharp' message
about Surf's superior formula.

There were essentially two Surf ads that we found. One took a completely rational approach in an elaborate presentation with the following message: ONE wash with Surf was better than TWO with any other washing powder. Laboratory tests were emphasized and customers were encouraged to try out an experiment and prove this fact for themselves. Indeed, the ad was almost presented like a theorem to be proved by the consumers through their own experience, with a step-by-step graphic to boot. This was essentially the 'strong and sharp' message about Surf's superior formulation that LRB was arguing for.

The second ad presented a consumer promotion. It offered an 'attractive serving tray from Metal Box' in exchange for three red gift coupons which could be obtained from the economy packs (700 gm) of Surf. This was more akin to the kind of promotion that DAN and the sales force was arguing for, though, 45 years later its hard to judge how 'attractive' this offer would have been for the target consumers in that era. Indeed, the advertisement itself appears hesitant, clarifying that, in fact, Surf's best gift was its superior washing power. This offer was only available in Delhi and Bombay, the main big-city markets and this promotion announcement appeared only twice in the Times of India that year, compared to the rational 1-wash-whiter-than-2-washes theme, which appeared much more frequently. In the end, the advertising record suggests that LRB must have won over the marketing management to his point of view. Most of HLL's Surf advertising spend seems to have gone into 'stronger and sharper' theme advertising highlighting Surf's superior formulation.

Another kind of historical record are the media reports of the time and later. They do not seem to have taken much notice of this detergent war bar one oft-told story that did emerge. Journalists reported a cheeky tactic that HLL used to put a spanner in Sway's promotion. Apparently, HLL made a list of all the plastic manufacturers and bought their stocks of plastic buckets, thus choking up their supply. Swastik was then unable to fulfill its promotional offer because buckets were simply not available. This, the story goes, led to consumer disillusionment and the decline of the promotion.

Given that it has been over 45 years, witnesses are hard to find. Many of the key principals are no longer alive: LRB, BA Vatsal, David Webb have all passed away. Siddharth 'Shunu' Sen, a key member of the marketing management at HLL has also passed away. We are still waiting for a chance to speak to Bhau Phansalkar, JC Chopra and Diwan Arun Nanda. One witness who we did speak to is Hrishikesh Bhattacharyya, a close friend and colleague of  LRB at HLL, and the person who would become product manager of Surf later, in 1972. He confirms our earlier suspicion that their first strategy was to try and regain Surf's marketshare by increasing advertising spend with a new, more competitive campaign (though he did not remember the consumer promotion with the tray). Mr. Bhattacharyya also tells us, interestingly, that this approach did not work in the end. LRB's friend, Amar Chakravarty, who took over from him in July 1970 would then try the other strategy, launching a series of high-value promotions. That strategy did win back marketshare, but at a higher cost per tonne. By the time Mr. Bhattacharyya took over as Surf's product manager in 1972, they would settle on a mix of promotions and advertising spends. Soon, though, Karsanbhai Patel's Nirma, which had started in 1969, started impacting the market. Eventually, Sway would disappear and a new set of detergent wars would begin between Surf and Nirma.

*This note was prepared by Apoorva Bhandari based on a number of historical documents: Consumer Products Ltd. (originally called Household Products Ltd.), a case study co-authored by LRB and Diwan Arun Nanda in 1970, a case-study on the Sway promotion authored by P. Choudhury in a book called Succesful Sales Promotions, the historical archive of the Times of India (Bombay edition) and archives of the Business India magazine. It also relies on the testimony of Hrishikesh Bhattacharyya, and the students of PGP '82. 

Ronald D'Costa remembers...

Straight from XLRI into Marketing Research (MR) is not the usual route someone took in HLL (as it was known at that time). But, thanks to Alex Mitchel, the head of MR who was in a hurry to bring about to change in the department, thats where I was put. And within a year Labdhi was also shifted to MR, to head the Client Services Group. This again sent the right signal that MR means business. And Labdhi did mean business.

He is an example of intellectual pride used to an advantage. He knew his strengths and constantly searched for new skills to build on. He couldn't suffer fools and was impatient when he was with them.

Years later, after even I had left HLL and was working in Reckitt & Colman, we met in Madras at the The Connemara Hotel. By then, he was on the boards of several companies besides being at IIM Ahmedabad. I was happy to receive very specific insights into his experiences with people and products...and his arrogance is what I enjoyed the most.

But the story I repeat almost every month is about a Rajasthani youth who could speak only hindi till he joined IIM A and then clawed himself up to the standards of those who were privleged to have gone to the English medium schools, and was with in a year or so was in sync with whatever they could converse on. Credit to IIM to have reposed faith in LRB and for him to make use of the opportunity. He never tired of rubbing this into me and especially when he corrected the english in my project report with great delight.  I still cherish my association with him, and my heart broke when I saw his name among the IA crash victims.

*Ronald D'Costa was LRB's colleague at Hindustan Lever and is now the owner of The Boulevard Hotel in Jamshedpur.

Hrishikesh Bhattacharyya remembers...

Labdhi was one of my closest friends both inside HLL and outside of the Company. We spent a lot of time together. His intellect and conceptual skills were admirable, as indeed his integrity and values. But he was also warm, generous, with a great sense of humor, and a truly loyal friend. Even today, my wife and I miss him.

I joined Hindustan Lever in June 1968 as a management trainee straight out of IIM Calcutta, and Labdhi was probably the first person I met there. He had completed his initial training by then, was an Assistant Product Manager in the Soaps and Detergents division, working with BA Vatsal who was Senior Product Manager. We soon became friends – he was at that time, sharing an office on the fourth floor of Hindustan Lever with Arun Nanda and Ramchander.

The detergent version of Lux Flakes that LRB launched.

It was standard practice at the time for young managers to be given a couple of products to cut their teeth in brand management. Labdhi started off with Vim and Lux Flakes. Vim is a dishwashing product and it still exists. Lux flakes was a soap flakes product that was positioned for use in gentle washes. During the year or so that Labdhi managed the brand, he helped develop and launch a new detergent version of Lux Flakes.

In April 1969, once I finished my field training, I took over Lux Flakes and Vim from Labdhi while he took over as Product Manager for Surf. During this period, we shared an Office, and became really close friends. Surf was an important product at the time - it was a market leader and one of the biggest earners for HLL. So, it was an important assignment. During this stint, he had to respond to an increasingly competitive marketplace that included the Sarabhai's Swastik Oil Mills and TOMCO, a Tata company. That year, Swastik Oil Mills launched a major promotions campaign that started making a significant dent in Surf's market share. We would be managing this challenge over the next few years first with Labdhi, then Amar Chakravarty, and then after I took over Surf's management.

The promotion campaign launched by Swastik Oil Mills
that initially dented Surf's market share.

As far as I remember, we first tried to regain our share by higher levels of advertising spend with a new, more competitive campaign. It did work – but not enough as we lost some market share. Then, after Amar took over Surf from Labdhi, we launched a series of high value promotions - buckets, shopping bags etc., and they did relatively well. By the time I became the Surf Product Manager in '72, we had settled on a new mix of promotions and advertising spends. Our support expenditure per ton did go up, but our market shares were regained. Around this time, Nirma started impacting the market…and that started a totally new ball game.

David Webb, an expatriate from Unilever Head Office came to HLL as Marketing Director some time in 1969. He was very energetic and fast-paced, and broke the ranks to spend time directly with young managers. He was impressed with what Labdhi was doing, felt that he had great potential, and got quite fond of him. In April1970, David sent him to Marketing Research, as a Marketing Manager as the function was under-developed at that time.

LRB at his apartment in Bhaveshwar Darshan

The three of us - Labdhi, Amar Chakravarti, and I - were very good friends and spent a good deal of time together. At the time, I was working in the Calcutta office as area sales manager. We had monthly meetings at Bombay and I would usually stay with Labdhi. He had a nice, well-furnished apartment at Bhaveshwar Darshan on Altamount Road at the time - where I spent many a night. I remember it had a table and bed that went into the wall in the living room.

Just before he left HLL, Labdhi, Amar and I spent a wonderful vacation covering many parts of North Bengal (Darjeeling, Kalimpong) and Sikkim. I think that only Labdhi amongst us had a camera…unfortunately, all the pictures are lost.

I eventually returned to Bombay in 1972 just as Labdhi had left Hindustan Lever and took over Surf from Amar. While Labdhi was in the US, we kept in touch through letters. Around this time, HLL sent me to Australia for training. My wife, Avanti, was planning to join me but there was a problem of arranging for sufficient foreign exchange. At the time, the Government strictly controlled foreign exchange. Labdhi, at the time, was nice enough to send me some dollars from whatever little he had saved from his PhD stipend.

In 1975 he was back in India for his research and got married to Santosh in March and almost immediately after the ceremonies, both of them came and stayed in Bombay at our apartment at Blue Haven for a couple of weeks. So they literally honeymooned at our house.

Once Labdhi returned to IIMA, we continued to stay in touch. I remember he would always urge me to come and take a session with his students at IIMA and I would always say, "its not my cup of tea". In 1988, he came and stayed with us in Bangalore, and again asked me to teach along with him at the marketing course for executives in Goa. This time, I agreed. However, that never happened…as a couple of weeks later, his plane crashed.

*Hrishikesh Bhattacharya was a close friend and a colleague of LRB at Hindustan Lever. He went on to a distinguished career at HLL and Unilever where he was a senior vice president in charge of the global health and wellness business. He is now a management consultant and teaches part-time at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and London Business School.

D. Ranganathan remembers...

Even after all these years, Labdhi's face came to me instantly - an unforgettable face, smiling, with a sparkle in the eyes - firm, but benevolent. I had the privilege of working with him, though only for a short period, when he was my boss in early 70s.

Let me first provide a brief background. At Hindustan Lever in 1970, Marketing Research (MR) was a part of the Management Services Group (MSG) consisting of Operations Research (OR),  Economics and Systems, all under Dr. VN Patankar. An expatriate, Alex Mitchell, came to Bombay as head of MR in 1970 and re-organised MR into two sub-groups - Client Services and Operations. He left after a year and Robert Tofts  succeeded him. Thus Mitchel gave structure to MR and Tofts imparted training on techniques evolved in the Marketing Division, London.

During Toft’s period Labdhi was appointed head of the Client Services group and four executives (myself being one) reported to Labdhi. We were all wondering why Labdhi agreed to  move to MR, because for any high-flier like him, such  a move away from a line management position would have been seen as a setback. Labdhi had a good, positive image and was considered a real future star at Levers. But we considered ourselves lucky to have such a brilliant person as our boss.

Labdhi was firm and ensured that correct MR practices were followed. In those days, the Marketing department assumed superiority and tried to enforce what they wanted. Therefore MR needed someone who could ensure that  MR was properly heard and accepted by marketing. Labdhi played this role.

I remember one story in particular. All market research projects should be initiated only after 'Action Standards' are specified by marketing. Action standards are very important, because they determine the criteria that are used to evaluate a product test and decide whether a product will be adopted or rejected. Unless a client specifies appropriate action standards before data from a product test is evaluated, the results can be interpreted in any way one wants.

On one occasion, in view of the urgency, a product test was initiated. The results came in and the marketing manager, Chakravarthy, asked me for a final recommendation. I refused to give out the results because they had not specified action standards. I stood firm and the marketing manager approached Labdhi, but he supported me and refused to reveal the results until marketing outlined the action standards. This action of Labdhi gave a clear signal to Marketing that MR will have the final word. This also ensured that in all future projects Action Standards were clearly specified before initiation.

The HLL Vice Chairman, David Webb, returned to London after his tenure was complete, but he later made one visit specifically to meet Labdhi which indicates the high regard  he had for him. Labdhi resigned from Hindustan Lever and moved back to IIM, Ahmedabad in January 1972 to take up an academic position. 

*Mr. D. Ranganathan was a colleague of LRB's at Hindustan Lever in the 1970s. 

LRB considering a career move...

Recently, we found a hand-written note written by LRB amongst his papers. In 1971 LRB was 24, and the youngest Marketing Manager at Hindustan Lever Ltd, when he likely wrote the note that we present here, as he ruminated on his future. He puts on paper his reasons for wanting to move into academics - a decision he eventually took by the end of the year by moving to IIMA and then leaving for Columbia University for his PhD. He appears to analyse the reasons for his dissatisfaction with his job and the alternatives available to him. However, in many ways, the note really serves as a justification for a choice that he appears to have already made by then, probably with his heart against much advice from friends and family. Later, he used this decision as a basis for a case he wrote at IIMA - titled 'Deepak Dey's Diary' - where he confessed: 'It is strange how I can still weigh the pros and cons of the two options and consider them nearly equally attractive even at a time when they have ceased to be options.'

Note on Career Choice - by Labdhi Bhandari

Problem: Career choice
Current Situation: Middle management job.
Progress: good.
Future prospects: good.

Reasons for re-thinking:
A combination of factors has led me to re-examine this basic issue of 'What I should be doing". The main factors responsible are:

A)
1) The current situation does not seem to offer very much to learn any more; the learning curve is flattening very fast. This is partly due to the fact that I have learnt most of what it has to offer during the last 3.5 years and partly because of the environment and the people; both of these are not conducive to learning in its real sense. This is resulting in a feeling of dissatisfaction with one self - a feeling of getting into the rut.

2) It is further accentuated by the increasing gap between "developing management science" and "management in practice". Success in a business environment is, perhaps, not consistent with developing  one's knowledge and appreciation of the science. This is partly due to historical reasons, when no formal 'science' or 'discipline' of management existed and most of the learning was 'on the job'. The demands on one's time and energy in a business organization make it very difficult to pursue one's interest in the 'discipline' especially when it does not normally have any direct bearing on the job that one is doing.

The environment within a business organization can give achievement-satisfaction and arouse new ambitions. The risk one runs in such a situation is that of narrowing one's vision, ambitions and values. Normally, this results in a commitment to the objective of 'going up in business hierarchy'.

I believe that such a commitment and deployment of all one's resources to the attainment of this objective from a very early stage must interfere with the development of one's professional competence. This 'inadequacy' is likely to interfere with one's effectiveness at a much later stage when one is nearing the top echelons of the hierarchy. It may then be too late to do anything about it.

This feeling of inadequacy is already beginning to take root in me. There is a growing desire in me to take a break from business and discover the 'science'.

B)
1) During the last few years my own awareness of 'life' around me - beyond my family and friends - has grown. Aso has the awareness and appreciation of my 'larger responsibilities'. While the basic responsibility is really to 'humanity' and to 'oneself', at the moment I feel concerned about the social and economic uplift of people in my country.

Given these feelings, I am naturally interested in the goals and interests of this society and its progress. Unfortunately, the business organisation presents a situation of "incongruence of goals". This is perhaps more so because of the kind of organization that I am in. There is a definite conflict in the interests of the organization and those of the country. With a growing feeling of larger responsibility, I am finding it increasingly difficult to identify with the interests of the organization.

2) Being in a situation where personal satisfaction from one's contribution to social progress is lacking, there is obviously a desire to look around for situations where one can apply one's mind and knowledge and have the satisfaction of fulfilling one's larger responsibilities.

C)
1) For a variety of reasons, executives in professionally-managed business organizations have been coming from well-defined social groups. This has resulted in close homogeneous groups - both working and social. They share common interests and values, although these interests and values have no relationship with the 'jobs' that they do. With the development of management science and management education, the social homogeneity of 'business executive groups' has been eroded by people who don't share their interests and values, but have got in because of factors more directly related to the 'jobs'. This is a recent trend - the majority continues to be of the 'boxwallahs'.

I do not share the values of the 'boxwallahs', and that leaves a working environment and relationships which are not as happy as they may have been.

2) In an environment where the only expression of one's achievement is one's progress in the business hierarchy, climbing up the pyramid assumes supreme importance for most people. The environment being highly competitive, it creates unpleasantness among people one has to work with. One creates enemies every time one climbs a step. I believe it is difficult to enjoy the day to day work (which occupies most of your time anyway) when you have to work with people who you know resent you.

Perhaps a system less hierarchical with opportunities other than climbing up the ladder for achievement satisfaction would be more suitable.

Alternatives:

Immediate: In view of my growing dissatisfaction with the current situation there is a need for change. Considering the factors that have contributed to the dissatisfaction, the immediate alternative seems to be going to a good school to work for a Ph.D. This should deal with the dissatisfaction and the feeling of inadequacy described under A.

Long Term: The current question is "What after a Ph.D.?" Alternatives open are:

1) Working for a business house (as I'm doing now).
2) Teaching/research/consultancy in an academic institution.
3) Consultancy on my own.
4) Working for an organisation (non-business) more directly related to social and economic progress.

For the reasons given in sections B and C, at the moment, I am not inclined to come back to a business house. The alternatives open, therefore, really are 2, 3 and 4.

Alternative no. 2 - ie Teaching/research/consultancy seems most attractive to me for a number of reasons.
i) I think I will enjoy teaching. This is only a feeling; the amount of teaching I have done so far is very little and in very different situations.
ii) I feel I will be personally more satisfied by teaching management in an underdeveloped country, where what is badly needed is management. The satisfaction of attempting to fulfil 'larger responsibilities'.
iii) Having said that 'management' is an acute need of a developing economy, it must also be said that private business houses, which are not necessarily in the sections where scarce management resources can be best used, do succeed in attracting most of the trained management graduates by virtue of generous terms they offer.

I believe that a lot can be done through teaching in terms of focussing the priorities and responsibilities of trained managers, which could have some impact on where these human resources are deployed. It could make a difference between using one's talents to convince people that one brand of shampoo is better than another, and using the same talents to sell the idea of 'family planning' or 'nutrition' or 'small enterprise'. This alternative also affords opportunities to use one's basic training in fields directly related with 'social and economic progress', through consultancy.

Alternative no. 3 is a possibility that can be built on some years of work at an academic institution.

The last alternative depends wholly on opportunities.

SL Rao remembers...

I joined Hindustan Lever as a management trainee in 1957 and left in December 1968. Those were the days of all kinds of restrictions. Unilever wanted me to get some experience working in the U.K, and gave it to me by sending me to work in Lever Brothers in exchange for one of their managers coming to India. I returned in 1963.

Some of us, who had been management trainees, started a discussion group that other managers joined (many directors wanted to come but were not invited!). In one discussion in 1967, we asked the head of personnel (a wonderful man called Dr Ranjan Banerjee) why Levers was so largely exclusive in recruiting only young, English-speaking people, mainly from the higher socio-economic classes. He proudly responded by saying that they had just selected as management trainee, a young man who had studied in Hindi medium and made the only exception till then by selecting him though he was 19, that is, below the 21 that was the rule. That was the first time that I heard of Labdhi Bhandari.

Tall, slim, with a beautiful baritone voice, deliberate in speech, he was a pleasure to meet and talk to. In the 18 months I was in the company after he joined, I met him often, and he made a deep impression upon me.

I left to head the marketing of Warner Hindustan. We were a pharmaceutical and chemicals company with ambitions of launching consumer products and I invited him in late 1971 to come in as Marketing Controller for this division. He was interested but on consideration said that Lever had asked him to go on a posting overseas and he had decided that, rather than mislead them he was resigning to pursue his academic interests. He left Lever in early 1972, joined Columbia where he took a much-acclaimed Ph.D. in 1975.

When I met Philip Kotler, the textbook guru of all students of marketing some years later, he talked very appreciatively of Labdhi who he had selected for a prestigious prize at a major conference.

I would meet him occasionally when I went to lecture at IIMA, where he had a meteoric career. I am certain that if he had been a little older he would have become Director of the institute by the mid-1980s. He was a much-loved teacher, both for his consideration and the quality of his teaching. He continued to write and publish and was involved increasingly in national policy issues.

In his sudden death in the Indian Airlines air crash at Ahmedabad in 1988 I lost a friend and the nation lost a valuable intellectual.

*SL Rao was a senior colleague of LRB at Hindustan Lever in the late 1960s and a friend. He is now Chairman, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.

K. S. Srinivasa Murty remembers...

I had known Labdhi in late 60’s and early 70’s when we were colleagues at Hindustan Lever. I joined the firm in 1968 as a management trainee, a year after he joined. Around 1970, I was involved in a pioneering effort at HLL, to use continuous consumer panels for evaluating test markets for new products and studying brand loyalty. As a manager in the operations research department during that period, I developed the required analytics for consumer panel data analysis. Apart from developing the analytics, I had to sell this new approach the marketing team and help institutionalize it. It being the first time continuous consumer panels and the new analytics were being used in India there was considerable skepticism and it took quite a bit of effort on my part and some strong support from a few colleagues in the Marketing group, to sell this new approach as a relevant tool/aid to decisions relating to test markets, consumer promotions, brand loyalty etc. Labdhi was one of the colleagues who strongly supported our effort and helped in the adoption of this new approach to analysis.

About a year or so later Labdhi moved from Product manager’s role to lead the market research team. While he was the deputy to an Expatriate Market Research Specialist, who headed the department, Labdhi de facto managed the team and client relations. He effectively leveraged his sharp intellect and experience/credibility as a product manager to transform the market research team from a group of technique-focused researchers to providers of relevant consumer and customer insight. During that short stint in the Market research department, he played a significant role in improving its credibility and acceptability. I also had the opportunity to work very closely with Labdhi, in late 1971 / early ’72, when I handed over my pet project of this consumer panel data analysis to his market research team.

During my long stint in HUL, spanning over three decades, I noticed that some young managers stand out from the rest quite early in their career and are seen as destined for fast growth to the top. Ladhi, in my view, was definitely one such young manager. He demonstrated a sharp intellect, questioning and determined mind and empathy in dealing with people around him. Even though he was handling responsible roles and seemed destined to grow fast, he was clear that he would want a wider canvass, across multiple industries to work with. He acted on his belief and quit HUL to join IIM where he could combine his academic interests and the opportunity work on consulting assignments across multiple industries.

Soon after that I moved out of marketing/marketing services into the commercial function. We lost touch for a while, and touched based again in mid 80’s when I was the General Manager – Corporate Development in HLL. By then he had attained considerable fame both as one of the outstanding professors at IIM Ahmedabad as well as a strategy consultant associated with a wide range of industries.

The 'thin, lean, young executive with a strong mind'

LRB (far left) at a Hindustan Lever Ltd. gathering, probably in the early 1970s

I will always remember Labdhi as I knew him in early 70’s, the thin lean young executive (I think he was the youngest among his peer group) with a strong mind who made a great impact on every assignment he handled during those early years in HLL.

* K.S.Srinivasa Murty was a colleague of LRB at Hindustan Lever Ltd. in the late 1960s and early 70s. He retired as a VP AT HUL in 2002.

R. Gopalkrishnan remembers...

On 3rd July 1967, six wannabe managers walked into Hindustan Lever House at Backbay Reclamation at about 9 am simultaneously. All of them had been recruited under the company’s prestigious management trainee scheme. All of them had hopes in their hearts and stars in their eyes.

Of the six, two are no more: Charanjit Singh, who died in a car accident overseas, and Labdhi Bhandari, who died in a tragic plane accident on 19thOctober, 1988. Of the four who are around, Dilip Katdare, Bhagwan Advani and I are in contact. Nandurdikar is not in contact, at least with me.

This piece is a tribute to Labdhi by me, an erstwhile colleague from his trainee batch.

Fresh out of IIT Kharagpur and a hostel-experienced, starving young man, I was 50 kg (125 lbs) in weight with a near 6 foot frame. I had competition from Labdhi who had similar statistics, but was from IIMA! Compared to other trainees, I was very young, just over 21 years of age. Here too I had competition because Labdhi, if I recall right, was yet to hit 19!

I joined the computer department as an analyst, Labdhi joined the marketing department. In due course, he became the assistant brand manager for washing products. Whichever odd hour my company could get a booking at the IBM 1401 computer centre, I laboured to keep the punched card decks in order and the magnetic tapes spinning, testing whether my auto-coder codes were acceptable to the monster machine.

However Saturday was a day for catching-up and gossip. Trainees like us who were not yet in the throes of the fabled, busy life of a full-fledged manager, would have lunch together at SAMOVAR or the MLA hostel nearby.

It was clear to all of us that Labdhi was exceptionally bright. We never said so or admitted it because we were all convinced that we too were exceptionally bright. Many of us were operational by temperament, but Labdhi was cerebral. To all of us, it was self-evident that “a bunch of dodos was running Hindustan Lever”.

The top folks, it seemed to us, were not skilled at identifying the burning issues and then deal with them with the speed and efficiency we credited ourselves with. Such was the sweet innocence of freshly minted MBAs and engineers.

Three years later, around the end of 1970, Labdhi was the first from our batch to be promoted to “Grade 2.” Labdhi got a cabin to himself, as Head of Market Research in the Management Services Group, while we had to share a cabin with a colleague. Labdhi would get invited to certain meetings where we would be requested to “be available.”

All these ‘huge’ reasons were enough to cause tension and jealousy, but in a collegial and human way. It was the first milestone in our career; the results would determine to some extent who would stay on and who would leave in an intensely competitive system. It all sounds so silly in retrospect, but such setbacks, petty jealousies and foibles were instrumental in our personal development in those early days.

To Labdhi’s credit, I must add that not once did he ever wear his new found status on his sleeves. It was merely an event, just the luck of the draw. But something unexpected began to emerge in his murmurs soon after. Who wants to spend a lifetime selling soaps and toiletry products, he would ask. Surely we were destined to do better things? Like what? Like teaching and research!! It was a thunderbolt, completely out of the blue!

The thought certainly passed my mind that this guy could be afflicted with pretensions of being intellectually superior, or else why would he think of chucking up a terrific job in a premier company? And that too to teach? Or could it be that he had an inverse snobbery?

To our great surprise, he did quit to take up a teaching job back at his alma mater. It showed us that he was a person of serious thinking as well as action. He had figured out something that would make him happy and he was determined to pursue that single-mindedly. He was the first to tell me something like, “We must enjoy what we do and do what we enjoy.” That became my favourite phrase in later years and it would come back to me many times in the future.

Between 1973 and 1988, when he died, we met periodically. On one occasion, he requested me to deliver a lecture at IIM. On another occasion, he sat in on a Lever brainstorm on how Dalda could be revived. I got married and he came home for dinner. Years after that, he got married and I visited his home for dinner. Labdhi had a fiercely active mind, which was blast-furnace hot, always curious and always energizing.

In the ripeness of time in 1987, I was appointed to the board of Hindustan Lever. He was delighted and came home to say congratulations. The old petty jealousies of youth were absent. He was happy that his friend had become a director of the company that we had all grown to love. Now, I was proud that Labdhi, my friend, had become a celebrated authority on marketing and was widely respected. He was enjoying what he did, and I was enjoying what I did. We had a great evening together.

And then, suddenly on 19th October, 1988, an early morning Bombay-Ahmedabad plane crashed. With that, India lost a light, I lost a friend and many in the world mourned.

13th April, 2009

*R. Gopalkrishnan is Director, Tata Sons and was a colleague or LRB at Hindustan Lever.