HUL's tidy advertising strategy

Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013

HUL’s tidy advertising strategy – a case study of Indian laundry segment H.M. Jha ‘Bidyarthi’*, Mayur A. Dande, Pavan M. Kuchar and Satya Mohan Mishra Department of Business Administration and Research, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering, Shegaon 444 203, Maharashtra, India E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The proxy war between the brands, Rin and Tide of detergent category of the multinational giants HUL and P&G that commenced in December 2009 has entered into non-price to price war, promotion war, brand war, legal war on several fronts, unethical practices war, flouting of Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) rules, war to denigrate and outwit each other, open war and indeed what not in a ‘guerrilla marketing’ way. Though Indian marketing has seen lot of such wars, Rin vs. Tide is a rare case where one brand has challenged its competitor’s brand head on. The intervention of the law of the land has put this war temporarily on hold, and has restrained the parties from taking potshots awaiting final verdict, but the detergent episode has put under review the application strategy of side by side advertising that may take unprecedented turns in times to come in the big Indian market for gaining market share by the brands of different industries. The wrestle between the two leads to the conception of desperation-driven strategy perfected by timing of its application. Consumers’ intervention through complaints to ASCI against the tidy strategy gives another twist to it that might cause their mistrust on the brands. Keywords: comparative advertising; desperation-driven strategy; guerrilla marketing; brand mistrust; Indian advertising culture. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Jha ‘Bidyarthi’, H.M., Dande, M.A., Kuchar, P.M. and Mishra, S.M. (2013) ‘HUL’s tidy advertising strategy – a case study of Indian laundry segment’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.69–78. Biographical notes: H.M. Jha ‘Bidyarthi’ is a Professor and Head, Department of Business Administration and Research, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering, Shegaon, Maharashtra, India. His area of research is strategic management, e-governance, Indian management, etc. Mayur A. Dande is a Lecturer in the Department of Business Administration and Research, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering, Shegaon, Maharashtra, India. He teaches diverse subjects in marketing field at the postgraduate level.

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

69

70

H.M. Jha ‘Bidyarthi’ et al. Pavan M. Kuchar is a Lecturer in the Department of Business Administration and Research, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering, Shegaon, Maharashtra, India. He teaches diverse subjects in marketing field at the postgraduate level. Satya Mohan Mishra is a Lecturer in the Department of Business Administration and Research, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering, Shegaon, Maharashtra, India. He teaches diverse subjects in finance management field at the post-graduate level.

1

Introduction

The Rs. 13,000 crore Indian detergent market, as reported by the Hindustan Business Lines (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2010/03/11/stories/ 2010031150040100.htm), is the largest segment in the consumer goods sector and both players – Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Procter & Gamble (P&G) – both are struggling to protect their market share and boost profit. A bruising battle may lead to a loss of credibility and bleeding bottom lines for both brands. Both P&G and HUL are losing market share as consumers cut spending due to high food inflation. P&G’s Tide brand lost around 1.5% in market share in the 18 months till December 2009. Rival HUL’s Rin brand (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2010/03/11/stories/ 2010031150040100.htm), lost 0.6% during the same period. HUL is also facing a slower growth rate in the laundry segment (washing powder and detergent bars). HUL witnessed erosion in market share, the company’s quarterly results ending December 2009 showed a dip in revenues in the soaps and detergents segment. HUL’s revenue growth declined by 2.4% and market share dipped, which was grabbed by rival P&G. While both these companies have lost ground to smaller rivals such as Ghari and Sasa, they are taking each other on since they are the largest brands in the mid-tier category. While HUL and P&G took potshots at each other in the detergents category all through the late 1990s, things were more subtle then. The advertisement war between Hindustan Unilever’s Rin and Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) Tide has taken comparative advertising to a new level in India’s advertising history by taking on a competing brand. The trigger was P&G’s introduction of a low-priced variant under the Tide Naturals brand in December 2009. HUL admitted in the past that regional brands have been eating into its shares, and P&G’s cheaper variant added to its anxiety. The high decibel comparative advertisement of Rin generated huge buzz in the market. The direct comparative campaign evoked mixed reaction all across – amongst the industrial fraternity, media and consumers as well. That single controversial advertisement generated millions worth of buzz about the brands in question. In 1991, when P&G introduced Ariel, a premium brand, in India, HUL responded with heavy promotions for Surf. In 2005, when P&G dropped prices by 30–50% to gain market share, HUL India’s largest packaged consumer goods company by sales reacted with equivalent price cuts. To arrest its declining market share in laundry, P&G launched the Tide Naturals variant in December 2009, priced 30% cheaper than Tide. HUL responded on three fronts. In January, the unit of the Anglo-Dutch company cut prices of Rin and Surf by 10–30%. On 25 February, 2010, it filed a petition in the Madras High Court saying Tide Naturals did not contain natural substances. On 26 February, 2010, it launched an

HUL’s tidy advertising strategy

71

advertisement that said Rin washed whiter than Tide, naming the rival brand. But if HUL’s segment-wise revenues are reviewed over the years, it is found that there is no major loss of revenue in the detergents segment in terms of percentage of the total revenues as obvious from Table 1 (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2010/ 03/11/stories/2010031150040100.htm). The statistics of Table 1 do not show a fall in revenues in the detergents segment except for 2000 and 2003. Table 1

Showing HUL’s revenues from detergents segment as percentage of total revenues

S. no.

Year

HUL’s revenues in the detergents segment (percentage of total revenues)

1

1999

41

2

2000

40

3

2001

40

4

2002

45

5

2003

44

6

2004

45

7

2005

45

8

2006

47

9

2007

47

10

2008

49

2

Literature review

2.1 Comparative advertising Comparative advertising entails advertising a particular brand in direct comparison with a competitor’s brand, to make it appear more attractive to consumers. Comparative advertisements (Shao et al., 2004) are those advertisements, which involve directly or indirectly naming competitors in an advertisement and comparing one or more attributes in an advertising medium. There are two broad types (Donthu, 1992) of comparative advertisements. One is the direct comparative advertisement that compares the competitor in more than one attribute. The second type is the indirect comparative advertisement that projects the brand as the leading brand rather than comparing on certain attributes. The effectiveness of comparative advertising is debatable, although Gorn and Weinberg (1983) opine that there is enough evidence to prove that comparative advertisements work better than non-comparative advertisements and vice versa. In the marketing world, globally, comparative advertisements are commonly used across categories. Donthu (1992) lists some of the relevant observations regarding comparative advertisements as follows: 1

Comparative advertisements are perceived to be beneficial to the consumers since more information is provided to him/her by the competitors. Comparative advertisements are encouraged in certain markets like USA by the regulators because it increases transparency and provides more information to consumers.

72

H.M. Jha ‘Bidyarthi’ et al.

2

Comparative advertisements generally result in counter arguments, which often create such a noise that it discounts the original argument/information. Consumers tend to discount the claims by both the competing brand because of the arguments.

3

Comparative advertising strategy is more effective for smaller brands rather than established large brands. By challenging a larger brand through comparative advertisements, the small brands tend to derive more acceptance and awareness than the larger brand.

4

Hisrich (1983) states that comparative advertisements are found to be more effective for categories where consumers tend to use their analytical mind. Comparative advertisements tend to fail where consumers use imagery while evaluating the brands. Products like automobiles use comparative advertisements extensively and with effectiveness.

5

There are also studies (Trout and Rivkin, 2010) which show that male consumers are more attracted towards comparative advertisements compared to female consumers.

According to Barry and Tremblay (1975), comparative advertising has been prevalent in countries like the US (where it is called ‘side by side’ advertising) where generally precautions regarding disclosure of company brands are taken. In the US, comparative advertising is permitted, but under strict control. As per Millward Brown research statistics, there are certain countries where comparative advertising is more prevalent than others. Among these are the US, India and Philippines with 7%, while Australia, Taiwan and Brazil with just 4%. Europe has the least number of comparative ads than any other nation. In any country, culture plays a great role in determining mass acceptance and responses to comparative advertising (Belch, 1981). India has been quite liberal as far as advertising laws are concerned. There has been ample leeway in advertising norms. Company that advertises its brand has to adhere to the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) rules. ASCI rules (2007) state that comparison to the rival brand has to be backed by factual information and tested results and secondly in no event should the consumers be deceived due to comparison. Thirdly, competitors’ products cannot be degraded explicitly or implicitly. Although Indian marketing world have seen lot of comparative advertisements (Levine, 1976), the current Rin vs. Tide is a rare case of direct comparative ad where the brand has taken the competitor brand’s name and challenged it head on.

3

Theoretical framework

The advertisement under study has provoked a debate on comparative advertising. This type of advertisement is permitted (Barry and Tremblay, 1975), but then there are a number of legal tools that govern it, and there are certain limitations imposed on it. According to Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act (1969), unfair trade practice has been defined as: a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provisions of any services, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, including any of the following practices, namely (i) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by


73

visible representation, which … gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.

The ASCI (2007) lays down a specific code of conduct with the sole aim of regulating the content of advertisement. It purports to check the attempt of the advertisers from distorting facts or misleading the consumers and prescribes that the advertising claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment and the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. Thus, direct comparative advertising is treated unethical in India, unless otherwise fulfilling the provisions of the concerned laws and standards.

4

Research methodology

This case is based on secondary data available in different sources such as magazines, newspapers, web pages, reports, articles, journals and books. The case came to the knowledge of the authors, when it was first reported in national newspapers. The authors tracked the development in this regard since then, compiling all reported matters in the media and discussed amongst themselves for identifying any major managerial issue in it along with the upcoming trend(s). A rigorous literature survey was done to locate similar incidents elsewhere in the world and their emerging trends for a logical comparison with this Indian case. The media hype about the issue caught more attention not only of the authors, but also the students of the authors’ institutions where the case was discussed and analysed in detail in different sessions both formally as well as informally.

5

Case background

Detergents constitute a major chunk of the fabric care category in India. Three proposition promises – stain-free, fragrance and whiteness – rule the detergent space in India. Although the brand Tide stands for whiteness, its variant’s core proposition is fragrance (to counter humid weather and dampness of clothes). In this regard, HUL’s main fragrant detergent is Wheel. On the stain-free premise, P&G’s Ariel competes with HUL’s Surf Excel. That leaves Rin and Tide to fight each other on the whiteness platform. Tide entered India in 1998, and it has been pitted against Rin all these years on the ‘whitening’ platform. Initially, P&G was not too aggressive with this brand. In 2004, it lowered prices, changed track and entered the mid-price segment until then dominated by Rin. Since 2007, Tide has been steadily gaining share with Rin trailing behind. According to industry experts, Tide Naturals was launched to protect the flagship brand of Tide and at the same time bring in new consumers into the mid-priced segment with its lower pricing. It was strategically positioned between the economy and mid-priced segment to ensure that the gap between the brands (Rin and Tide) widens even further. This has also shown some results. In January 2009, the gap between the two brands was closer when Tide enjoyed 8% value share and Rin was behind at 5.1% value share. A year later, in January 2010, the value share of Tide (8.8%) was almost double that of Rin (4.8%).

74


The current high-profile aggressive stand of Rin has a background story. There was a proxy war going on between Rin and Tide since 2009 year end. During December 2009, P&G launched the low-priced variant of Tide branded Tide Naturals as already mentioned earlier. Tide Naturals was priced significantly lower to the Rin. Tide Naturals was launched at Rs. 50 per kg, Rs. 10 for 200 g and Rs. 20 for 400 g. Rin was priced at Rs. 70 per kg at that time. The reduced price of the Tide variant was an immediate threat to Rin. Since Tide already has an established brand equity, Rin was bound to face the heat. Although HUL had another low-priced brand, Wheel priced at Rs. 32 per kg, Tide was not in the same category of Wheel.

6

Results and analysis

6.1 Round one of Rin vs. Tide war: a price war HUL was facing steady erosion in the market share in most of the categories. In the detergent category itself, the brand faced a market share fall of 2.5% in December 2009. It had to cut the price to resist the market share erosion. With P&G starting a price war, HUL had to react, and it did by cutting the price of Rin by 30% to Rs. 50 per kg. To combat the fall in shares (http://marketingpractice.blogspot.com/2010/03/brand-updaterin-vs-tide-strategy.html; http://www.livemint.com/2010/03/05225455/Gloves-come-offin-HUL-vs-Pam.html), HUL did drop prices of Rin powder (1 kg) in January 2010 from Rs. 70 to Rs. 50. In its latest ad, the price cut is being prominently displayed (Rs. 25 for 500 g) for the Rin pack, while Tide Naturals is pegged at Rs. 20 for 400 g. There are also some promo pack sizes at Rs. 10 for 250 g. In fact, P&G’s strategy for Tide Naturals has been to introduce lower price points (Rs. 10 for 200 g and Rs. 20 for 400 g) and restrict its presence to the smaller markets and rural consumers. The Naturals variant has been specifically developed for the smaller markets. The product has been designed only for the Indian market and is not available in P&G’s global portfolio, reflecting P&G’s aggression in the Indian market place. While the 12-year-old mother brand, Tide (pegged at Rs. 35 for 500 g), attempts to cater to the urban consumers, Tide Naturals attempts to penetrate the rural markets.

6.2 Round two of Rin vs. Tide war: an advertisement war On Friday, February 26, 2010, all eyes were widened to see an ad from HUL for their brand Rin in which they did more than direct comparison with their competitor P&G brand Tide (Tide Natural rather). The advertisement not only spoke of the product attributes of Tide (the advertisement – given below – said Rin washed whiter than P&G’s Tide Naturals), which they claimed, but also hit their marketing theme (http://www. articlesbase.com/branding-articles/comparative-advertising-the-rin-and-tide-tussle2129774.html): The Rin commercial shows two mothers waiting at a bus stop for their sons to return from school, one with a Tide Naturals packet. The other woman’s son asks, ‘Aunty chaunk kyun gayi?’ (Why is aunty shocked?), playing on the Tide punch line, ‘chaunk gaye?’ (Shocked?). It ends with a voice-over, ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’. (Rin gives far better whitening than Tide)


75

This advertisement on TV, openly comparing rival detergent brands caused uproar. It is the first time in India that competing brands have been named rather than pixelated (as they usually are) in a TV commercial. HUL defended its Rin ad by saying (http://elitestv.com/pub/2010/03/india-the-battle-of-rin-vs-tide) …The latest advertisement of Rin brings alive the superior whiteness delivery of Rin, vis-à-vis competing brands in the market…. This claim is based on laboratory tests done through globally accepted protocols in independent thirdparty laboratories.

HUL believed it was compelled to create the comparative advertisement due to Tide Natural’s claims in its launch advertisement. Considering it had already filed a case against that in the Madras High Court and was not sure about the outcome, it made this advertisement to bring out the difference between the two brands. However, now that the court has ruled in favour of HUL with P&G being made to modify its ad, the company in a statement (http://www.hul.co.in) says, You will be aware of the recent launch and advertising of one of our competitors who has sought to give the impression that theirs is a natural detergent when, in fact, by their own admission in court, it is a synthetic detergent. This has misled consumers at large. Their advertising was initially injuncted by the High Court of Madras and they have now been directed to prominently declare that their product does not in fact contain lemon and sandal (chandan).

P&G could celebrate because of the free advertisement it got for Tide Naturals due to the comparative advertisement of Rin.

6.3 Round three of Rin vs. Tide war: a legal war HUL also reacted to the Tide Natural’s price war in a ‘guerrilla marketing’ way. It took P&G to court regarding the Tide Natural’s advertisement. Charging Tide Naturals’ communication with misleading consumers, HUL filed a complaint with the Madras High Court early 2010. The contention was that Tide Naturals was giving the impression to the consumers that it contained natural ingredients like sandal. The court ordered P&G to modify the campaign. The judgement was passed in favour of HUL, and P&G had to admit that Tide Naturals did not contain any natural ingredients (an example of a brand swaying over to unethical marketing practices), that Tide Naturals is not ‘ natural’ and P&G had to modify its advertisement saying it is the fragrance which is natural, and not the ingredients themselves. This judgement coincided with HUL releasing its comparative advertisement (Rin vs. Tide Naturals). The court further ordered the company to show the disclaimer in a bigger font size emphasising the lack of actual natural ingredients in the product. Tide chose not to respond (http://elitestv.com/pub/ 2010/03/india-the-battle-of-rin-vs-tide) because further fuel to the fight could highlight the fact that Tide Naturals did not contain any ‘natural ingredients’, which might negatively affect the brand’s standing in the consumer’s mind. So it was better to play the role of a ‘poor’ victim at that point of time. The Calcutta High Court restrained HUL from airing the controversial campaign against Tide. The tide has turned yet again with P&G getting the Calcutta High Court to issue an ad interim order restraining HUL from advertising its new Rin campaign. HUL

76


was given 72 hr to comply with the order (http://www.articlesbase.com/branding-articles/ comparative-advertising-the-rin-and-tide-tussle-2129774.html).

7

Discussions

While P&G opened a war in the price front, HUL retaliated by opening two other war fronts. One was the direct comparative ad and other through the court order. It appears from the case that it was Rin, which won the first spell of advertisement war with Tide. It generated enough buzz about the brand with all the media talking about the campaign. Rin was also able to neutralise the aggression of P&G to certain extent. It all depends on whether a company is making a measured factual point rather than simply lashing out at the competitor (Trout and Rivkin, 2010) just because it is desperate. Consumers generally do not like disparaging advertisements, and it is the brand disparaging its competitor, which tends to get hurt. The advertisement has to balance the factual and not try to disparage its competitor’s brand (Arens, 2007). At the industry level, ASCI looks down upon any comparative advertising that denigrates a competitor product and in the process of comparison, affords an unfair and non-factual advantage to the advertiser and from a consumer’s perspective, once such advertising is aired and the consumer (the housewife) gets to know of this, she is likely to punish the brand for attempting to make an unfair comparison. The advertisement had to be stopped. The court judgement is in the best interest of consumers who will penalise the brand for attempting to make an unfair comparison and denigrate a worthy competitor (Walker, 2007). As the two companies continue to try to outwit each other, the latest blow has been delivered by P&G, with the Calcutta High Court asking HUL to take its ad (comparative advertisement) off television screens through an interim order. Experts differ in their opinion about the consequences of the mentioned comparative advertising. Some say, ‘It’s going to highlight all the inadequacies and lead the consumers to mistrust both of them. Both brands are likely to lose’. Others feel, ‘Whenever a challenger has taken on the market leader, the challenger has won’. Tide Naturals is a new, but smaller brand compared with its heavyweight rival. However, it appears that Rin’s strategy is to kill two birds with one stone (http://drypen.in/branding/was-the-latest-commercial-from-rin-two-birds-with-one-stonetide-brand-and-tide-naturals.html) – it has taken on the mother brand Tide by making a sweeping statement, even as it takes a swipe at the P&G brand Tide Naturals. The possibility is that the price cuts may be extended across brands as the two rivals widen their attacks against each other. If the company (HUL) does not gain volumes, it may actually see revenue shrink. The laundry segment is a highly saturated segment with single-digit growth, and price cuts may not see an accompanying increase in volumes. The questions to be asked are what effect do these misleading ads have on consumers, are the brands capable of validating their claims as made in the advertisements? A commoner with preferences for a specific brand would be iffy whether to continue buying or shift loyalties. Secondly, market values of company stocks are largely affected by market sentiments and such controversies would definitely affect stock prices (Hisrich, 1983).


8

77

Conclusions

Comparative advertising is common in markets like the US, but what is deemed objectionable in this case is HUL being so direct about its competitor’s brand, unlike earlier when it had blurred or morphed images. In the US, companies take legal precautions before releasing such ads. Competitors have not gone and named the brand in their advertisements. In HUL’s case, its ad is fraught with pitfalls, and it is doubtful if it can back it with 100% conviction. This detergent episode is a significant milestone in the history of comparative advertisements. The latest edition of the detergent war is just another chapter that this country will see. Markets are big and gaining market share is not easy, so brands will use all that is in their armoury to fight. The fact that one brand has named another is not going to cause a brand tsunami, just as in the past, highly competitive advertisements that went just short of naming the competition did not create a hurricane. This edition of the detergent wars between two of the world’s largest consumer goods firms in India has everything befitting a soap opera; aggressive advertising and a price war and legal battles on several fronts. The battles between brands, it indicates, are growing intense in India. When HUL claimed its product as ‘dirt blaster’, it has literally turned in to ‘dirt plaster’ due to the controversial advertisements? So it remains to be seen how Indian consumers deal with these comparative advertisements. They need to be aware of what competitive advertising can do.

References Arens, W.F. (2007) Contemporary Advertising. Noida: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd. ASCI (2007) ‘The code for self regulation in advertising’, Advertising Standards Council of India (Chapter 1). Available at: http://www.ascionline.org/index.php/asci-codes, Accessed on 23 March 2010. Barry, T.E. and Tremblay, R.L. (1975) ‘Comparative advertising: perspectives and issues’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.15–20. Belch, G.E. (1981) ‘An examination of comparative and non-comparative television commercials: the effects of claim variation and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.333–349. Comparative Advertising: The Rin and Tide Tussle (2010), Available at: http://www.articlesbase. com/branding-articles/comparative-advertising-the-rin-and-tide-tussle-2129774.html, Accessed on 6 March 2010. Donthu, N. (1992) ‘Comparative advertising intensity’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.53–58. Going against the Tide (2010), Available at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/ 2010/03/11/stories/2010031150040100.htm, Accessed on 11 March 2010. Gorn, G.J. and Weinberg, C.B. (1983) ‘Comparative advertising: some positive results’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.377–380. Hindustan Unilever’s Limited, Available at: http://www.hul.co.in. Hisrich, R.D. (1983) ‘Executive advertisers’ views of comparison advertising’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.39–50. India: The Battle of Rin vs. Tide (2010), Available at: http://elitestv.com/pub/2010/03/india-thebattle-of-rin-vs-tide, Accessed on 19 March 2010.

78


Levine, P. (1976) ‘Commercials that name competing brands’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.7–14. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (1969) Available at: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/ annual_reports/annualreport2006/CHAPTER4.pdf. Rin vs. Tide Strategy (2010), Available at: http://marketingpractice.blogspot.com/2010/03/brandupdate-rin-vs-tide-strategy.html, Accessed on 21 March 2010. Rise and Fall of Detergent Giants (2010), Available at: http://www.livemint.com/2010/03/ 05225455/Gloves-come-off-in-HUL-vs-Pam.html, Accessed on 2 April 2010. Shao, A.T., Yeqing, B. and Gray, E. (2004) ‘Comparative advertising effectiveness: a crosscultural study’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 26, Fall 2004, p.27. Trout, J. and Rivkin, S. (2010) Repositioning – Marketing in an Era of Competition: Change and Crisis. New York: McGraw-Hill Publications. Walker, G. (2007) Modern Competitive Strategy. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Was the latest commercial from RIN – Two birds with one stone (Tide Brand and Tide Naturals) (2010), Available at: http://drypen.in/branding/was-the-latest-commercial-from-rin-two-birdswith-one-stone-tide-brand-and-tide-naturals.html, Accessed on 7 April 2010.