Case Study: Colgate vs.
Pepsodent – Learning to Brush
For most Indian households, oral care has long been synonymous with a single brand—Colgate. For
decades, Colgate was not just a toothpaste but a cultural habit, almost a ritual. Families passed it down
through generations, and the brand became entrenched in everyday language. In fact, many Indians
would simply ask for “Colgate” when they meant “toothpaste,” regardless of which brand was actually
available. This deep entrenchment was not accidental; Colgate built its empire carefully, relying on
consistent advertising, the familiar red-and-white packaging, and strong endorsements from dentists. It
became associated with trust, cleanliness, and the comfort of tradition. The name alone was enough to
evoke an image of a bright smile and a healthy set of teeth.
When Hindustan Unilever entered the market with Pepsodent in the 1990s, it faced a formidable task.
The challenge was not merely to sell toothpaste but to un-teach and re-teach consumers who had been
conditioned for generations. Colgate’s dominance was based on familiarity and emotional association,
but Pepsodent attempted to disrupt this by positioning itself not simply as a toothpaste, but as a scientific
protector against germs. Its advertisements showed children’s teeth under a microscope, comparing
“ordinary toothpaste” with Pepsodent’s germ-fighting power. Suddenly, the discussion was no longer
about clean teeth, but about invisible bacteria.
This new framing changed how consumers thought about oral hygiene. Parents, in particular, began to
wonder if their old choices were adequate. Pepsodent tapped into fear and rationality at the same time,
suggesting that a mother’s love for her child should translate into choosing a toothpaste that could
actively protect against germs and cavities. In doing so, it pushed consumers to process new
information, to question established habits, and to think about toothpaste in ways they had not before.
The brand created school programs where children brushed in classrooms, received free samples, and
took the message home. Children proudly carried Pepsodent toothbrushes and tubes in their bags,
indirectly becoming brand ambassadors within their families.
Colgate, however, did not sit still. Realizing that Pepsodent was trying to rewrite the rules of the game,
it countered with its own campaigns emphasizing strength and protection. Later, it even borrowed one
of Pepsodent’s own tactics, asking, “Kya aapke toothpaste mein namak hai?” By invoking the
traditional wisdom of salt for oral health, Colgate blended modern branding with Indian cultural values,
reinforcing its place in households not just as a modern product but as a trusted friend that adapted with
time. Over the years, Colgate also diversified with variants—Strong Teeth, Sensitive, Herbal—ensuring
that it was present at every decision point, for every kind of consumer.
The battle between the two brands was not only fought on television screens. It lived inside homes. A
mother standing in front of a shop shelf had to decide between sticking with the comfort of Colgate or
trying the seemingly advanced protection of Pepsodent. A child’s preference for taste, the free
toothbrush that came in the pack, the dentist’s endorsement printed on the box—all these small factors
shaped the decision. Slowly, families experimented. Some switched, many returned, and others split
usage: Colgate for adults, Pepsodent for kids. What unfolded was a nationwide lesson in how consumers
learn, unlearn, and relearn.
What made the rivalry fascinating was the invisible tug-of-war in the consumer’s mind. On one side
was tradition, familiarity, and the reassurance of a brand that had stood for decades. On the other side
was new knowledge, rational argument, and the appeal of science. The decision was rarely
straightforward. Consumers often carried both brands in their mental consideration set, weighing
emotional attachment against logical reasoning. Sometimes they acted out of habit, other times they
experimented, and occasionally they switched entirely.
By the 2000s, Colgate remained the dominant leader, holding more than half the market share.
Pepsodent, despite its clever campaigns, could not dethrone the giant. But it did succeed in changing
the conversation. Indian consumers no longer saw toothpaste as a generic product; they began to view
it through the lens of protection, health, and specialized needs. In that sense, Pepsodent had educated
the market, even if the spoils of victory largely stayed with Colgate.
The Colgate–Pepsodent rivalry is remembered not just as a marketing war but as a story of how
consumers learn. It highlights how habits form, how they can be challenged, and how companies use a
mix of emotion, logic, and experience to shape choices. For students of marketing, it is a reminder that
consumer behavior is never static. People learn through repetition, reinforcement, and information, but
learning is not always permanent. What seems like loyalty may only be familiarity, and what seems like
a rational switch may, in time, give way to nostalgia and trust.
Today, as new players enter with herbal products, whitening claims, and natural positioning, the lessons
from the Colgate–Pepsodent battle remain relevant. Every new entrant must recognize that consumers
are not blank slates; they come with decades of learning, habits, and associations. To change their minds
is to change their learning, and that is never easy.
Teaching Questions for Class Discussion
1. Brand Associations
o Why do you think people in India began to use the word “Colgate” as a synonym for
toothpaste?
o What role did advertising, packaging, and repetition play in shaping this habit?
2. Breaking Habits
o Pepsodent tried to introduce “germ protection” as a new idea. How did this challenge
existing consumer habits?
o What made it difficult for families to switch, even when Pepsodent gave scientific
arguments?
3. Influence of Experience
o How do school sampling programs (children brushing in classrooms, receiving free
kits) influence family decisions?
o Can you think of a time when you tried a product because of a free sample and stuck
with it afterwards?
4. Rewards and Reinforcement
o Colgate often gave toothbrushes or larger packs at discounts. What impact do such
promotions have on repeat buying?
o Are these short-term tactics, or can they create lasting loyalty?
5. Logic vs. Emotion
o Consumers often had to choose between the comfort of tradition (Colgate) and the logic
of science (Pepsodent). Which do you think weighs more in the long run—emotions or
rational arguments? Why?
6. Market Shaping
o Even though Colgate stayed dominant, how did Pepsodent change the way Indians
think about toothpaste?
o What does this tell us about the long-term effect of marketing campaigns, even if they
don’t “win” immediately?
7. Your Own Reflection
o Think about the toothpaste you currently use. Why did you start using it, and why do
you continue?
o Which factors—habit, family influence, promotions, product experience, or rational
evaluation—play the biggest role in your decision?
