afaqs!

Luxor's loss was imminent, says McCann

By , agencyfaqs! | In | December 13, 2000
In a rejoinder to the agencyfaqs! story on Luxor awarding its business to Contract and Lowe Lintas, McCann-Erickson informs that

N. Shatrujeet
agencyfaqs!
NEW DELHI, December 13

In a reaction to the story that agencyfaqs! carried about Luxor Writing Instruments Ltd (LWIL) awarding its advertising account to Contract Advertising and Lowe Lintas ('Contract, Lintas gain Luxor at McCann's cost', December 8), McCann-Erickson has made a couple of clarifications.

Speaking to agencyfaqs!, a senior executive at McCann-Erickson said, "The loss of Luxor in no way threatens McCann's association with Gillette as Gillette is no longer involved in the writing instruments business." According to him, globally, Gillette has sold its entire stationery business to Newell Rubbermaid Inc.

As it turns out, Newell Rubbermaid - the maker of Rubbermaid housewares, Mirro cookware and Little Tikes children's products - acquired the Gillette Company's stationery products business some three months ago. "Starting January 2001, the Parker and Paper Mate brands will cease to be with Gillette," the executive informs. "In India, Newell has picked up the 50 per cent stake that Gillette held in LWIL."

According to the executive, McCann came into the picture when the Parker brand was launched in India. At that time, Luxor's advertising was being handled by RK Swamy/BBDO. "We were in charge of Parker, while BBDO was retained to handle the rest of the business," he says. However, following the 1999 launch of the Paper Mate brand - which, for some strange reason, was branded Luxor Paper Mate in India - the entire LWIL account fell into McCann's lap.

He further clarifies that when LWIL put its account up for review, McCann had an inkling of the fact that it was on its way out. "The purpose of the pitch was to replace McCann, and we knew of it," he admits. "However, the client was nice enough to invite us to defend the account. And we pitched, as it would have appeared rude not to do so."

And though no reason is being proffered for LWIL moving the account from McCann, an industry insider close to agencyfaqs! suggests that it could be because LWIL and McCann did not see eye-to-eye on issues.

© 2000 agencyfaqs!