BUSINESS brews battles. And big businesses make legendary wars: Coke vs Pepsi, Colgate vs Pepsodent, Ariel vs Surf. But why are CibaVision and Bausch & Lomb, two stolid companies making speciality products, at each other's throats?
The bone of contention is Solo-care, Ciba-Vision's contact lens care solution that wearers use to rinse, clean, lubricate and disinfect their lenses. B&L alleges that CibaVision, a division of Swiss pharma giant Novartis, is misleading consumers by claiming attributes the product does not possess, while Ciba is adamant that its claims are based on scientific data.
Says J.P. Singh, vice-president of the US-based B&L: "We are not talking competition here. We are talking of ethical business practices, responsible marketing and accountability to consumers. Ciba should not be allowed to mislead consumers. It will bring a bad name to the industry." Cibavision's vice-president P.P. Krishnamoorthy retorts: "We have got into the Indian market with a superior product, ahead of our rivals. This is probably hurting them, leading them to cast aspersions."
The controversy began two months ago, when B&L launched Renu Plus, a product that would not only do the regular job of cleaning and disinfecting, but would remove protein deposits on soft lenses. If allowed to build up, the deposits can cause serious eye damage. Traditionally, this job was done by enzyme tablets that had to be used every week for soft lenses, a complicated method. As contact lens sales are driven by the ease of maintenance, the new product was expected to send sales figures zooming.
Just about a month before Renu Plus hit the market, Cibavision relaunched Solo-Care in a new pack. Two things were intriguing about the 'new' product. First, some lots of the new Solo-care were nothing but old packages of the product with two new stickers. One claimed 'No deproteining required', the other, 'exceptional protein removal power' ratified by an independent lab in the US. The product ingredients were identical. In some places the same formulation was being sold with free enzyme tablets, implying that the product did not have any deproteinising capability.
Second, a new Solo-care range was launched in fresh packaging, indicating ingredients that seemed different. Closer scrutiny revealed that the 'new' ingredients were nothing but compound names for the same chemicals. The only real difference was the price tag: Rs 175 for a 360 ml bottle, up from Rs 145 earlier.
Competition is understandably miffed. "How can the same ingredients overnight give the product additional deproteinising ability? Even if we assume that the product has what it claims, isn't it too much of a coincidence that the company discovered it just when we were about to launch our new product?" questions Singh. He complains that Ciba "is trying to con gullible Third World consumers. Why else wouldn't it make such claims in the US?"
Ciba is unfazed by the assault. Krishnamoorthy agrees the product ingredients are the same. "In the pharma business, it's okay to come up with a few indications for formulations. With further research, other attributes are discovered. For example, aspirin was only an analgesic prescribed for fever and cold when formulated, but today its effectiveness in cardiac problems is proven. Our product always had deproteinising capability. We just felt it unethical to advertise till we had sufficient scientific data. "
Ciba claims Solo-care has been tested at in-house labs and Bio-Concepts, an independent lab in US, and proved to have more deproteinising capability than any competitive solution in the market. The only reason, he says, for it not being marketed as a deproteiniser in the US yet is the 'procedural delay' in getting Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval.
Even as charges and counter-charges fly, Ciba's defence leaves some questions unanswered. If Solo-care has deproteinising ability to the extent that enzyme tablets are rendered redundant, where was the need for Ciba to change the names of the ingredients on the latest packs? Secondly, why is it making different claims in different countries? The Indian pack suggests that Solo-care has made enzyme tablets redundant. In Hong Kong and Singapore, it claims to remove protein some percentage points more than competing products. In the US, it doesn't make deproteinising claims? Even Solo-care's web-site makes no such claim.
"Most consumers in India would buy the product because they trust TNC products. This has grave implications. I have complained to the company, but there is no reply," complains Vinay Agarwal, secretary, Indian Contact Lenses Society. "It's difficult to digest that without anything new in the solution, a product has acquired a new property," says Dr Shailendra Singh, a leading eye-care practitioner. "No solution can replace what the enzyme routine does," avers Dr Vipin Buckshee. Right now, the reality is far from what the eye can see.
