Teresa has a point. Coincidentally Jayendra too states the same thing, that if Bournville claims 'you have to earn it', why give it away free?
Theory tells us every consumer touch-point must be managed to build a unique position for the brand in the minds of consumers. Touch-point perceptions mustn't contradict. Like it did with Bournville. The promo that gave away the chocolate free contradicted the claim, 'you must earn it'.
In the real world, many times the best of marketers mess up. Its only natural it happens, after all, who can get it right all the time? Also, part of the problem is the disconnect between marketers managing the same brand, but different mix variables. The channel guy desperately needs a promo to take stocks off shelves. The Ad. guy wants a brilliant campaign that will capture consumer imagination. So the former gives it away free, the latter says, 'you gotta earn it'!
How can this contradiction be averted? The better marketer through good research knows sales won't take off at the introductory stage 'cos the chocolate palate in India isn't swaying to 'bitter'. That means a franchise building promo may have to be introduced right at the beginning with the Ad campaign.
Agreed, most things sound a certain way when proposed, and happen a certain other way, but that's no excuse for contradictions created by multiple touch-points. If Bournville is to be earned, don't give it away free. If you plan to give it away free, don't say, 'earn it'!