PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited - Kurkure
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Industry Member
1. The Advertising Standards Council of India (“ASCI”) received a Fast Track Complaint from ITC Limited against a product packaging and hoarding advertisement of Kurkure Masala Munch a product (Packaged snack) of PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.
2. Kurkure Masala Munch is a kind of snack which comes under the category of ‘Collet Snack’. I would call this kind of snack as “Twisted Snack” for this discussion. There are two similar products (twisted snack) sold in market which are (1) Tedemede by ITC Limited and (2) Takatak by Haldiram. In Uttar Pradesh, these three products make 90% of the sale of Twisted Snack.
3. The Complainant Company’s product Tedemede admittedly is the market leader in sales of this sub-category.
4. The advertisement on the wrapper of the product makes a claim “UP ka no. 1 Taste”. This claim is linked to a disclaimer on the back-of-pack of the product (Label Disclaimer) stating “Claim valid in Uttar Pradesh only, in collet snack category. Claim based on independent research conducted by NieslenIQ during 11th April’25 to 20th April’25”.
5. Indeed, NieslenIQ conducted survey / research for a sample of 837 consumers, males and females (50-50) in the territories of Lucknow (Urban and Rural), Kanpur, Bareilly and Gorakhpur. Majority of participants preferred Kurkure for its better taste than the other two products.
6. The Complainant ITC objected to the claim.
7. The ASCI took cognizance of the Complaint and requested the Advertiser to submit their reply to the Complaint. Accordingly, a detailed reply was sent.
8. ASCI sought an expert’s opinion on the question as to whether the claim is misleading etc. and an opinion of Dr. Rajaretnam was received which is in short as under:
The advertiser has sent a detailed reply to the various queries raised in the initial opinion. Based on the reply, the answers to the questions have been revised as below.
Q1: Whether findings from a study done in the four survey centres/areas can represent the entire state of Uttar Pradesh?
The four survey centres for the study are Lucknow (Urban & Rural), Kanpur, Bareilly, Gorakhpur. In the initial opinion, the question of the spread of the sample in the survey centres was raised. The reason is that one cannot have disproportionate spread between the town classes (population strata) and each town class should have adequate sample to ensure that it represents the entire town class it is chosen from.
In reply to the above question, the advertiser has provided a sample spread that shows that each of the town classes have been represented well. In other words, the two survey centres of Lucknow and Kanpur represent the 40 lakh+ town class, Gorakhpur, the 10-40 lakh town class and Bareilly, the 1-10 lakh town class. The rural areas have also been represented in the sample. For a product of this nature which is consumed mainly in urban areas, the selection of towns and the sample spread is adequate.
Q2. How many brands were tested in the study?
The advertiser has clarified that two competitor brands and his own brand were covered in the product test. The three brands are Kurkure Masala Munch, Haldiram's Takatak and Bingo Tedhe Medhe. The advertiser’s brand was tested with each of the competitor’s brands in separate panels using a paired comparison test.
Q3. How many brands were tested with each respondent? What is the sample size of respondents for each of the paired comparison testing panels?
The sample size for each panel was not given earlier. This was mentioned as an important missing data in the initial opinion. The reason is that for any claims relating to ‘superiority of any brand over another brand’ the findings supporting the claim should be valid at a 95% confidence interval with a sampling error of 5%.
The sample sizes for the two panels are 418 and 419 and these sample sizes meet the key criterion of meeting “95% confidence interval with a sampling error of 5%”. In view of the adequacy of sample sizes for the two panels, the claim is substantiated.
9. ASCI held hearing of the case in its Fast Track Complaints Panel (“FTCP”) on 27th January 2026. The Panel heard the submissions of both sides . The Expert whose opinion is quoted above was also present during the meeting. The FTCP determined the case as under:
The Panel took a view that the use of “No.1” exaggerated the claim. Although, the data supports the taste-based claim, yet presenting the product as “No. 1” is likely to mislead consumers. The Complaint thus, was upheld.
10. As against this, the Advertiser submitted their case for review under Independent Review Process (IRP) against the recommendation of FTCP dated 29th January 2026.
11. I heard both the sides today at length. Although both the parties made submissions about the adequacy / inadequacy of the market search conducted by NieslenIQ, they are of no consequences because the expert opined that the survey / research was proper and even the FTCP also accepted that survey / research was adequate. I have no doubt in my mind that the survey established the fact that between the three products namely Kurkure, Tedemede and Takatak, the consumers who participated in the Survey liked Kurkure in taste. The research opined that Kurkure was a preferred product as far as taste was concerned. In other words, between the three products, Kurkure has an edge in taste. The question before me is whether this finding of the research can be utilized to make the impugned claim namely “UP ka No.1 taste”.
12. I think I should focus on the distinction between subjective preference i.e. “taste” and objective hierarchy “No. 1 status” based on the factual matrix. While the data validates Kurkure’s edge in a controlled study, the phrasing "UP ka No. 1 Taste" carries a weight that often transcends simple survey results in the eyes of the consumer.
13. It is established and undisputed by the Expert and the FTCP that the NielsenIQ research was technically sound. The sample size, the 95% confidence interval, and the geographic spread across Uttar Pradesh are adequate to conclude that, among the participants surveyed, Kurkure Masala Munch was the preferred "taste."
14. The crux of the matter lies in the leap from "Preferred Taste" to "No. 1 Taste." Taste is subjective, unlike sales volume or market share which are objective, measurable metrics. "Taste" is inherently sensory and individual.
15. Absolute vs. Relative comparison: By claiming to be "No. 1," the Advertiser is not merely saying they won a comparison; they are making an absolute superlative claim that implies they have been crowned the definitive leader across the entire state of UP.
16. The FTCP’s view that the "No. 1" claim is an exaggeration is well-founded. When a consumer sees "No. 1" on a hoarding, they often perceive it as a market leadership claim (Sales/Volume). Even if it is linked to taste, "No. 1" implies a gold-standard status that a paired comparison study of only three brands cannot fully sustain for a population as diverse as Uttar Pradesh. While the Advertiser has the right to tout their research success, the phrasing must be representative of the actual data.
17. I hold that the claim "UP ka No. 1 Taste" is misleading by implication. It converts a narrow research finding (preference over two specific competitors) into an absolute statewide superlative.
18. The Advertiser should be allowed to use a claim that reflects the research without using the "No. 1" hierarchy. For example:"UP's Most Preferred Taste" (based on the NielsenIQ study). Or "Voted Best in Taste in UP" (with the current disclaimer).
19. The "No. 1" terminology should be restricted to cases of verifiable, objective leadership (e.g., "India's No. 1 Selling Collet Snack"). Therefore, the FTCP’s recommendation to uphold the complaint should be sustained, but with the caveat that the Advertiser is free to advertise their "taste preference" using more accurate, non-superlative language.
