Creative bites

Must brands do the different and the ostensibly progressive or does the dissent and noise around certain ads turn out to be the best kind of publicity that they could ever aspire for? Harish Bijoor has some answers

Who is to say what is right? And who is to say what is wrong? Doesn’t everything we do have two sets of people with two sets of views, if not many more? That’s the simple argument when it comes to creative work that is criticised and trolled. None of it is correct. None of it is wrong. At least not to everyone out there viewing the advertisement. Advertising is certainly a piece of creative work that has a far-reaching impact on the fortunes of a brand. When you look around at the history of advertising and the iconic brands it has helped create globally and within India, one understands the true-blue monetary and commercial value of good advertising.

Advertising, therefore, adds a whole lot to the product and service we tend to sell. It adds value, fizz and panache to the boring old product and the boring old service. Advertising has to therefore forever strive to do the different. There are teas and teas around, but the advertising of one tea cannot look like that of another. And once a brand of tea has actually taken a route, other brands need to search out their own new ways to the heart and hearth of the consumer. And this unleashes the creative process at play.

Now, in the space of the last three weeks, this very creative process in full play, just prior to the Deepavali festive season, unleashed a controversy that is bitter in its bite. We have had Fabindia getting trolled and chewed to the bone, as there is contention around on social media that the company knowingly called its Deepavali collection “Jashn-e-Riwaaz”. As social media participants went behind the brand and its logic, a clean and detailed dissemination of its advertising visuals was done, and there was a big cry that the female models were not wearing bindis. And this was festival advertising after all. And therefore trended negativity. Let’s remember that during a festival, the passion of people is possibly ruling at its highest peak. Any affront is taken that much deeper in its impact. This then has been the story of every brand trolled and criticised in the recent past.

What bit Fabindia has bitten many a brand, now and before. CEAT Tyres was asked tough questions on its advertising helmed by Aamir Khan and the “no
crackers on the roads” kind of messaging format. And then came the Sabyasachi Royal Bengal Mangalsutra controversy. In this piece of creative work, there are models wearing this creation, and there is some degree of display of skin. The objection out here is to say that the brand has dared to tread the path from the sacred to the sensual. At this point of time, the jury is still out on this, and Sabyasachi’s offering has got possibly the best kind of publicity that it could ever aspire with a limited advertising budget. And that is the benefit and side effect of all controversy for sure.

The potholes of differentiation

Just as the dust was settling on the CEAT Tyres advertising, Dabur decides to showcase a same-sex couple in its Fem bleach advertisement. Now, this has
muddied the waters further, before Dabur withdrawing the offending piece of communication. Now, what’s offending? And who is it offending? Which part of which creative execution is offending whom? In reality, every one of these pieces of communication is offensive to a set of people and equally exciting to a different set of people. The point to note is the fact that there are two (if not more) sets of people in the great Indian market. The market is a myriad set of people with different beliefs and different ways of approaching anything that stirs the pot of these belief systems. Advertising must watch out for these potholes of differentiation.

The entire issue that is stirred today is really not anything new. People have always had differing sets of views and opinions on literally everything, advertising included. The difference is the fact that we do live in the day and age of social media. And social media is not a niche anymore. Literally, everyone is on social media. Social media has created a democracy of comment. We live in an “instant-comment” market. Nothing is filtered. Everything is stated and said. And that’s good, isn’t it? To an extent, this is the ultimate resurgence of the right to
comment, if that was to be a right at all.

What’s the solution to it all then?

Brands must be careful. Don’t stir the pot if you are not convinced that you are doing the right thing. Also, if you do stir the pot, stick with the pot and don’t abandon your creative route all too soon. Brands must be careful not to touch two subjects for sure. Religion and politics. Both these strains tend to divide much more than any else. Why divide? The ethos of a brand must be to unite, and not divide.

Yes, brands must do the different and the ostensibly progressive. Brands must take the decision whether they want to be in step with the largest masses of their
consumers or with the niche? Brands must also decide where they want to be with their consumers, one step ahead or one step behind? Must brands push the envelope of progressive society? Must brands attempt the “woke” in a market that is not “woke” yet? Or must brands wait and do something else altogether for now?

The answer is really blowing in the wind. In the winds of dissent, argument, noise and more argument, for now.

(The author is a Bengaluru-based brand strategy expert & consultant and can be reached at [e-mail].)