Brands must stick to their stand

In a famous 1990 ad for chocolate, an Indian woman without a bindi is seen dancing fearlessly in public to celebrate the success of her lover. Had that ad come today, it would hardly have been a surprise if some would have considered it “against Indian culture”.

dissatisfaction with ads

A series of recent commercials has sparked controversy. A JBL advert shows a woman using noise-canceling headphones to block out the noise of Diwali crackers. Some wondered aloud how the agency could even think of suggesting that Diwali should be peaceful and noise-free. An ACKO ad for automobile insurance angered some simply because it was set in a garage where a car was being worshipped for and it featured slapstick comedy. Someone asked, “Why can’t a copywriter think beyond targeting Hindu traditions.” A recent Fabindia ad was the first to be hit because it used an Urdu idiom meaning ‘celebration of traditions’, which refers to a collection being launched ahead of Diwali; And second because some models in the commercials did not wear bindi.

Anything nowadays, it seems, can become grounds for resentment. Voices are raised from obscure corners of social media, circulated on social media by the ultra-powerful, and sometimes even endorsed by ministers of the ruling party. Sure, such outrage used to happen in the past, but the frequency with which it is happening now is alarming.

The connecting thread between all the above examples is that the advertisements “hurt Hindu sentiments”. A lot of resentment can be created using this framing. Surprisingly, an advertisement supporting the bursting of crackers during Diwali also sparked outrage. It was a CEAT ad featuring Aamir Khan. In the advertisement, Khan advises people in an apartment complex to avoid bursting crackers on the streets after a cricket match and asks them to burst crackers inside their apartment complex so that they do not disrupt the flow of traffic. Many CEAT ads refer to objects or acts that impede the movement of traffic. But people got angry. Some people, including a minister, said that Muslims take public places for prayers and that the company should “solve that problem” as well.

two-way campaign

All this anger seems to be rooted in the fear that advertisements have the potential to influence people – whether it is casual in relation to religious rituals during Hindu festivals or about the interconnectedness of people of different religions. People respond in two ways to prevent ads from affecting people. The first is to launch a coordinated campaign. Participants in such campaigns argue that if brands can launch a coordinated campaign for a product, why can’t people do so by harnessing the power of social media? Of course they can. It is completely valid. To have a counter-approach to the promotion of advertisements is to show a civil dissatisfaction with the advertisements. If there is a convincing response to an advertisement and if it is without any threats or coercion, brands can interact with such people by putting forward their countermeasures. But ad agencies have never been good at negotiation; They are only good at broadcasting. Zomato is probably the only brand that has connected with its critics recently after commercials starring Hrithik Roshan and Katrina Kaif. Many argued that the advertisements normalized the stressful working conditions of gig workers. Zomato replied that its ads were “well-thought-out, but unfortunately misinterpreted by some.” It added that the ads were “shot with the aim of making the delivery executive a ‘hero’.”

The second is through coordinated boycott campaigns. This is also valid but a rude disagreement. Brands don’t have a worldview – brands rarely have worldviews except for a few like Patagonia; Only people do. Brands have only a sales perspective and they invest money in advertisements accordingly. And brands advertise positive narratives—they don’t ask to boycott, hate, or hurt anyone. Coordinated boycott campaigns are rude because they ignite feelings of hatred and division in response to brands proposing new ways of thinking or seeing people come together and look beyond their differences – both of which are mere attitudes. In the advertisement of Tanishq Ektvam, we saw the first, that is, a brand representing unity. It depicts a Muslim family preparing a traditional Hindu baby shower for their pregnant Hindu daughter-in-law. Tanishq said in a statement that it attempted to “celebrate the coming together of people from different walks of life”, but withdrew the ad. And we recently saw another Dabur ad depicting a gay couple celebrating Karva Chauth, i.e. a brand new one inspiring us to think in new ways. Gay marriage is not legal in India.

a chilling effect

At the most basic level, brands simply promote a message to sell the product. Unlike governments, brands cannot impose anything on people. If a person does not accept or like the advertisement of a brand or its message, then they have the freedom to ignore the advertisement or message. They also have the freedom to disagree vocally and share counterarguments. But when that dissent is taken to an extreme level, such as calling for a boycott, it means the victim wants to force the brand to adhere to its ideology. It’s not just intolerance, it’s bullying. This is bound to lead to self-censorship and stifle the ideas and creativity of brands. This creates a chilling effect on companies.

To be sure, people have long been taking offense to citing “hurting feelings”. This is certainly not a recent phenomenon. But in the earlier, quieter days when there was no social media, “feelings were hurt” in small, isolated circles. Now, any counter-views are shared with the world in minutes. And people who say that their feelings are hurt usually tag others they know will support the same ideology or cause. If all of them have a huge following on social media, the post becomes viral within hours or minutes.

Brands should stick to their ideas and creativity. They must decide what is the best way to tell the brand’s story, as long as they are not miscommunicating or misleading consumers. But that belief seems to be disappearing these days. We only see brands increasingly surrendering to threats and withdrawing their ads. This will only encourage bullies to call for more boycotts in the belief that all brands will humbly submit to every threat. This will only lead to intolerance.

Karthik Srinivasan is a Communication Professional.