Sunday ka Funda

I do not know who would buy a mattress after seeing such images. Kurl-On is a well known brand. It has run a series using three public figures from different generations and for different reasons — Mahatma Gandhi, Steve Jobs, Malala Yousafzai.

The last one has been pulled up for bad taste.

The ad shows the young girl holding up her hands while facing down a gun, and then being shot in the head. She tumbles through the air before coming to rest on a Kurl-on spring mattress. Rejuvenated, sthen "bounces back" -- that's the campaign slogan -- to receive Pakistan's National Youth Peace Prize.

The ad agency is the local branch of Ogilvy & Mather.

The head of the Chilean studio that did the sketch admitted the gunshot stood out in the drawing.

"The Kurl-on ad tries to do the complete opposite, it's about triumphing over violence. The scene portrays a real event, an example of heroism that is very powerful, especially in Eastern countries, which is what they told us they wanted when we started the graphic."

If 'bounce back' is the tagline, I still don't get it. Do people want mattresses that bounce? Do they bounce on them? Being springy is a different thing altogether.

Ogilvy has apologised for the Malala segment. I can well imagine they would be concerned as she is an internationaly-accepted figure now and they cannot afford to antagonise the political brains behind her. There is silence about the other two though, and not only because they are dead. I find those images equally offensive.

• a young Steve Jobs being booted out the door, only to bounce back in his signature black turtleneck, showing off a Macbook in front of a camera.

• a young lawyer version of Mahatma Gandhi thrown out of a moving train and rallying back as the robe-clad Indian independence leader.

Bouncing back in a situation does not always mean being shot at, booted out, thrown out. In a subtle way, this is empowering those who do it — the corporates and the racists, who are everywhere. Normal people too bounce back from setbacks, personal and professional.

And many do not even have a bed to sleep in.

Dunkin' Donuts and Oprah

Do we sometimes overstate racism? Emphasis on colour in politically-correct terms only consolidates stereotypes. Finger-pointing bad taste draws attention to it. Racism is way more than the buying and selling of products and the imagery associated with them.

What is wrong with the Dunkin’ Donuts ad campaign by the Thailand franchise? That a female model is covered in dark chocolate, has hair done up in a certain way that makes it appear as though she is black? There have been the usual noises about insensitivity. We are not discussing Trayvon Martin here or people of colour being denied access to space and opportunity. The product is clearly using a particular palette, just as people might paint their faces in shades of, say, the national flag during sports or cultural events.

It took me a few seconds to find this other image by merely searching for white chocolate. If we have a problem with a dark product sold by a ‘black’ model, why don’t we have issues with a white product marketed by a white model? Godiva’s white Kit-Kat has chosen a stereotype, too.

Some reports have pointed out that the pink lipstick stands out and looks bizarre. Advertisements are about drawing attention. It seems like a simple aesthetic placement if we look at the logo. Pink is also about candy, so this is a form of association. A shocking shade would stand out on anyone. What about Naomi Campbell in the ‘drink milk’ promos where she sported a white moustache? What about her posing in those starkly contrasting pictures with Kate Moss?

Dunkin’ Donuts has apologised for this ad, but the owner of the Thai franchise has called it “paranoid American thinking”. It would appear that there is some guilt and discomfort by others regarding portrayal of blacks and racism. On the one hand, campaigns flaunt black is beautiful —another pigeonhole, as I analysed here – and then there is this chariness.

Recently, Oprah Winfrey ‘outed’ a racist salesperson she had encountered in a Zurich mall who told her that the bag she wanted to buy was too expensive. Oprah does not live in a ghetto; her riches are well-earned. She is recognised almost everywhere. Perhaps if she went
to Harlem incognito and tried to purchase a costly thing a black salesperson might draw attention to the price tag. Would that qualify as racism? If not, then what could be the reason? What sort of stereotypes are manifested here?

It is more a matter of hierarchy, or perception of it. I can give a few examples.

• Several years ago, I went into a store in London to pick up some brandy. The woman at the counter snapped, “Not that, it is too much money.” She was of Indian origin and from her deportment and manner looked like a recent immigrant. Between anger and amusement, I figured out that this was something that she could not afford. It was projection. I was a visitor whose cart was filled with goodies. In some ways, she felt slighted and the only manner in which she could to respond was to see that emotion mirrored in someone else.

• In India, one sees even backpackers – white first, then black – given preferential treatment while one is shopping. Although it is more likely that as tourists they are “just looking” and I am the real customer they will earn from, the hierarchy revolts against it. I have walked away quite often after waiting for the shopkeeper to attend to me. However, if there is another Indian who is perceived as less ‘valuable’, then the focus is on me.

• When I took out a $100 bill to pay for a snack at Universal Studios, LA (I didn’t have enough change), the Hispanic cashier almost sniggered, “You got lotsa money, eh?” If that wasn’t bad enough, the black gentleman who was part of the tour group said, “For this much I’d get a full meal at McDonald’s.” Would these be considered racist comments? I did not think so then and I don’t believe so now in hindsight. It is about where we are and who we are dealing with. Cultural baggage is relative.

Covered with dark chocolate or whipped cream, or lips painted a shocking pink, one’s identity is a stereotype too. Unless maliciously used to segregate, it makes better sense to not be numbed by how others perceive us.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"I have been up against tough competition all my life. I wouldn't know how to get along without it."

 - Walt Disney 

I woke up to the lemony flavour of this advertisement. I saw it coming when the ubiquitous antiseptic liquid that is a household name started airing ads for its new dish-washing liquid. All of us have learned to add a bit of it to clean surfaces, even in the bath; they diversified into soap and handwash and even though these did not smell of roses, we felt reassured that we were safe from germs. There is something like soup during a cold about it. 

"Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim." 

- Bertrand Russell 

The competition in the market could naturally not take this lying down. After all, it is about the home. It hit out by using the most vulnerable segment - children. The antiseptic became 'harsh' and your dear moppet's tiffin needed something that had the power of a Sachin Tendulkar ton, but gently. 

It is an aggressive appeal and this time I think the ad has hit where it hurts. The soap and handwash segment were relatively fine with an antiseptic version around, for it would probably be the extra choice, the second wash, so to speak. You don't do the dishes twice over, and you don't want what mops your floors to touch your kid's tuck box. 

As a regular user of the antiseptic brand, I think their strategy is to depend on loyalty. No one can compete with that. 

---

I have cropped the picture to hide the name of the product and not named the antiseptic brand...because I just felt like it. 

Sunday ka Funda

“Kodak sells film, but they don't advertise film. They advertise memories.”

- Theodore Parker

Most of us are cynical about ads, but we read them and watch them. Some of us are taken in. Is it because we need the product or because it has been sold to some instinct we did not know we had?

The above quote brings to mind two recent ads on TV. They work well.

This one took me to adolescent years. It has got everything right - it tells a story, weaves in the product and does not push it. It is catering to this young market with a music mobile phone. The actors are so real and the brilliant touch is the song. It is an old song, so why use it here? I think it conveys the longevity of emotions and by default the product.

Watch it and remember those days, unless these are your days!



In this other one, the brand positioning is brilliant. They have used an investment banker and "Mr. HCL" so effectively that when one of the models appeared in another ad, I thought it was betrayal. Again, a story, here more upfront because the product is meant to convey a high-profile, in anecdote form with a fine touch at the end:

Of Ads and Incomplete News

"The advertisements in a newspaper are more full knowledge in respect to what is going on in a state or community than the editorial columns are."

- Henry Ward Beecher

This is the front page of today's TOI. It is not the only paper that has sold its front page to an advertisement, but to permit its whole front page to be used in a quasi editorial format is a serious issue. The blank spaces in the real news items had the colour of the ad and the words repeated, "Anything incomplete can be a pain." The ad was for a mouthwash and conveys that toothpaste can only clean your mouth 25 per cent; for a full cleanup, you need Listerine.

If we accept such crass transposition of editorial and advertising space, then it is prudent to ask just how the message of the ad can resonate with editorial content. How complete can news be at any given time? Is, say, 'the process of dialogue continues' an incomplete idea and how must the news complete it? Does it have the right to do so? What about misleading headlines? The 25 per cent job done does not apply to news for there are versions of it.

This brings us to Beecher's quote. To an extent it is quite an accurate assessment. Editorial content can be biased; ads are not. They have only one agenda: to sell. Selling assumes buyers. In times of the right smile and the bright smile, teeth do make a statement. News often has bite, but no teeth.

The market economy - and tired as I am of the term one has to use it often these days - has made sure that we are dependent on products. Our purchasing habits and what we desire reveal the state of where society is headed. It isn't full knowledge, in that it does not quite adequately reveal culture, tradition and mindsets, but superficial mores.

Products like soaps tend to emphasise glamour, although now the trend is to use 'real' women endorsing some brands. I watch them and, to be honest, the real women don't appeal to me. Neither does the glamour factor. Am I the aberration? I experiment and try out several types. Where does that leave brand loyalty?

This is the crux. People are loyal to a product not because of advertising. We may try it once or twice, and as a junkie of the new I most certainly am the vulnerable segment. That apart, anything that can wash and clean and smells interesting is fine. Recently, I chanced upon an absolutely delightful soap that is not advertised. I picked it up because of its main content - lemongrass. I'd end up smelling like a Thai curry, but that fragrance works for me. It was only when I reached home and looked carefully at the packaging that I discovered it has an inbuilt loofah. Smart? Maybe. But I think a bath is incomplete without a loofah (when there is none around I use a dish-scrubber, and not the spongy side!) The soap one is nice and works just as well, but I also use my regular one. It's double the scrub and besides dead skin I might be killing some more. It is habit. This is beyond completion.

The reason for this personal digression is that 'knowledge' is not a word we can use loosely. By introducing a new product, advertising does work as 'news'. And news that is pushed is advertising. There are no demarcating lines, except those of ethics. It raises the question about how one defines ethics in the realm of hawking. Is it merely a matter of being a "pain" when it does not fill in the blanks? Or is the existence of the blanks a more honest take in that it empowers the reader to think and figure out the larger picture?

Such symbolism is beyond those busy selling their own mastheads, but as readers we know what we need to do. That 75 per cent that is not mentioned is better left unsaid. We'll manage on our own, thank you.