Branding in the name of god
How should the creative community deal with growing protests over the use of religious icons, symbols and practices in ads? With sensitivity, writes K V Sridhar
The advertising community needs a new playbook to better reflect the changing world of consumers and media
Is it blasphemy or quirky creativity? That is what is roiling up the debate forums in advertising today as consumers get more nervous and more vocal about their religious beliefs.
Recently two ads, one Indian and the other international sparked off controversy as they both invoked gods and goddesses, in the name of creativity. One was an ad by the Australian meat industry that had Ganesha sitting at a table with gods/superheroes from different religions (and galaxies), dining on lamb. The tagline: the meat we can all eat. And the second ad had the goddess Durga getting a makeover at a salon with the tagline: Gods too visit JH. Both ads have been at the receiving end of abuse, support, parody and whatnot on social media.
Controversies over advertisements, and someone’s creativity leading to angst among many isn’t a new phenomenon. For instance in the times of monarchy, anything against the establishment was considered treason, over time monarchy faded but still, what you say and how you say it continue to be a matter of concern! And as the creativity vs blasphemy debate breaks out, we are compelled to take a stand, yet one more time.
But before, I as an advertiser and a creative person take a stand I would like to highlight the nuances that make up the world today. In the early days of advertising when an ad offended sentiments, the government would intervene and either ban it or ask the message be altered appropriately.
From a time when one authority judged and decided, we have ushered in an era where all adjudge and all penalise. Earlier when someone erred, its impact was contained within given geographical boundaries. Not any more. Like the meat ad, made in Australia, for Australia but it traversed and how! Within a fraction of a moment, from the time it went on air, it drew outrage among a section of people in India, courtesy social media. As advertisers and brands we need to be aware that now all ourwork is shared, consumed and judged across nations, borders and sensibilities.
The reason I create this context before sharing my point of view is that this change has clearly set new premises and made communication a whole new ball game. Now that our work reaches beyond set boundaries and geographies we are at a greater risk of hurting sentiments. We live in the age where there are many ‘isms’-patriotism, sexism, terrorism, feminism, religious fanaticism; even a single person’s opinion can snowball into an ‘ism’ and become the opinion of many. The one who holds the reins of communication at such a time is surely all powerful, but to communicate in such a sensitive environment calls for great responsibility. To quote Spiderman, ‘With great power, comes great responsibility’.
We need to be very careful, (being careful isn’t synonymous to being fearful), be fearless but be conscious at the same time (yes, it is possible, no, fear and conscience aren’t an oxymoron). Let your message, your idea pass through the microscope of morals. Organisations today have legal departments that take great pains to ensure that all messages are legally correct. But as brands and advertisers we need to take a stand whether we just want to be legally correct or are we keen to be morally correct too.
Weigh your options, understand the impact and the ripple effect that the ad you create will create in its wake. For instance, competitive ads are a path many have chosen, and there is nothing wrong with it as such, but on a moral level do you want to be a brand who can belittle another brand just for publicity? The reason to be morally right isn’t just about the greater common good, but it has a self-preserving mandate attached. We need to realise that when we take a bold step in the name of creativity, we also risk alienating audiences. Thus when you want to reach out to a large audience and sell your brand at the end, ‘not to offend’ becomes almost a hygiene factor. The question you need to ask here is, are you willing to lose out on a chunk of audience at the altar of creativity?
That said some brands still look to embrace controversy , but the difference is that when they do so, they stick to their stand, no matter what the consequences. For instance, United Colors of Benetton is a brand that thrives on controversies, but they also choose to live through every legal battle that follows.
I am sure the moment I advocated caution, the ad community at large would feel an ‘ism’ of their own being violated and say, “Feature films usually get away with all of this, then why penalise us as ad makers?” Well friends, a feature film is a point of view presented in the form of a story, but ads, they speak for a person and a brand. A celebrity endorses it and influences people into buying and this increases the need to be careful and responsible. Let us be creative fearlessly and yet responsible, let our messages liberate, not hurt, and once we take a stand, letus stand by it.
As advertisers and brands we need to be aware that now all our work is shared, consumed and judged across nations, borders and sensibilities
# 2833