Controversial Marketing: When a Fish Out of Water Lands in Hot Soup

The ability to rationalize thoughts is one of the many parameters that marks a clear distinction between humans and other animals. However, critical reasoning often puts forward a conflict of interests, and the interpretation of various historical events proves this. Think Eve's apple, Jesus' race or Dashavatar in Kali Yuga- the veracity of these claims is mysterious yet firmly embedded in the pages of the history of humanity. We perceive what we are led to believe, and based on these perceptions, form opinions.

What causes a difference of opinions from a unilateral source of information?

Individual interpretations, environmental influences and a plethora of other variables answer this question. As a society, certain values shaped by the course of history are imbibed within people, and this inherent cognizance of the correlation between specific themes and ideas is used against us almost daily. Advertisements, propaganda, editorials and many other domains with a creative bias utilize this well-known fact to push a narrative forward. The challenge of bridging the gap between an inanimate product or service, and a memorable human experience is evergreen in advertising.

 

The Not So Very Holy Trinity Surrounding Advertisements

In the ever-competitive rat race of marketing products in innovative methods, companies have had several hits and misses. Advertising agencies often deliver on their promise of ‘thinking outside the box’ in unique ways. Some famous examples of successful advertisements that come to mind are the 90s Cadbury Dairy Milk cricket advertisement, the catchy Washing Powder Nirma jingle and upbeat iPhone advertisements. However, what about the other end of the spectrum?

 

Blurring the Lines Between Creativity & Controversy

A case in point would be suggestive and publicly inappropriate advertisements with innuendos visible from a mile. Looking back at Burger King’s 2009 ‘Super Seven Incher’ advertisement, there is nothing innocuous about how the company chose to market the food product. The model in the image had no idea her image would be used in that manner and unsurprisingly, called for a boycott. In a similar vein, the latest Sabyasachi Mangalsutra line ad campaign (2021) found itself as the Internet’s piñata for showcasing models in their lingerie, wearing the necklaces. Offending Hindu sentiments, netizens remarked that the pictures violated the sacredness of marriage and showed women in a demeaning light. Furthermore, for beauty companies such as Dove, inclusivity has mostly been a ball dropped, despite it being in the company’s court. Harsh criticism about racial insensitivity, body imaging and perceptions of femininity has forced multiple advertisement recalls for the company, catering majorly to a female-identifying audience.

          

The C in Women Stands for Controversy

Women habitually find themselves embroiled in contentious situations due to issues that have trickled down from history. Be it inequality, unjust discrimination or the targets of perversion; many strides have been taken to abolish these schools of thought. Despite tremendous efforts, the media often throws out questionable examples which make us re-evaluate how far we have truly come along. To elucidate this point further, Twitter as an open-for-all platform is the best example to study. Similar to other social media, ‘virality’ is a factor that drives user engagement on the platform. Given the 140 character limit for a tweet, making an impact with a single tweet cannot always be methodically thought out and uproar is usually caused by controversial tweets, especially by established firms and celebrities.

Opinions on socially prevalent issues or women on a whole often form the crux of sexist and controversial tweets. Calling women dishwashers, reminding them of their places in the kitchen, making demands for a sandwich and innumerable other such tweets and comments can be found scattered all over the Internet. Burger King was caught in crossfire on International Women’s Day in 2021 due to sharing the tweet pictured above. They followed up this tweet with a series of tweets stating that a very small percentage of women shared head positions in restaurants and other such culinary institutions worldwide. Appealing for changing the circumstances might have been the intention of Burger King but was the ill-phrased tweet an accident or deliberately made for pushing buttons?

 

Women have also been at the forefront of receiving criticism for something they were only a small part of.

For example, in the 2017 Pepsi commercial starring Kendall Jenner, people were quick to point fingers at the advertisement trivializing the Black Lives Matter movement. The advertisement showed Jenner, a model posing for pictures, inquisitively looking at an increasing crowd of protesters marching. In a dramatic but not unexpected twist, she changes her outfit and joins the crowd until they face a line of policemen. Barring the few times the product has already been placed in the advertisement, Jenner casually walks over to a policeman, hands him a can of Pepsi and smiles. Many thought this gesture was to signify “Have a Pepsi and Chill” and quite a few people were offended by this. Black Lives Matter has been a long and persistent movement since 2013, without yielding much fruit. Understandably, having a Pepsi could not solve racially motivated police brutality. However, Twitterati was ruthless towards Jenner, dragging her into the midst of the controversy by suggesting that she had never been a part of any protest, her monetary benefits superseded the impact the commercial had sought to create and that a particular still from the advertisement was directly copied from a real-life scenario. While Jenner should have been more mindful about choosing to star in the commercial, is she the only one to blame?

 

How Pepsi Left A Bad Taste in Everyone’s Mouth

 

Dissent, Diversity and Democracy- Painting a 3D Picture of India

With the 2^nd highest population globally, India is home to 1380 million people and over 1.26 million registered companies. India also houses many religions and ideologies, co-existing peacefully from a surface level. Catering to such diversity is no easy feat for market dominators. Advertisements, jingles, sale offers and a plethora of other options are used for retaining customers, united by the utility or significance of the product. The greatest limitation of commercial creativity is the inability to completely control the narrative and this is exemplified in a democratic nation like India. With over 100 languages and dialects across the country, do companies often get lost in translation about what their customers understand?

Tensions in India are omnipresent- within religious communities, social issues, and political reforms. There have been several instances where companies have tried to jump on the wave of either trending themes or long-standing traditions, through media. In recent times, one can recall Shahrukh Khan’s Not Another Cadbury Ad, urging users to shop from local stores or the PalatDe campaign by Thums Up for the 100^th year of the Olympics. The first advertisement was released during Diwali and the other during the Tokyo Olympics, following the idea of well-timed advertisements. However, around the same time, Zomato had released a series of star-studded advertisements whose reception was not quite stellar. The campaign features the delivery partners of Zomato delivering food to Bollywood celebrities and being asked to stay for a selfie or a slice of cake. The partners were ecstatic but a simultaneous ping on their phones alerted them about the next orders to be delivered, and they set off to deliver them. The subliminal implication of delivery executives being made to rush from one point to another to satisfy induced customer demand did not go unnoticed and a public outrage soon followed. Instances like this make one wonder how deep has commercialization penetrated our basic understanding of basic human rights.

The questioning of the ethicality of human practices applies to humanity as a whole, but what about religious practices? Often a point of contention in our day to day lives, religion plays a far greater role than people give it due credit for. In India, even cows are not exempt from the reaches of religion so it comes as no surprise that well-meaning advertisements trying to showcase the beauty of diversity are frequently shunned. Tanishq’s Ekatvam ad is the most recent addition to this list. The commercial shows a pregnant Hindu woman being escorted by her Muslim mother in law to her baby shower. The younger woman asks the older woman why she was organizing an event that was not a part of her religious culture, to which the older woman replied that all that mattered was her daughter’s happiness. The obvious message of the advertisement was rather sweet but bigotry soon reared its ugly head in the form of angry tweets and comments. Accusations of promoting inter-faith marriage, unnecessary propaganda and an angry demand for a role reversal of the religion were put forth for the company. After #BoycottTanishq began trending, it was not soon until the advertisement was pulled down. For a supposedly progressive country that prides itself on its diversity, was the advertisement truly laced with malicious intent? Or was it simply another token for people to be vociferous about their biased ideas of religion?

 

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

 

Advertising has always been a minefield to tread upon, but with terms such as ‘snowflake’ and ‘hypersensitivity’ permeating the Internet atmosphere- where do we draw the line between standing up for what is universally equal and unnecessarily complicating issues? Evading nascent social intolerance and promoting harmony across different areas of life is one of the biggest feats modern advertising is set to achieve, to ensure success.