For once, an indecent exposure we liked!

The cat is finally out of the bag. After seven years of preparation, the Suresh Kalmadi-led Commonwealth Organising Committee has got nothing to show for its efforts. And it is thanks to the media that these guys have been caught with their pants down and exposed their naked ambition.

For its propensity to sensationalise all things important and trivial, this behaviour of the media has actually come as a blessing in disguise. To ensure the success of an event, which can make or mar the country’s image, any amount of noise that is needed to make the guilty heads roll, is welcome. Kudos to the media for having played its part!

The media has exposed the nefarious activities of politicians who are running the affairs of the Games, petty contractors and vendors, corrupt NRI businessmen with dubious track records and the ignorance of insouciant senior politicians. A loud bang was indeed warranted to wake up a government, which seems to be insensitive to everything – price rise, Maoism, the civil unrest in Kashmir, floods in Bihar, UP, Gujarat and Ladakh, even acquiescing to a loud and foul mouthed Pakistani foreign minister.

Hope, the media continues the good work, and refrains from indulging in stories about superstition, incest, black magic and all things that do not deserve more than one minute of air time.

Just not ‘fair’

The government prohibits advertising alcohol and cigarettes. In all fairness, it should consider banning fairness creams. While substance abuse affects the body of an individual, racism afflicts the entire society. And the psyche of generations. Ads for fairness creams only seem to exacerbate this prejudice.

Ads have tremendous power to influence people. Till the past few years, fairness creams were associated only with beauty. But the brands are now using the idea of ‘success’ as an outcome of fairness. Even if the ‘dark-skinned’ protagonist in the ad is talented, it will require her to become fair in order to get noticed. To use the mass media to propagate racism is a dangerous phenomenon.

It is no secret that we Indians have a preference for all things white. But brands and advertisers cannot wash their hands off on the premise that they are only catering to a demand. For that matter, alcohol, drugs and pornography too have tremendous demand!

Over the years, careers, relationships, dreams and lives have been broken because of our infatuation for fair skin. In matchmaking sessions, job market, modelling world, Bollywood, college and school campuses, and even in homes when parents discriminate between siblings.

The qualities of a human being should be the sole criteria for his/her success. Beauty is skin deep, whichever colour it is - Aishwarya or Lara.

So, the next time you see an ad for a fairness cream, use the power of the remote control. Stop the demand; the supply will dry up automatically! Fair deal, isn’t it?

Smut - coming soon to a TV screen near you

TV news channels, especially Hindi, seem to have become electronic versions of Mayapuri and Manohar Kahaniyaan.

Tune in to any news channel, and chances are you will see aliens making surreptitious landings, prostitution rings, haunted places, aghoris dancing half nude in cemeteries, astrology, or a mad dog terrorising a neighbourhood. There was this one time when the channel, which by its own admission delivers news the quickest, showed a 2-min clipping of two serpents having intercourse. Going by the anchor’s fever pitched voice, it was news to him that snakes are born out of physical enterprise and not produced on trees. ‘Dekho, kaise lipat rahe hain ek doosre se’ (Watch, how they are embracing each other), read his script.

Quite clearly, either there is a lack of serious news to fill in 24 hours of airtime or the newsmen have lost their bearings and the understanding of what constitutes ‘news’. It might also be a marketing strategy to appeal to the lowest common denominator of audiences, grab eyeballs and subsequently ad revenue. For a few channels, it does seem to be working. India TV seems to lead the pack, and purportedly enjoys an 18 percent market share. Audiences in the cow belt and in the hinterland do not really distinguish—or are bothered about differentiating—between hard-nosed news, fiction or pure bunkum. Surprisingly, viewers in metros, belonging to SEC A and B class homes, regularly tune in to these programmes.

The government’s programming guidelines clearly prohibit channels from promoting superstition and sleaze. But channels brazenly flout this rule. There are stories abound of self-styled babas curing possessed villagers by thrashing them when they are not caught in romps with starlets; babies being thrown from rooftops to ward off evil, titillating MMS’ involving teenagers in hormonal overdrive, gigolos selling their wares on Delhi’s streets, fisticuffs between step wives… everything seems to be ‘Breaking News’.

Clearly, sleaze, slander and smut have become the name of the game. And viewers seem to be lapping it up. No wonder, our leaders continue to screw the country’s future, while its citizens are busy watching smut.

Should the ambassador be held guilty if the brand goofs up?

Till he rammed his car that fateful night, Tiger Woods was one of the most expensive and sought-after brand ambassadors. But as his sexploits became media fodder, brands started avoiding him as regularly as his putts would avoid the birdie. While we know a lot of instances of the brand suffering because of its ambassador’s misdemeanours, it is also interesting to study the repercussions when the tables are turned. Should the brand ambassador be held responsible in case the brand creates any mischief?

In early 2000, Home Trade launched an advertising blitzkrieg using some of the biggest personalities – Sachin Tendulkar, Shah Rukh Khan and Hrithik Roshan. No one quite knew what Home Trade did, including the personalities endorsing them, I guess. Home Trade went bust soon after, and the trio seemed to develop selective amnesia. When the cola pesticide controversy broke out, Aamir Khan stood by brand Coca-Cola and went all out to defend it, even giving testimonials in his personal capacity. Aamir, being Aamir, pulled it off well, although it is a known fact that the beverage manufactured back then, did contain traces of pesticide.

But do you think brand ambassadors should find blood on their hands, if the hand that feeds them is covered in muck? Tricky!

When celebrities sign up for a contract, their immediate concerns are the moolah and whether the brand would gel with their personality. An adverse eventuality is the farthest thought in their mind. They would never be privy to the internal machinations of the company, stability and long term prospects. Hence it would not be entirely just to blame them.

Having said that, celebrities should realise that consumers would trust or prefer a brand over its competitors if they are endorsing it. Hence, they need to exercise maximum caution before signing on the dotted line. While initiating penal action against them would be harsh, brand ambassadors need to accept the moral responsibility and express regret about erroneously misleading consumers. After all, celebrities, too, are brands in their own right. And no one would like to be seen in the wrong company. Accenture would certainly agree!

Pester power ahoy!

Have you ever tried counting the number of ads featuring kids? Not that you don’t have better things to do in life! But if you are a parent, who has to regularly field off questions from your children why you cannot buy the latest car or mobile phone, you might do well to undertake this activity asap. The need for the brazen use of khandaani looking kids to sell everything from mosquito repellants to telecom services is indeed questionable. One can understand if the product or brand is meant for the child, say a toy, a health drink, bicycle or apparel. But why show a 5-year old becoming a scarecrow to help his granny shoo the crows away; and bring in a detergent which cleans the stains, while the kid beams his angelic pearlies before the camera? Probably, it is the urge to tell a story. Or the itch to add the cuteness factor, and establish the emotional connect with the brand. Whatever the ruse, the ground zero of all this marketing activity is the middle-class home, which might not be financially strong enough to satiate the kids’ endless demands. Marketers should realise this. Pester power is potent. And marketers do realise this. The sad fact is that despite all the claims of thinking out-of-the-box, marketers and advertisers resort to good ol’ pester power to sell their wares. Offhand, I can rattle off a slew of products which use children – telecom, detergents, mosquito repellant, soaps, washing machines, television, insurance, banking services, hawaai chappals, air conditioners, everything except condoms. Or is it? Hark back to the 1980s when a Kohinoor ad featured a desperate couple trying to steal in a few private moments when their bonny baby starts bawling. No one has been creative enough to feature kids in condom ads after that. Developed countries have strict rules for featuring young ones in ads. Like India’s free market economy, its advertising industry, too, uses kids wantonly to sell products. It’s time our marketers, creative gurus and ad film directors really put their thinking caps on, and shun the easy way out. Using kids to sell products is not cute, it’s irritating.

The worth of a film critic

Thank God it’s Friday or, TGIF, is a sigh, let out by work-weary professionals. The film fraternity, however, holds its breath on this day of reckoning. The judgement often comes from seemingly ordinary individuals on other days, but suddenly acquire demi-god status on a Friday – the film critic. I often wonder about the need for critics, especially the ones who have never been in the shoes of the hapless souls whose labour of love, they seem to be judging. It pains me all the more when some critics take sadistic pleasure in tearing apart the film in a matter of two minutes, a film which might have taken years to produce. However bad the film is! How fair is it that an individual, who has never directed a scene or written a script, gets to judge the talent of people, or decide for millions whether they should watch the film or spend the weekend doing better things. The dizzying multiplex rates and the crores charged by the stars might be one plausible reason why critics should step in to advise whether the performances are worth the viewer’s expensive buck. But I have felt that word of mouth, rather than a critic’s pen, is more effective in this case. So, if the movie is worth getting trashed, it will eventually meet its fate. But why does one person have to decide or preempt that eventuality? A movie is made for the viewer, not for the critic. So let the viewer wield that sacred power. If the television channel or the newspaper needs such reviews to fill its space, they better fill it with the reactions of the audience, rather than the critic. It’s not that critics are unimportant. Some of the reviews are well worth it, and an industry does need a watchdog. It keeps the directors, script writers, actors and the creative geniuses on their toes, and brings out the best in them. But the critic should ideally be the person who knows where the shoe pinches, rather than someone who decides its worth without stepping into it.

Corporate social irresponsibility

Responsibility is a big word. So when the words ‘corporate social responsibility’ are treated as casually as Rahul Mahajan treats women, it takes a disaster like the BP oil explosion to jolt businesses out of their complacence. Today, CSR has become part of a marketing mix of a company. Corporates expect due publicity out of every CSR activity they undertake, however insignificant it might be. I don’t think we can actually save tigers by signing online petitions and writing blogs. But if a company expects people to know about its philanthropic causes, I don’t think their concerns are misplaced. It’s human tendency to feel more gratified when we help people when others are looking. A business entity is no different? The problem arises when it does not fulfill its primary responsibility. British Petroleum spent a lot of time and money to change its image. Companies which exploit natural resources like those in oil & gas, mining, steel sectors, have a tough time managing their image. A minor slip and hell breaks loose. BP tried to present a more humane face to its business: it changed its logo to a more colourful one; rechristened itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and initiated several CSR activities in the markets where it did business. But all those efforts have gone down the Gulf of Mexico. The situation was exacerbated by the puerile reaction of a cornered CEO who said, “I want my life back” at a time when his company was responsible for one of the biggest environmental tragedies of our time. If BP had paid as much attention to its operations as it did to burnish its image, it would have done a lot of good to the company, its shareholders and to the planet. A single act of irresponsibility undid years of corporate social responsibility efforts. Some of Union Carbide’s slogans sound so ironic in hindsight, ‘Safety is everyone’s priority’, ‘A hand in things to come’, ‘More jobs through Science’. I think companies would work in the service of the society if they fulfill their primary responsibilities first, and then focus on CSR.