A Time To Reflect

charukesi June 5th, 2006

Chase skirts now. Soon you’ll be washing them.

(Picture quality not good since taken from mobile phone, after hurried crossing of road, oblivious to irate drivers who almost got me but didn’t.)

And this from TVS. Eh, what is that? Conservative South Indian company? Where did you get that image from?! makes me wonder… Is it not part of a company’s “corporate social responsibility” (the way that phrase is bandied, it definitely deserves to go into quotes) to not create offensive advertising - or is this one of those nudge-nudge-wink-wink male bonding jokes that I am going up in smoke for, needlessly?

Comments?

• Advertising
• Comments(40)

charukesi March 31st, 2006

AdAge reports on the new to-be-launched Coke campaign - Happiness in a bottle (free registration required to read the article)

After trying a dose of reality, Coca-Cola Co. is turning to the effervescent message that drinking a Coke is “happiness in a bottle” for its new advertising campaign. While TV is a major aspect of the global effort, themed “The Coke side of life,” digital, viral and consumer-created content will dominate the continuous feed of creative during the year.

The happiness angle comes from a huge research (what else?!) that Coke has undertaken, called then”Big Dig” which revealed that consumers had a “deep-down love for the brand, but it wasn’t as top of mind.” They also learned that what loyal Coke drinkers love most about the brand was the physical and emotional uplift they got when drinking the product. (Note : Product, not the brand)

The Coke side of life is certainly not one of their better advertising slogans. Interestingly, happiness (from the bottle straight into the mouth) is not really a new association with Coke. Legend has it that the Coca-Cola name in China initially translated as as “Ko-ka-ko-la”, meaning “Bite the wax tadpole” or “female horse stuffed with wax”, depending on the dialect. Coke then researched 40,000 characters to find a phonetic equivalent “ko-kou-ko-le”, translating into “happiness in the mouth”.

So, as Coke globally struggles with providing better emotional meaning to consumers, in India the campaign has moved back to. A very tarty Aishwarya Rai making whistle sounds with an empty Coke bottle (and what is with that voice?). Thande ka tadka is as pointless and unimpressive an ad as I have seen in a long time. And coming on the heels of Aamir in Piyo sar uthaake, this ad is a huge let-down. With all of India wilting under the summer sun (peak time for Cola sales), surely Coke needs something cooler than thande ka tadka?

Earlier posts on Coke :

Vanilla Coke and ‘Wakau’

Cola communication and the consumer

• Pot-pourri , Advertising , Branding and Marketing
• Comments(6)

charukesi March 11th, 2006

There is a saying in Tamil… roughly translated means, to first pinch the child and then rock the cradle… or - the troubleshooter is the troublemaker…

And that is what Hutch, soon to be followed by other mobile phone operators are doing with their Mobile Manners communication campaign. Hutch now, Airtel and others soon.

I like the ads - great concept and executed very well. This TV commercial shows a man (dad?) playng with his little kid, he takes a picture of the kid, the kid snatches the mobile phone and throws it away. Super : bina izazat photo na kheechein - do not take photographs without permission.

The one I like even better is where the dad (again?) is trying to put the kid to sleep - so ja rajkumari so ja - and the kid bawls till he stops. Is your ringtone disturbing someone? Yes, yes. Let’s hear it for - against, I mean - obnoxious loud ring tones. (It is bad enough to have to hear some new Hindi movie songs on FM radio, but to have them ring in the next seat at work, NO)

And the hoardings which didn’t make any sense to me at first - Ali Baba and the forty tring trings (will try to get a photograph). And Hum aapke hain tring tring.

Libraries, cinema halls, work places, even schools and colleges - no place is safe from these tring trings.

Great campaign. But the cynic in me whispers - why? Did cellphone operators wake up one morning and realize that their corporate social responsibility quota for the year had not been fulfilled? Just wondering… (Reminded me of the statutory warning on cigarette packs, but that is another story altogether)

***
Speaking of mobile phones, and on, here is Always on, always good? at Mindspace. Do read it and leave your thoughts.

• Advertising , Branding and Marketing
• Comments(19)

charukesi February 14th, 2006

What did you do when you looked at the ineed image in my earlier post?

Or if you are a smoker, what do you do each time you see a cancer kills ad? Or an ad for cooking oil that shows that healthy young man suddenly collapse with a heart attack?

What will happen to you family after you die? Buy life insurance now…

Pictures of children orphaned in the earth-quake or people left homeless in the tsunami… Donate now…

Michael says, give us more gulab jamuns… A reviewer on Amazon says about My Own Country, Dr. Verghese’s book on AIDS, By about page 250 I began to grow numb from the overload off all the personal stories.

Ads, images, words that strive to shock. To induce fear and goad you into action…

Advertising has always resorted to fear and shock tactics, believing that they hold great value; optimistically believing in a have-knee-will-jerk-will-do sequence of actions… Except, it does not work that way…

I was arguing with a blogger friend who is seeking advertising-gurudom about this… How can that ineed image not move a human being?

People who say they are put off by harsh or shocking images are just looking for excuses… they are anyway insensitive….

I was actually arguing just for the fun of it…

The truth is, after a point, everyone suffers from shock overload… The mind switches off, looks for diversions, and excuses… I do not need to exercise… I do not smoke that much anyway… What will my individual contribution achieve?

How much is too much? At which point do you switch off your mind and say, Enough now… or even in a moment of self-deception, that is not for me, nor about me…

When does fear / shock really work? Can you think of a time when you were spurred into action that way? It would be interesting to think of it…

Look at the AIDA theory of how advertising works - or should work…

What does shock do? Awareness - sometimes yes, sometimes the ad-greater-than-message trap. Interest - certainly. Such words and images are attention-grabbing, as they are intended to be. Desire (or conviction) - I think if you are pre-inclined towards the message or cause. If you are not, then? Action - ideal situation, but how often does that happen?

The ‘inverted U’ hypothesis (just in case you thought I was weak in theory and knew only about AIDA) - mild fear or shock can lead to a change in attitude or behavior, but as degree of fear increases, attitude change or even interest dips. Inverted U.

***
Then what works? Humour, I have found, works - surprisingly. Not necessarily ha ha funny humour, but self-effacing, don’t-take-me-too-seriously kind of stuff can drive home the point much much better than on your face images.

Anti-smoking. Some of the best ads I have seen. No scary skeletons, no threat of the boogeyman looming large. But very effective.

Secondhand smoke kills

This ad for the Cancer Patients Association of India won O&M the gold at Cannes in 2002. Move over Marlboro Country and Leo Burnett.

And one I saw on MTV a long long time ago. A girl is driving down a wide open road, as she sees a young man thumbing a ride. She whizzes past without a second look. As she drives ahead, she sees another young man hitching, this time with a cigarette in his mouth. She drives past, and then reverses as she sees the man in the rear view mirror, and gives him a lift.

Smoking causes impotence

I can’t find that ad anywhere - but here is one that is equally simple. And blunt.

• Advertising
• Comments(10)

charukesi January 17th, 2006

Many years ago, when Indian advertising was all about inane, if catchy jingles and cloying family values, along came an ad which caught the imagination of the public like few other ads of that time did. The devil sprang on to your screen every night, rolled his eyes, bared his fangs and urged you to be evil.

It said, it is perfectly fine to want. To desire. And resent when you do not have what you covet. It said, I know there is a child inside you that is unreasonable, go ahead, indulge that child. Go ahead, be jealous, it is ok.

And it said all this without saying a word on screen.

Envy is an emotion that is best silent; it simmers, it seethes, it bubbles just under the surface. It is a look full of longing and resentment. It is a nasty dig here, a casually dropped word there.

It is a fervent yearning for harm to the object of one’s envy. In other words, a stone thrown plumb on the screen of your neighbour’s new tv.

No words said. Just neighbour’s envy, owner’s pride.

Cut to the present. The devil in its other incarnations.

(pic courtesy: agencyfaqs)

Dressed in prim black. Walking beside you. Talking to you. Preaching. Advising you to think.

The devil is not about thought, it is about feeling; feeling powerless in the grip of emotions that are otherwise unpleasant. It is that emotion that gives shape our our need for one-upmanship. It is that truth which lives within each of us, and at our weakest moments raises its wicked head.

It does not walk next to us. Or advise us to think before acting. It is just a green presence in our lives whose influence the best of us cannot escape.

Adults think and act, children do not. Suddenly, the child within us is no longer drawn to the devil. Ondia is no longer about envy but about rationality.

The devil acquired a voice. And in turn, lost its fangs.

***
Also Read

An earlier post on the Onida ad and the devil using the framework of transactional analysis - Giving the devil his due

This interview from the advertising agency and assorted others within the company on the thinking (?) behind the new devil. “What is interesting in the whole approach is that the devil helps us take the advisory route of telling consumers to make a purchase based on facts in a humorous way, so that consumers are not offended,’’ said Sharma.

If facts are all that are needed, then why the devil is he there?

• Advertising
• Comments(7)

charukesi January 13th, 2006

Seen the latest SBI campaign? On TV is Chimanlal Charlie and others who have lost bets. Because they did not believe that SBI actually provided the services they heard about. For instance, the third TVC, titled ‘Papad’, has a man rolling out ‘papads’ at home, while his wife watches. His sin was that he disbelieved the fact that the SBI offers home loans that cover moving-in costs.

And on the road are hoardings asking the audience a *bet you didn’t know this about SBI* question. With the answer Surprisingly SBI.

Humour and financial advertising? Potential disaster. But the ads are actually quite funny and manage first level attention grabbing. Full marks for the execution.

But every time see any ads from this campaign, I think - why so much defensiveness? Why surprisingly? It is a well known fact that SBI is the largest bank in India; sure many other services offered by the bank are not as well known, but why would the bank want to scream out that the consumer ought to be surprised by these? In case the idea is to target the young, moneyed, MNC bank-friendly customer, then what happens to the old loyal customers of SBI? Those who always knew. And for whom all this is not surprising?

As for the potential slippery customer, the ads seem to do even less. When I see the ads, I smile, I wonder. And then walk away. Without any intentions of ever banking with SBI.

In this agencyfaqs interview, O&M says that the insight behind the campaign was disbelief. But when disbelief gets translated into diffidence, it can be a PR disaster. As this campaign seems to me.

Update : I had posted this on mediamusings a while ago. After I wrote this, I saw the SBI ads on television a couple of times. And I found them suprisingly good. See, that word again. They are funny, they clearly convey the benefit and most importantly, they are not defensive in the manner of the hoardings…

***
The other thing is the SBI life insurance ad. The one with the two old women going to meet their brother on his birthday, plotting and planning and giggling away like a couple of college kids all the way… And the look of absolute delight on Chhotu’s face, mirrored by the look on his sisters’. Except “Chhotu” is as old as they are… I loved it.

Each time I watch the ad, I wait for the ending. I smile and generally feel happy. An ad for life insurance that talks about life and not death. Great.

Except for this niggling thought. An ad targetted at young people, showing old people and their lives and the promise of a very distant happy future… Feel good, super. Identification, zilch. When you are young and enjoying that heady feeling of “immortality”, how well would such advertising work? For that matter, I wonder about what kind of advertising would work with the target audience for life insurance products?

Would you buy a financial product, especially life insurance, based on an ad that made you feel good? Does emotional appeal work in case of such “rational” products? I am not nitpicking here, just wondering aloud… Traditionalists would argue that for a rational category like financial products and services, advertising needs to be equally rational and informative; more and more we see advertising with humour or emotional appeal in categories which were not earlier considered feel-good-worthy… What do you think - or feel - about this?

• Advertising
• Comments(7)

charukesi January 9th, 2006

Every time I read and begin to believe that creativity in Indian advertising is dead (or never existed?), I come across something like this:

[via adverblog]

• Advertising
• Comments(7)

charukesi October 27th, 2005

This is a refreshing take on the Neil-French-maid-crap-WPP issue. Jamie of the pictures has the issue French-fried thusly.

(click and view larger image)

Which also lets me link to this fabulous blog I discovered - words & pictures. Graham, the words in this team says this - It’s predictable, but still disappointing, that most of Neil’s critics have been female and most of his supporters male. It’s also amusing to note that many critics, having the courage of their convictions, post to blogs using their real names while the apologists invariably hide behind pseudonymous Hotmail addresses.

And ends with a sentiment many of us have expressed and agree with - Balancing work and family is something both sexes struggle with on a daily basis.

words & pictures is updated every Monday - and I cannot think of a better way to begin my Mondays.

***
That done, I must point you to my response to the comments on the earlier post. Sure, both men and women find it tough to balance family and career. But I would like to see men who have actualy given up jobs to take care of family / babies. Or even decided to go easy. In case of the women, it is a complete non win-win situation (whatever that means) - I have seen women who have got back to work after babies and stayed “committed” to work - there is a harsh judgment here too - they are selfish and aggressive and basically “unmaternal”. No, not win-win at all.

• Advertising
• Comments(3)

charukesi October 24th, 2005

Clearly this one is not for the straw-sipping wimps. Aamir Khan in Coke’s latest piyo sar utha ke ad. A series of images of people raising their heads, in different emotions - in prayer, in gratitude, in hope, in celebration, in joy, in relief… And Aamir Khan in the end, raising a Coke bottle to his lips, drinking with his head high up.

The ad made me sit up and take notice. Another in the series of good ads from Coke featuring Aamir Khan (although the ads have not created the kind of waves that the original thanda matlab line did, upsetting Pepsi’s Yeh pyaas hai badi). And when was the last time I saw a good ad from Pepsi…? A few initial thoughts on this ad, on the Coke Pepsi ads and on emotional appeals in advertising…

The idea - drink Coke with your head up in pride. Subtle association of the brand with other positive emotions… Never hurts a brand, although it may not help either.

The route- when all else fails, fall back on the emotional “pride in your brand” pitch. Old hat maybe, but as I said, never hurts. Pepsi has Shah Rukh saying (singing /stuttering) and doing good things for that brand; Coke drinkers, this one is for you to feel good about your choice.

I think it is a good time to introduce such a route since this is not peak season for cold drinks. The timing makes it possible for the consumer to get used to the idea, identify with the emotion and become fonder of the brand - ideally. Low risk as compared to peak summer season where the need is clearly for a tangible and relevant benefit - thanda matlab Coca Cola worked, but as the line starts getting thanda, it is now time for a change…

The message - does piyo sar utha ke have the punch that thanda matlab does…? I wonder whether the consumer does not feel foolish saying ‘my brand of sweetened carbonated drink, and I am oh, so proud of it’? I have seen that pride as an appeal works best in times of “conflict” - for instance, a cricket match we all feel compelled to prove our loyalty to our country…

The icon - Ah, Shah Rukh Khan versus Aamir Khan. The problem is, Shah Rukh stays Shah Rukh, in whatever he attempts. While Aamir becomes the character. So, any Pepsi ad I see now is just another Shah Rukh ad. Pepsi has been piggy-backing on Shah Rukh’s popularity with the young for a while now, without bothering about minor irritants like a decent creative idea.

See this : , and this : . And you’ll know what I mean.

Luckily for them, Shah Rukh remains a favourite among the target consumer group - the John Abrahams may come and go but Shah Rukh has stayed on. Aamir Khan does not compare. Is bringing in more “youth icons” such as Mona Jassi Singh and Rajyavardhan Silver Rathore going to help Coke now? Given that their iconic status is dubitable at best…

And finally, the brand - in my mind, the recent Coke ads with Aamir Khan are far superior in terms of creative ideas and just plain likeability. As compared to this, the Pepsi ads have no clear theme - Oye Bubbly what beyond a catchy jingle? Why snake charmer - we do not need yet another “India+culture” stereotype reinforcement, thank you.

Having said all that, I am forced to admit that as a brand, I like Pepsi far more - and I say this as a confirmed Cola non-drinking, market-watching person. It has to do with the kind of consistent and immensely appealing communication route that Pepsi took early on in the Cola wars in India. Pepsi understood the pulse of the younger generation and spoke to them right away in their language. Some of the most memorable lines have come from Pepsi - yahi hai right choice baby, aha! (at a time when ‘baby’ in India was still hip-speak and “cool”), yeh dil maange more (for a generation seeking to break traditional confines), nothing official about it (when Coke won sponsorship rights for the 1996 world cup)… Even when Coke had the bigger stars, including Aishwarya Rai.

Bottom line : I like the new Coke ad; it is a overflowing with feel good elements (including Aamir Khan) - but I have no hopes on what it is going to do for the brand. Coke had in thanda matlab, clear and appealing brand positioning - they need to come up with one more before the next season begins. Feel good is all very good, but it is just not enough.

• Advertising , Branding and Marketing
• Comments(14)

charukesi October 21st, 2005

I might be late to this party but I just read this interview on Ad Age with Neil French, the creative chief at WPP. In the interview, French shrugs his shoulders and tries hard to dismiss his decision to quit the company as just one of theose things that happen. (Link through adrants. The Ad Age interview requires free registration to read).

Wait. Why did he quit? Because of a comment he made earlier about how some women in advertising are crap because of their inability to commit themselves 100 percent to the job due to childcare issues. Uh?

From the fascinating interview -

I’m well-known for being as outrageous as I can to make the point that I want to make. Advertising is hyperbole and I exercise hyperbole as much as I can, but I laugh when I’m doing it. You can’t storyboard a smile, as somebody said.

Oh yes, I am laughing very hard. And I am reading on and gasping for breath and laughing some more. Because he calls this issue death by blog. Of course, it’s one woman getting her knickers in a twist and writing a long diatribe on a Web site and then all the other people with nothing to do joining in. Some were on my side, some were not on my side.

Now excuse me while I stop laughing just for a few seconds and go puke, and then go search for the other women who got their knickers into a twist over this offensive piece of cluelessness. (Will link to them here as and when I find - if you know of any other sites / blogs which have written about this, please let me know. Incidentally French is the advertising world’s “person with the most awards”.)

Read : Female like me, the excellent piece on this by Nancy Vonk, Co-Chief Creative Officer, Ogilvy Toronto. Neil did us the favor of voicing a widely held view, albeit an extreme version. It’s an opportunity for us all—men, too—to confront something every bit as wrong and unacceptable as racism. (Replace every comment Neil made about women with the word ‘black’ and take my point). Go read the entire post. And if you are interested, do read the comments too, they are as interesting and revealing as the post itself.

And the media reports : Economic Times grandly announces He spoke about women & lost his job - in which case, I am surprised any of us is still holding a job…

The Telegraph says it straight - Advertising chief loses job over French maid and sexist insults.
Pity they didn’t think of French loses job over French maid.

• Advertising
• Comments(11)