On the day that gay sex was made legal in India, I had wondered aloud on Twitter, whether condom brands like KS, Moods or even a deo brand like Axe – whose communication is all about attracting people (the female gender so far, since its a deo for men) – would use the occasion to provide a bit of a twist in their standard advertisements. As expected, none of them did. Which led me to wonder on the maturity of audiences and those of brands. (‘maturity’ for the lack of a better word, a more elaborate description follows)
From an experience in an earlier place of work, when we had played on the visuals of Sai Baba and Jimi Hendrix and talked about music and religion, I have seen the fear that marketers have about how the consumer will react to a communication that could be taken as offbeat. In the case above, one could argue about hurting sentiments of followers (Sai Baba’s, according to the client, Hendrix’, worried the copywriter ๐ ), but there really wasn’t anything derogatory. Now that may be a subjective reaction, so let’s go back to the initial example. I’m reasonably sure that even if KS/Moods/Axe had thought of this, they might have decided not to pursue it.
Is that because of a simple positioning mismatch that they perceive, or is it a fear to push the boundaries, of what they perceive as acceptable to their audience? Something that goes against the image they have created. But, as we keep discussing here, consumers are moving on. They talk to each other, and share their experiences about the brand, which may or may not work in advantage of the brand.
Meanwhile, I recently read an article in the New York magazine, which got me thinking quite a bit on this subject. The article was titled ‘Say Everything‘, and talked about what the author perceived to be the largest generation gap since the hippie generation. While the extreme scenarios outlined in the article- of the kind of photos and complete transparency, of thinking of themselves as having an audience, of archiving their adolescence, of having a thicker skin than earlier generations- may not be what the average youth indulges in in his community, it does point to a generation which is growing increasingly uninhibited with sharing more and more of themselves with others on the net. The author points out that with surveillance cameras, transaction tracking etc becoming the norm, this complete transparency approach might be a saner route.
In fact aren’t FB/Twitter status updates, and even online journals that many in my generation indulge in, also cases of living for an audience? The details of what they share might vary when compared to a younger user set, but this seems to be a trend that may not be scaled back, and in all possibilities, would increase. With the social tools that keep improving the ways to communicate, and share, can brands afford to cling to the kind of communication that they are used to delivering to the audience?
In another article I read, YouTube blogger Kristina Horner, who was criticised for working with Ford Fiesta, makes a wonderfully simple, yet passionate argument that for “both bloggers and brands to be successful they need to accept that traditional advertising is not-effective (and even rejected) and that publishers like Kristina can find a win-win situation where a brand supports their work without compromise.”
Would being completely transparent (yes, that is a bit of a redundancy, i guess) ensure that brands get a fair deal from the people they communicate to? Like I read in another context, would transparency fulfill the function that objectivity is supposed to?ย But as always, transparency is not something that can operate only in communication, it moves to product, and many other functions within the organisation. So, as more and more consumers realise what Kristina has articulated so well, shouldn’t brands also take some initiative in changing themselves, and collaborating with their consumers?ย That would take some maturity, i guess. ๐
until next time, audible audiences
PS. For those missing the Tool Aid that is the blog’s staple diet, here are a few interesting reads
The Sysomos in depth Twitter study that places India in the top 10 countries in which Twitter has been growing.
The Razorfish Social Influence Marketing report.
The Wetpaint/ Altimeter list of the world’s most engaging brands, and how there might be a link between engagement and financial performance
I believe Amul was the only company that used an allusion to the striking down of 377 (Out of the closet, out of the fridge; link: http://www.amul.com/2009hits/page7.html)
Your expectation was not wrong but it was limited. You assumed that brands of overtly related product categories will be able to make use of the path-breaking development most easily. That was a limitation of expectation, not delivery. ๐
And to think I do not even live in India!
oh thanks.. as for limited expectations, well, it was a moment’s thought and not exactly a ‘who all could fit in’ laundry list, so yes, it was limited – immediate association and TOM… and no assumptions, never said that other brands couldn’t/wouldn’t, these were the ones i immediately thought of… and they didn’t deliver.. (or rather, i havent seen any ads yet)
..point is consumers have evolved. clients have not. A few years ago, we were doing something as simple as a pack change on an fmcg brand – the agony which happened to change the classic one, almost made me give up advertising. client took six months, and lakhs of rupees before he was convinced of it. So something as drastic as an image make-over, would be something they WOULD shy away from. At best i can see these brands coming up with variants ( with completely different names of course)
Shefaly, Manu … I too feel it was a lost “opportunity” for many brands in the category, if viewed from a marketer’s lens. I’m pretty sure they must have thought of it, contemplated it even – how could a brand that’s positioned broadly on sexuality have missed this landmark event. Which leads me to feel that they perhaps decided to wait and watch a bit. My own assumptions of course -sharing them, for what they are worth ๐