ARTICLE
the 'open letter' was addressed to Aishwarya and just
her.
The authors of the 'open letter' - writers and activists
- are surely aware of the processes involved in the publishing of an advertisement. Everyone knows that the
advertisement has passed through many degrees of approval - that of the agency, the brand and perhaps the
actor too - but the letter was only addressed to Rai. The
actor had evidently not shot with a child - it was clear
that the image of the child was one painted on to the ad
by the creative agency - the picture was nowhere close
to resembling a real human being.
Obviously, 'An Open Letter to Kalyan Jewellers' wouldn't
garner the kind of attention that the letter did, nor would
have served the purpose of the authors trying to protest
the irresponsible symbolism of the ad. In this day and
age, when we have the luxury of garnering support for
our causes on internet, addressing the bigger culprits
behind the ad would have perhaps not been enough to
evoke moral outrage among netizens.
Then again, instead of directly approaching either the
actor or the other agencies involved in the making of the
advertisement, the activists decided to take the social
media route to take it down. So the possibility of their
letter of protest dying unnoticed in a star's inbox was
avoided that way.
Finally, it is much easier to take on individuals than
brands, who don't show evidence of being cornered
easily. Most brands, with their understanding of market
sentiments and the whimsical nature of public memory,
react with great nonchalance to such protests. For example, Kalyan Jewellers knows well that an 'open letter' making the rounds of Twitter wouldn't greatly dent
its core customer base - very few people will actually
be discouraged from buying jewellery based on the socio-political implications of a print advertisement by the
brand. Mostly, the only things consumers predominantly
focus on ads are information about discounts, rates etc.
It is for the same reason that a brand like Fair and Lovely, despite articles and online criticism, has managed to
thrive for decades and have shown no signs of being
discouraged at all. The product, which comes up with
the most regressive ads for an equally dubious product, comes from the stable of Hindustan Unilever which
manufactures hundreds of consumer products which
people are nearly conditioned to buy from habit. And
while activists went after Shah Rukh Khan to ask him
to stop endorsing fairness creams, their appeals went
nowhere. Unlike Aishwariya Rai Bachchan who could
claim she didn't know what the final ad looked like and
thus had wiggle room, Shah Rukh could hardly pretend
he didn't know what product he was endorsing.
Kalyan Jewellers, it is clear, pulled the advertisement
because it jeopardised the image of their brand ambassador - a big Bollywood name worried about the buzz
around her. Clearly, they had not seen a problem with
the ad and let it be printed over one full page and even
paid crores for its publication. Their response, it is not
difficult to see, comes in consideration of the damage
they fear having inflicted on Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's
reputation.
Then again, Kalyan Jewellers itself isn't a big consumer
brand like Hindustan Unilever or Emami, whose men's
fairness cream is endorsed by Shah Rukh Khan. No
wonder then it wanted to put a hurried end to the controversy and not turn a blind eye like its big brothers. And
unlike fairness creams, the outrage here was over one
ad that could be pulled with minimal damage to the bottomline and not against an entire product line.
We can only hope that the incident leaves a dent in the
conscience of brands who manipulate human insecurities quite blatantly to sell their products.
19 | BOOM