The recent controversy over the Flipkart television commercial (TVC) featuring Amitabh Bachchan has brought the spotlight back to the subject of claims and disclaimers within the advertising community. Firstly, let’s understand the new Flipkart campaign. Actors Bachchan, Alia Bhatt, Ranbir Kapoor and Mahesh Babu endorse Flipkart’s claims of being the best place for great deals. Deals that give you up to 80 percent off on a wide range of products.
Fantastic as it may seem, that is the deal Flipkart has cracked with its merchants. Not a deal entered into by Bachchan and his ilk, nor is it a deal brokered by the advertising agency or the media houses commissioned to create and disseminate the campaign! So, all the hullabaloo is about a Bollywood actor doing his job as a brand ambassador. (For context, the Confederation of All India Traders has filed a complaint against Bachchan and the e-commerce site alleging misleading advertising regarding smartphone pricing.)
In my mind, it is not the messaging that is the problem, it’s the trade practice that should be under the scanner. Regulatory bodies need to intervene and formulate policies that inhibit the proclamation of such high-falutin claims. Policymakers should be sensitive to business challenges of small and medium shopkeepers and traders. Legislation like the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP), 1970, and the Competition Act, 2002, which replaced the MRTP Act, were created for just such situations, under which affected parties could seek counsel and take punitive measures against such advertisers.
Let’s see how this travesty could have been avoided. The simple act of stating, for example, “up to X percent off” would immediately have consumers searching through their site and engaging in comparison shopping. One of the things that the rabble-rousers clearly do not understand is consumer behavior. There are some customers who will fall for your claims, log on in droves and crash your website. Then there are customers you’ll never reach. E-commerce may have grown exponentially but the reason people go to their friendly neighborhood store is because of years of trust, good old-fashioned advice and the need to touch and feel the product before buying it. These people may never buy online, and you have to let them go. An old adage in advertising say, “You can’t sell lipstick to a man.” In other words, if a customer doesn’t feel the need for your product, no amount of claims will help you sell it.
Trying to force a wedge between these customers and their trusted local store doesn’t help to sell to these customers. All it does is make them defensive about any other communication from your brand.
Which brings me to my next suggestion to salvage this situation. Be the friendly neighborhood store in your communication, not a brash newcomer who is denigrating your trusted storekeeper.
That’s all the free advice I can give the ad’s creators at this time.
Now to turn our attention to another pertinent issue. And mind you, this is as old as the hills. Why does the traders’ confederation have a quarrel with Bachchan? And why not Bhatt or Babu or Singh? Is it because Bachchan is a softer target? Or is it because suing Bachchan will garner bigger media currency than taking the others to court? Whatever be the ‘just’ reason, it’s highly misplaced and entirely improper. Because they are putting people in the dock who have no reason to be there.
Here’s the plain truth. No matter how high-profile the actor is, he is only following a script and being tutored to say his lines by a film director, under instructions from a client. It doesn’t matter that he is a venerable figure in India. In the words of a particularly unkind director I know, he is just a “talking prop”.
The blame should fall squarely at the door of policymakers. If the building is wonky, don’t blame the bricklayer, blame the architect. The advertising agency’s job is to advise the client. The client, in turn, needs to weigh the pros and cons of that advice and see what is best for the brand. And here I come to the question of style.
There was a time when advertising folk would self-regulate. This was not about being toothless and inoffensive. The reason was to protect the brand from seeming too caustic. This notion has been defenestrated.
Brands that wanted to run a competitor down did it in a cheeky manner, much like sportsmen on opposing teams. There was rivalry, but never malice. Duels were fought with gentlemanly aplomb. This is no longer the case and mud-slinging seems to be the order of the day. It could be a competitor brand, or in this case an entire section of society that puts food on the table doing ‘small’ business—a small shop, a small distribution network, etc.
The democratisation of advertising has brought its benefits. But the overall quality of discourse has sunk to deplorable levels. Sense and sensitivity seem to be kicked out and sensationalism is the order of the day. Do not be surprised if you see more of these cases in the future!
Vinod Kunj is the founder and CCO of Thought Blurb Communications