There has always been a debate on whether art depicts life as it is now or whether it influences the way that life will be in future. The former presupposes a static view of art as a reflection of current reality while the latter places it on a much higher plane. In India today as I see it, there are 5 major ‘art’ forms that have a bearing on our society. Regrettably, none of them are related to true creativity for the sake of it. Unfortunately for us, we are a mundane society that is far more influenced by materialistic creative renditions than by poetry, literature or painting. These 5 commercial art forms, for want of a better word are:
· Advertising
· Television serials and shows
· Movies
· Television news
· Newspapers
While each of these has the power to influence society and public behaviour in varying ways, the purpose of this blog post is to focus on the first only i.e. Advertising and it's bearing on business.
There are several features about Advertising as a medium of expression. However, the critical point is that someone pays for it. It has a commercial objective as indeed most of the others referred to above also have. There is one important difference, however. Advertising is usually paid for by commercial enterprises. There is a direct and straightforward linkage between the medium and the fact that someone is using it to further his commercial objectives. Newspapers and some of the other media have at least a semblance of a social objective. “All the news that’s fit to print” implies a degree of selectivity (whether that is good or bad may be debated) that may have some bearing on what is good for society. Movies and serials have a creative life of their own. They may be produced for making a profit but the act of production itself has a creative genesis. Somewhere, somehow the writer, director or producer may be doing it as he genuinely wishes to showcase his creative skills rather than to just make money.
Advertising has none of these covers. It exists to sell products, services or create an image. It has no pretences of having a social objective. In the ‘70s when Hindustan Lever first came up with Fair and Lovely it was initially sold as a technically advanced cream that could incidentally make you fairer. The campaign had little impact and for several years the brand languished with poor sales. Subsequently Hindustan Lever management realised that Fair and Lovely was selling very well in UP and Bihar and the reason appeared to be that parents of prospective brides realised that the product could help in getting better bridegrooms for their daughters. Levers ran a cinema campaign (there was no TV then) with this theme delivered in a hard hitting commercial and sales zoomed. There was also a public outcry against the advertising by women’s groups and other concerned people which only helped to accelerate sales further. The ethical question that arises about whether Fair and Lovely was right in doing what they did still rages. The marketing man’s argument is straightforward. The desire to be fair or to marry a fair bride is deeply ingrained in our society. Levers only produced a product (Fair and Lovely) that met that requirement and was able to market it very effectively. That is the cornerstone of every marketing strategy taught in every textbook. What did they do wrong? Why should Levers be responsible for shaping social attitudes? What is the business of business?
The aftermath is even more interesting. Hindustan Lever pioneered the development of fairness creams and developed the technology in-house. A lot of marketing Gurus in India and overseas felt that the need for fairness was uniquely Indian and that there would never be a demand for such a product from Asia or anywhere outside the subcontinent. The fact is that as of now every major multinational company including L’Oreal, Nivea, P&G and a host of others markets fairness products all over Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Clearly the product fulfils a deep-seated need not only in India.
The question that arises is that should marketers attempt to lead social change? Tata Tea came up with a social awareness campaign: ‘Jago Re’ that talks about the responsibility of voters to exercise their franchise. In the same vein Tata Steel ran a campaign of how much they do for their employees and the community ‘We also make steel’ Is this sort of advertising useful and effective? Shareholders of these companies may argue that money is being wasted as a direct correlation between such campaigns and sales is difficult to establish. Whereas Tata loyalists will see the campaign as strengthening the brand image of the Tatas as ethical and socially responsible industrialists. But does that help to sell more tea or steel? What is the business of their business?
My own take on this is perfectly clear. Commercial enterprises exist to meet the objectives of their shareholders. In most cases this would translate into being profitable over the long haul. It is necessary for them to remain within the legal frameworks of where they operate. They should pay their taxes and treat all stakeholders as the law of the land requires. It is not incumbent on them to change, modify or ‘help’ society. Their contribution rests in providing employment and income for their direct and indirect employees. Anything else is presumptuous and a waste of time and money. In that context I question the recent legislation that requires companies to spend a percentage of their income on CSR. Such a law will only spawn a legion of freebooters as companies look for ways to spend the enormous sums involved. The Government cannot outsource their social responsibilities to the Private Sector. They should focus on governance and leave the business of business to business.
