Is PSU Advertising , changing......?

Dull, boring, Inconsequential...Public Sector Advertising has seldom been taken seriously by The Ad Professionals, critics, or even Mainstream Biggies. Has this category begun to change, Demonstrate Moves that suggest Positivity and Professionalism? Our consulting editor jumps into the argument...

A lethal and flamboyant broadside was unleashed by a young, new-age Creative Director of a hi-profile A-lister ad agency to an ad professional from a PSU-lead adshop at a brand conclave recently. “Jesus, you are with those guys? Get out of that junk-shop fast, buddy, because that’s not advertising, trust me! ‘Marching into a Golden Future’ is their idea of iconic headline! Real life-threatening! It’s advertising by, for and of PSUs! Run fast before you get unemployed,” he said.

Perhaps a loose cannon comment! However, for people who have tracked this PSU category, is the young man’s opinion really too harsh? Or is there (beneath the dramatic exaggeration) some truth? Are PSU advertisements down in the drudgery dunks?

NTPC’s Senior Corporate Communication Manager Ruchi Ratna believes that such language and hi-decibel posturing is unwarranted and some facts must be brought to bear before letting off steam. “To begin with, PSUs are not FMCGs and therefore, to compare an NTPC, BHEL, SAIL or Power Grid ad campaign to a Pepsi, Coke, Airtel or Nike is unfair, silly and irrelevant. Our target groups and consumer base are totally different and so are our basic communication compulsions and blue-print,” Ratna says. Besides, she adds forcefully, “We are a government body and answerable to the highest authorities, and therefore cannot afford the luxury of creative adventuring of the attention-grabbing kind. Hence, most of our communication is information-driven, not imagination-led, because of our agenda. However, some government outfits – banks for instance – are doing splendid creative work. SBI is a terrific example!”

Leo Burnett’s gifted and articulate NCD K. V. Sridhar (Pops), is next. The veteran agrees with Ruchi about great work being done in the banking sector and adds LIC and Maruti to the list, but laments the overall lack of vision, pace and effectiveness. “Three decades ago, PSU advertising was much more meaningful and engaging. But possibly due to the shift from a socialistic to capitalist, and fast-track economy model, PSU communication seems to be more concerned with other mundane issues and burdened by political and bureaucratic compulsions. It’s a pity because, if one sees places like Singapore and Malaysia, government advertising – even in core industries – works as a wonderful agent of change, and is not riddled with dull formats or puerile, amateurish headlines, or clichéd prose (invariably about nation-building and improving everyone’s quality of life) superimposed on a predictable layout comprising the face of half-a-dozen government biggies,” says Sridhar.

Paris-based graphic designer Pia Sen – who was engaged with the genre of advertising during her brief stint with an ad agency in India earlier on – has her take. “I don’t want to play footsie or be sweet n’ cute but it’s basically a total no-win situation in most cases,” Sen gives her views. Why? She believes it has (to begin with) to do with the quality of people who commission and judge the work. “How many of them are really qualified or communication-literate? So you have an amazing situation of total non-professionals judging professionals! How weird is that?” says Sen. Then there is the bidding system and of course the carnival (or circus?) called ‘Presentation’ where frequently, over 50 agencies are invited to present their work within a time duration of around ten minutes! “That some agencies still manage to do some decent stuff is a miracle!” adds Sen.

Power Grid’s, young & dynamic Sr. Manager, Corporate Communication, Naresh Kumar is less sceptical and believes that despite the obvious limitations of not having a consumer-driven product portfolio, PSU advertising has been doing a commendable job. “Today, top managements of most PSUs have recognised the changing contours driven by new-age competition and begun to look at personnel who are professional and communication-savvy to respond to these changing times with quality and speed. This has led to a lot of effective advertising in a domain, earlier dominated by communication that was less focused or target-driven because it was not required. It is easy to be critical, but to create engaging work designed to meaningfully connect with a PSU agenda is not easy. The battle continues and I continue to believe that we are only getting better each day,” says Kumar.

Ogilvy’s NCD Abhijit Avasthi takes Naresh Kumar’s case forward with passion and purpose as he says, “I have major issues with guys who choose to flamboyantly ridicule, mock or dismiss this genre of advertising – for effect! We at Ogilvy continue to challenge this stupid irresponsible and totally inaccurate line of thinking with consistent ground breaking work. Be it a range of banks (considered poison by the pseudo-creative types), or the earlier Incredible India campaigns, we enjoy great comfort levels with this category.” Avasthi agrees that most of these guys are not too advertising or marketing-savvy “but unlike many of the smart, I-know-it-all types, once you win their confidence, they are happy to trust you, full-on and respect your judgment. Unlike the private sector types, they have no illusions of grandeur and nor do they, at the drop of a hat, flash attitude or fancy jargons.”

Dr. Bhawna Gulati, Assistant Director of NABH, in conclusion provides a healing touch as she says, “This category is certainly changing. In fact, the most brilliant examples are Jago Grahak Jago and Incredible India. Earlier, the focus was on informing and making aware of issues to the public, at large. Today, PSUs have understood that they need to go further and effectively communicate their messages to the pre-determined target groups.” What she is saying does make sense. From the advertisements that are regularly released by traffic police departments to even income tax deadline ads, the effects are showing and viewers are noticing the message.

No doubt, on the factor of creativity, PSU ads might still not pass full muster; but at the very least, they’ve started changing. And a good start is the battle half won we say.

Is PSU Advertising , changing......?

Is Branding Yesterday , Passe , Dead?

4PS B&M Consulting Editor Endeavours to Unravel a new-age, Revolutionary, Path-Breaking Philosophy put forth by an Ad Guru that Puts The Age-old and much-revered concept of Branding to Sleep… Well, at Least if you Believe us Blindly !

Branding, for decades, has been hymned, celebrated, exalted, venerated and worshipped as the gospel truth by any marketer worth his FMCG lapels! The high priests have pronounced that the ‘Brand’ is ‘God’ and the ad executives, GCROEs (God’s Chosen Representatives On Earth!). For decades, the ‘brand’ has been acknowledged as the single most important aspect of business. Its success equals the business it drives. Branding’s prime objective remains the same – to make a product look distinct & different from competition and epitomise the vision & values it represents to gain that decisive cutting-edge lead.

The textbooks, to gloat over it, pronounce its value, power and criticality in no uncertain terms. Author Sanjay Tiwari in his much acclaimed book (The Uncommon Sense Of Advertising – Getting The Basics Right) offers his informed take in style: “Brands rule the world of marketing today because they rule the world of consumers today. They have not only changed the way we shop & buy, or consume, but have also had a profound effect on the way we live. Just count the number of brands you interact with since getting up in the morning till you sleep in the night.”

For some of us, he says, it might be more than the number of people we interact with in the same time. We don’t drive cars any more; we drive our Mercedes, Hondas & Toyotas. We don’t wear shirts, jeans or sneakers, but wear our Arrows, Allen Solleys, Levis, Wranglers, Nikes & Reeboks. We don’t drink cola, eat chips, burgers & chocolates, rather we drink our Cokes & Pepsis, eat our Ruffles, Pringles, McBurgers & Kit Kats. The brands that promise us a unique offer of utilities, benefits, values, personality traits, images and associations, that will satisfy our given needs (functional or emotional) and that we can relate to (consciously or subconsciously), are the ones that we identify with and show preference for. Therefore, more often than not, the brand (and its promise) extends beyond the product core. Successful brands often transcend their physical existence, take on a life and build relationship with their consumers. The positive experiences, values & associations that consumers perceive the brand brings to them leads to fulfilment of their expectations. The feeling of fulfilment becomes the reason for the success of the brand, and the basis for the relationship.

Ultimately, building brands is about running a marathon. And it makes huge business sense to invest in brand building. In fact, strong, reputed brands have a lasting bond with their consumers. Their brand loyalty is very difficult to break. The loyal consumer base raises the entry barriers for the competition and enables the company to enjoy benefits like premium pricing and sustained market share over longer periods of time. All these put together result in the brand being able to leverage in equity with the consumers and reap long-term profits for the company.

Chris Jaques, the founder of Spark Innovation Consulting, which specialises in developing innovation strategies to ignite specific business areas, however pooh-poohs this entire gyan and aggressively gives a clinically chronicled 5-point rationale. He believes that the days of branding being the prime discipline to communicate the consistency of a given product and the reliability of its promise, are clearly over. There’s been a paradigm shift in the Market-Product-Consumer connect with the money now going into ‘services’, not products. He supports it with hard facts. “Walmart’s revenues are three times more than the entire revenue of both P&G and Unilever combined! Citibank & ING, too, are twice their size. This is the age of ‘Service’ not ‘Products’ and service marketing requires a totally different set of rules. Services are customised, not mass-produced,” Jaques tells 4Ps B&M. Jaques argues that most of today’s real killer brands are built on concepts, not products.

One example is how Apple produced the iPod with iTunes. First, they commissioned an idea and a design from IDEO. Next, they bought chips from Motorola and put them in a casing from Foxconn. Then they hired developers to create music software. At another level, agents were going tongs n’ hammer negotiating access to content, which incidentally was created by publishers and artistes. Apple only ‘packaged’ it all together, managed it and sold it. It produced nothing!”

But it’s not as if this ‘branding is dead’ doomsday call is new; and it’s not as if it has been accepted by a majority. Tom Barnes, CEO of Mediathink, in response to the ‘branding is dead’ question, once wrote, “Branding will never die – it’s the tools and the means by which we typically use them to achieve the goal of branding that are, in fact, obsolete.” Mark Twain went one better: “The rumours of the death of branding have been greatly exaggerated.” Yet, the rumours just never went away. Jonathan S. Baskin, the author of Branding only works on cattle, writes, “There’s an ugly truth we need to admit: brands are dead, and it’s time for marketers to admit it. Nobody carries brands around in their heads. Nobody has a relationship with a brand.”

In summary, coming back to the Jaques philosophy, if a brand is predictable today, it is most likely to be dead, tomorrow! Apparently, Disney develops a new product every five minutes! Sony produces around 5,000 new products a year. Zara can translate a fashion design from the Paris Catwalk to the shelves in 15 days. Even if one wants to create a predictable brand message over time, one can’t. Why? Because there are over 50 million blogs, 24x7, flashing out messages about brands. These messages are based on customer experience, personal agenda or social rumour not strategic positioning! As Jaques says, brand terrorism is a deadly fact, alive & kicking with China being a soft target. The triclosan gossip savaged their soap & toothpaste sales. Chenggang’s nationalist blog shut down Starbucks in the Forbidden City. In today’s marketscape, business is the brand and brand is the business. The brand is absorbed, imbued & encompassed in every conceivable experience that the consumer experiences – and therefore, in effect, every action a company takes.

Yes, for every Justin Timberlake who is past his prime, we have a Justin Bieber to take his place. But there was only one Michael Jackson. In conclusion, what it means is that those companies that believe their products would sell simply based on their brand, would be the first to reach their doom. As said earlier, Apple is perhaps ‘the’ greatest current technology brand – and even it doesn’t believe purely in the power of its brand; then why should you make that mistake?

Is Branding Yesterday , Passe , Dead?

Is Brand Endoresment About Ethics … or Consumer Connect?

In other words, should Celebrities Worry about Ethics while Endorsing Brands? Should they be Answerable to calls of ‘Political Correctness’ while becoming brand ambassadors? Or should they be Simply allowed to do what they are best at – Attracting Attention for The Brand – and not be Questioned beyond that?

Squeaky-clean cricket icon Sachin Tendulkar’s firm and categorical no-no to endorsing a big-buck liquor endorsement deal must have surely fetched him an additional zillion fans, mothers, bhabis, dadis and nanis heading the list! To brush aside Rs.20 crores for the sake of principles (in today’s blatantly materialistic and consumerist world) is something not many other celebrities would be able to do? However, the question that then pops its head out in a provocative fashion is: Is product endorsement about ethics or consumer connect? Do fans give a damn about ethics and morality of their favourite celebs when purchasing or selecting a brand? If the Little Master, actually, did greenlight a liquor brand endorsement deal, would his clean-cut, decent image really be hit for a six? Should celebrities even be answerable on this parameter?

Delhi-based theatre director and actress Lushin Dubey says that any celebrity has to be “very cautious and intelligently discriminating.” She acknowledges the fact that she has a certain image with her fans and therefore has a responsibility to not let them down by portraying or depicting something that may shock, surprise or outrage them. “I don’t smoke; but even if I did, I would rather endorse a classy wine than a cigarette, because it would send the wrong signals in every way... This is beside the fact that cigarette smoking is injurious to health. As for wine, my doc says it’s fine!” says Dubey with a laugh. However, the flamboyant iconoclast Prahlad Kakkar believes most of all this is garbage & poppycock as he tells 4Ps B&M, “Which century are we living in guys? As a celeb (cricketer, film star, whatever), who told you that your fans and the public really believe or expect you to be the most seedha-saadha, god-fearing, family-loving character, or else you are doomed to burn in hell?” The hot-shot ad film-maker firmly believes that today’s readers, viewers, listeners and consumers are intelligent enough to figure out the truth for themselves and don’t need to be prompted, tutored, brainwashed or sold images of celebs that are (comically) hypocritical or way off-centre from the image they project.

“Glam babes and hot studs representing life in the dangerously fast lane would look like pathetic, ludicrous sissies and lame ducks endorsing milk, orange squash, or the untold ecstasy of Horlicks! Get real guys! If a celeb smokes or drinks, what’s wrong in getting him to endorse the same? Haven’t SRK, Akshay Kumar, Dharmendra, Bhajji, Shilpa Shetty, Yuvi and Dhoni, in the past, endorsed liquor brands? Haven’t Akshay, Jackie Shroff and Kay Kay Menon, sometime back, endorsed the poison-weed? What’s the big deal – aren’t these guys still around?” says Kakkar.

But the London-based Bikram Ray, an oriental studies exponent, believes it’s a tough one. “While Kakkar certainly has a point about new-age consumers/fans being less puritanical and hysterical on the ethics/morality button than in the past, the fact is, somewhere, something’s gotta give! Remember the Tiger Woods explosion and deadly fallout (from fans to advertisers) once his serial infidelities blitzed the media? Woods was the model champ... until he strayed. Agreed, endorsing booze in 2011 is – should be, at least – totally innocent and a non-issue. But for celebrities (like Sachin) with sparkling reputation, their fan-base being what it is, and India being what it is, feathers will be ruffled, questions will be asked and a mountain will be made out of a molehill, yaar! Why even go through all that?” asks Ray. Social commentator Ananya Chatterjee is hugely amused and believes that there is – for a large number of blind fans – a false sense of herd-mentality and morality at play. “Does having a drink make you a drunkard? By the same token, endorsing a brand of liquor should hardly be an earth-shattering, breaking-news item prompting fans to reach for smelling salts, ring up ambulances or head for the puja-room!” says Ananya.

Very recently, Ranbir Kapoor refused to endorse a fairness cream brand, apparently because he felt strongly against it as the brand promoted stereotypes. But the same Ranbir Kapoor has in the past admitted to having been into alcohol, even drugs. He, as did other celebs, also recently quite easily accepted an award from the Teachers liquor brand. Isn’t all that a paradoxical opposite to his fairness cream stand? What about the cold drink commercial that he does? Aren’t carbonated soft drinks supposed to be unhealthy to kids? So what gives?

Well, finally it comes to the fact that when a celebrity decides to endorse or not to endorse a brand due to their personal choices, they are simply exercising their freedom of speech (and action). Says Shubhoshekhar Bhattacharjee, CEO, Planman Motion Pictures, “If they do endorse a politically incorrect brand like cigarettes or alcohol, blame the government for allowing the product to sell rather than shooting the messenger. Celebrities should have the complete freedom to make their own independent choices of endorsing any and every brand that is legally allowed to be sold. If society has any issue, it cannot ostracise or judge.”

In a country where cricketers and movie stars are idolised, worshipped, venerated, revered, and where – despite galloping consumerism, materialism and urbanisation – an indescribable puritanical schizophrenia exists which challenges all canons of logic and rationale. And then there’s the icon Sachin – “the original Mr. Clean,” as per actress Shreya Jha – who creates his own unsurpassable moral benchmarks and standards. And to expect a mere celebrity to follow Sachin’s path would be equal to asking a mortal to play God.

Is Brand Endoresment About Ethics … or Consumer Connect?

Too Much, Too Soon for New-age AD Kids?

Why Are today’s Youngistan in Adville Losing the Wow Factor? 4PS B&M‘s Monojit Lahiri Investigates

It’s always been there, but in recent times the whisper seems to have amplified into a veritable roar with guys who are recruiting or looking for talent. The problem, they say, is two-fold. One, chronic shortage of appropriate talent in a booming business scenario – with more seats than right bums, available – has forced them to kick ‘existing talent upstairs’, irrespective of maturity or experience, with out-of-whack remuneration packages; and then pray like hell that miracles (read: grinning, satisfied clients!) happen. Two, frequently sit back and helplessly watch some of the really gifted kids enjoying hyper-designations at hyper-speed have a blast... and then job-hop! So, whatever happened to good ol’ loyalty, dedication, experience and maturity and the Guru-Shishya thingamajig?

Subhash Kamat, head honcho, BBH, is first off the block & cuts to the chase in a flash. He believes the trend has largely to do with policies relating to recruitment, training and retaining talent with the appropriate appreciation-reward factor. “As economies head north, it is critical for industries to scale-up & keep pace with this growth in terms of vision and values. This has not happened with our Adbiz. Recruitment & Training – at most agencies – continue to be given short shrift, a cosmetic, line-job thing, dumped the moment there are budget constraints. Same with rewards. Mentoring too seems to have taken a hit. How many Piyush Pandeys do we have as inspirational leaders?” Kamat tells 4Ps B&M. He adds to this the prevailing disease (impatience) of today’s generation & their mad hurry to step-on-the-gas & move to the next stop – account, task, career, whatever! “Tough to fight that, my friend,” ruminates Kamat.

The National Creative Director (NCD) of Bates 141 appears to be more circumspect. Sagar Mahabaleshwar reckons that that was then, this is now, and since change is the only thing that is constant, this churn is inevitable. “Not only in Adland, the world is changing rapidly across the board and so adaptability with speed and quality is the ruling mantra. In this scenario, unfortunately, traits like loyalty, solidity and steadfastness – admirable traits as they are, revered and cherished back then – have taken a hit. That’s where the youth score. No wonder there are tonnes of under 35 guys and gals rocking big designations with confidence and effectiveness,” Mahabaleshwar tells 4Ps B&M. However, he concedes that the exact opposite also happens and magnanimously takes a part of the blame. “We were lucky in getting someone like Piyush to mentor us, as friend, philosopher and guide. Have we been able to provide that kind of personalised leadership to our kids? I guess it cuts both ways,” adds Mahabaleshwar.

Ogilvy’s hot-shot creative ‘dude’ Sumanto Chattopadhyay is up next and brings his own special spin. “Right at the outset I have to say that we in Ogilvy have been extremely lucky in this area. The reason is that, unlike most other agencies, we have a definite process and our Creative Directors (CDs) are trained, ready and in-the-groove professionals, fully aware of the implication of what a CD stands for in a holistic way, when they hit that slot,” says Chattopadhyay. In fact, his observation is that in many agencies, talented creative kids who, however, still have to gain maturity and are at least “four levels away from the designation are scooped up and made CDs, which would never happen here. The result is that the “too much, too soon” factor kicks off, big time. A CD is not just about doing great creative work. It has a much larger canvas and has to deal with motivation and leadership as also managing clients, colleagues, bosses, juniors and of course creativity that entertains and empowers. I think, as our record shows, we have been able to hold up this model pretty decently. No major hiccups – ever!”

What better way to wrap up this debate than invite the brilliant creator of the ‘Youngistan’ campaign, Soumitra Karnik, to share his perspective on this issue. Passionate and articulate, JWT (North) ECD shoots from the hip, fast n’ furious: “I started out two decades ago and really went through the grind – and I thank god for that! Today what is happening is bizarre! On the one hand, while the agencies are doing exceedingly well, they have become very stingy with money and are hiring hordes of people to serve as foot-soldiers to do the client’s work. Quantity is clearly over-powering quality and the effect is bound to show, at some point. On the other hand (mostly in urban centres) the kids come from well-to-do families, so money is not an issue; ‘Designations’ are and they consider it the real sexy tags and that’s what they get freely and delight in showing-off! Their work style is crazy too. They roll in at around 11 a.m., do the Facebook stuff most of the time, rustle up some headlines and ads before planning their evening programme – what do you expect? Sure, many of them are very bright, but the focus, dedication, commitment and desire to persevere and learn the craft, seems to be mostly missing. It’s a shame, because many of them are very brilliant and definitely have it in them to make a solid contribution, but too much attitude and too little seriousness of purpose appears to be the problem. Could be because of the promiscuous times we live in, or an embarrassment of riches in terms of alternative career avenues… whatever… but the loss is as much theirs as ours.”

So, at the end of the day, is youngistan – from whom “wows” were expected – eyeing dil maange more territory? Do they find advertising frivolous and engaging only as a time-pass activity to move on to something more substantial? Guess what, we never asked them!

Too Much, Too Soon for New-age AD Kids?