ZOOZOOS Winners OR Losers?

The most talked about ad property in recent times has, surprisingly, attracted drastically mixed reactions in its second edition, which played out with full force in the recently concluded IPL. Who’s winning? 4Ps B&M's Monojit Lahiri investigates

Recreation of real-life situations with rib-tickling and sassy humour through totally side-splitting comical commercials – and all through creatures that a couple of years back you wouldn’t have cared two hoots about! Whether you love them or hate them, you simply can’t ignore them. Zoozoos have in all their glory conquered their rightful land in the ad-empire! Those adorable, charming, alien creatures unleashed by Vodaphone last year, courtesy Ogilvy, who took the viewing public by storm through their sheer ingenuity, freshness, quirkiness and that rare specialty Ogilvy has mastered – a magical fusion of surprise and delight! Yes, we do adore the Zoozoos, but the point is – did the second Zoozoo ads installment inspire, attract or generate the same degree of joy, enthusiasm, wows and appreciation as the first … or was it a predictable and to an extent repetitive overkill – that was seen for the humour surely, but did not cut any deep creative ice with the consumers? The question – led by 29 TVCs that blitzed the IPL viewer across 45 days – surely doesn’t have a predictable answer, as we realised when we flipped through industry responses...

“Of course, it wasn’t the same and frequently got boring and brain dead as hell!” That is the surprising reply of Delhi-based DD director Ananya Banerjee. She confesses she loved last year’s package but this time “it was getting on my nerves! The frequency was maddening and god, some of them were downright dumb and corny!” But godfather Alyque Padamsee believes that anyone who fails to be charmed by these amazing creatures has no right to be “certified sane!” He confesses to be a total fan of the little fellas and congratulates Vodaphone, the agency and the film production company for pulling off such a fabulous effort. “I freeze the remote the moment the delightful Zoozoo ads hit the screen! For me, they have the same charm and endearing quality as the Fevicol ads. Are they boring because they play out the same theme? Not at all, and that’s because of the brilliant creative execution. I place them alongside the iconic Air India’s Maharaja, the Amul characters and Asian Paints Gattu. Kudos to the team!”

Dentsu’s creative hotshot Gullu Sen is nowhere near as enthusiastic. While he agrees that as a concept, Zoozoos has certainly been an outstanding, clutter-breaking effort, this current edition, rolling out a mind blowing 25 plus ads “demonstrate nothing more than bankruptcy of ideas! It is really milking an idea dry, making it look contrived, fatigued, corny …” Sen believes that it is all execution without any delivery. “Where are the packages that could make the communication result-driven?” he asks, “Vodaphone must be having real deep pockets to attempt to entertain one and all by hitting the recall rather than the ROI button!” Sagar Mahabaleshwar – former Ogilvy honcho who’s crossing over to Bates 21 – begs to differ. He thinks the world of these ads and believes it is yet another classic from Ogilvy’s stable of “breakthrough creatives.” He puts Sen’s thinking as a part of the “industry’s overall cynicism” and reminds people that sequels are very difficult to carry forward because comparisons will always be made relating to freshness, novelty and so, on and off with the original. That the Zoozoos still manage to create a buzz and enjoy startlingly high recall in a crowded space, reflects their innate, core strength. Media star Pritish Nandy agrees with this viewpoint. “Fresh, engaging, funny, charming, they offer a cool spin in its category to redefine solid creativity in advertising. If many of them are corny, it’s because they are catering to the lowest common denominator and need to be simple, basic and comprehensible in their basic execution, consciously avoiding sophistication or clever, visual layering. Full marks to them.”

While the jury is not fully out, the general take-out appears positive. In a cluttered, competitive market space where Value Added Service is the big mantra, to be fresh, unique, different and memorable can be an overwhelming challenge. That Vodaphone & Ogilvy have been able to achieve this in an environment bursting with a galaxy of ludicrous, lazy, brain-dead celebrity-driven advertising, is truly commendable.

ZOOZOOS Winners OR Losers?

DOES ADVERTISING ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NEW-AGE WOMAN?

Has today’s advertising kept pace with scores of Indian women emerging from the shadows to seek their rightful place in society? 4Ps B&M's Monojit Lahiri presents various views

Resurgent India! India shining! Woman power unleashed! Superwomen in the corridors of power! Evolved, educated, accomplished, articulate and confident, this new woman is a blazing reality in today’s India! After decades of prejudice inflicted by tradition and a male-dominated society, women – at least a significant minority – seem to be coming into their own. And magazines, publications, special supplements, debates, discussions and seminars, they all seem to be fixated on energetically championing the female cause now!

But has Indian advertising – which has made huge waves globally in all major platforms, forums and meets – for its turn been able to sensitively, fairly and realistically track, reflect, mirror or portray this seismic change? Has Indian advertising been able to capture the nuances of this fascinating creature successfully straddling several universes with all the complexity, confidence and contradictions at her disposal? Or is the re-enforcing of stereotypes with corny and predictable makeovers simply cosmetic tokenism?

It is interesting to note what Michele Kristula-Green (the revered Asia-Pacific President of Leo Burnett) articulated at a recent presentation that she made on this subject, where she accused advertisers of constantly portraying women “in the man’s version of what they should be.” The ad biz guys, a recent study says, seem to be way-off on at least five crucial parameters – money, sexuality, humour, emotion and authenticity. The study also revealed that unlike the West, women in the Asian society are not comfortable with blatant portrayals of sex, because for them it is a part of their intrinsic femininity – and not something to be exhibited in a titillating, man-baiting way. Finally – and this is critical – the study says that in Asian societies, girls are taught to view emotions as a strength not a weakness; and hence their responses to messages and communication are far different from what is shown in today’s well-packaged yet logically worthless advertisements!

We asked a few evolved, intelligent women and their reactions were both interesting. And startling!

Journalist Mahua Chatterjee fires the first salvo. She believes that despite all the blah-blah and ra-ra in the media, women like her were still an aberration, an exception. “However, our tribe is on the ascent and definitely a quantum leap from our mother’s generation. Advertising’s essential agenda is engaging, convincing and catering to its target group, which for most part, is still steeped in tradition. So, you get what you get. Sure, there are exceptions – like the insurance ad where the granny cosies up with her husband and later, gets blackmailed repeatedly by her chaalu grandson – which is wonderful, but alas, nowhere enough. We could do with a lot more courageous, adventurous, risk-free and exciting advertising that reflects today’s woman with both drama and chutzpah. Can the ad guys do it?”

Film-maker Aparna Sen – whose latest movie The Japanese Wife released to rave reviews – while talking to us, conveys her huge disappointment. While she salutes the crafting and slickness (of advertisements), she is convinced that most of these efforts are blatantly one-dimensional. “North Indian, fair, urban, advertising seems to be fixated on this stereotype! How and why is there practically no sign of the southern, eastern or north-eastern woman? Don’t they exist? If at all they feature, it’s either in caricature form or tokenism! Such a pity.” Kolkata-based media personality Rita Bhimani disagrees and reckons that change indeed is in the air. “Sure, there will always be stereotyping, catering and pandering to connect with the masses, but within categories – cosmetics, healthcare, bikes and automobiles – there has been a lot of quirky, funny and interesting ads portraying today’s woman with large quotients of fun, energy and enterprise.”

Masscom expert Tiyasha Ray begs to differ. “Most of the stuff that pans out is totally regressive and out-of-sync with the here and now! I guess it has to do with ‘Adville’ not mustering up the required guts and ability to effect a breakthrough and content to bogey along a familiar comfort zone as also women themselves being quite content to be seen in that light. Generations of conditioning have programmed them to think in a certain way. Today, they believe that perhaps, this is the way we need to be perceived and what’s all this feminist hoo-haa about?”

Ray, however, admits that she personally is prepared to go into this battle, anytime, any day! Theatre luminary Lushin Dubey switches lanes to offer a completely new perspective. “More than advertising projecting the ‘New Woman’, the New Woman seems to be totally seduced by advertising! She appears to totally believe, even celebrate the image that she sees... and this is both distressing and dangerous because it sends out the wrong signals. It implies that TV is this big hospital-cum-beauty parlour-cum-gym, where all shapes and sizes are photo-shopped and air-brushed to perfection! Scary...”

The last words must come from Omkar Sane, author (Welcome To Advertising. Now Get Lost!) and ad-tracker. “Actually, it’s because of the tainted windows, AC cabins and the advertising code for women established during the dark ages!” He points out that in the area of finance or healthcare, it is always the man who understands, applies and takes credit for the action while the woman sits and smiles. “Gul Panag didn’t talk too much in the Tata Sky ads, did she? It was Aamir who apparently knew everything and played a starring role.” Sane laments the fact that advertising “seems to wait for society to change and then show its spurs; while society, for its turn, hopes like hell that advertising will lead the way and effect the much-needed change.” Neither does that; and all one ends up doing is... changing the damn channel!

Well, if you belong to the club that thinks Julius ‘advertising’ Caesar is a brute, then friends, Indians, ladies, unite...

DOES ADVERTISING ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NEW-AGE WOMAN?

HAS TODAY’S ADVERTISING LOST THE PLOT?

In the hysterical anxiety to engage and entertain an impatient and promiscuous youth-oriented target base, is advertising forgetting its basic agenda – of informing, convincing and selling? 4Ps B&M's Monojit Lahiri investigates

In the Hollywood of the late fifties and early sixties, anxiety, confusion and hysteria had set in due to movies not being able to engage the viewer in a way they were expected to. The reason? Television had entered the scene and the earlier ‘captive’ audience suddenly had a compelling choice not to watch the stuff they didn’t choose to. So what did Hollywood do? The secret, trick, knack, art – call it what you will – that the big daddies of movies used was to understand the strength of their medium and then strike at the core philosophy. Instead of trying to improve the substance of movies to compete with the meaningful serials coming on television, they upped the ante by ballooning the budget, scale and spectacle of movies in a way that the twenty-one inch idiot box could never hope to match! In other words, rather than giving more arty movies (meant for the ‘intelligent’ viewer), movie houses went for the larger-than-life metaphor, showcasing surrealistic scenes that could only be, if at all, imagined. And it worked liked nobody’s business! It seemed that the world was made up of more people wanting dunce, yet spectacular screen entertainment, than meaningful ‘stuff’, a reality that exists till today.

The question is, is today’s advertising scene echoing a déjà vu? Due to the changing scenario, is the ad fraternity mistaking (perhaps correctly so) style for substance, form for content? Are frivolity and entertainment the new games in town? Is engagement – at any cost – the prime motive, totally obliterating the basic agenda of advertising which supposedly was to inform, persuade and sell? Look at the latest ads around you – from that car ad showcasing a smiling celebrity in the throes of pleasure, to that cell phone service manufacturer imploring you to jump on the next tiger you see on the road to of course ‘save the tiger’, the intent is clearly to catch the viewer’s attention, than to educate him about the exact qualities of the product. What gives? Is the ad-world finally over the edge?

Priti Nair, Managing Partner BBH, in fact disagrees, “Even a couple of years ago, there were many more creatively adventurous ads. Today, maybe a fall-out of the recession, a lot less risk-taking ads are seen. Most stuff is focused, direct… boring. I think we need to push the envelope a lot more.” Lloyd Mathias, President and Chief Marketing Officer, TataTel, brings his own spin to the table, “Like any other social medium, advertising reflects the mood of the times. The simplistic inform-persuade-sell mode worked beautifully for a long time but once communication became sophisticated, technology entered, there was a paradigm shift. Multi-tasking became the order the day. It is not uncommon to see today’s kids on the mobile while hitting the net, right? So in this age of Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, advertising content has to keep pace. It can’t be as direct, naïve and simplistic as it once was. The new-age consumer would dismiss it, straightaway.” Besides, adds Mathias, for hard-core information and details about products and services that are in the hi-ticket category, the net provides it all; one doesn’t have to depend on advertising. “The job [of advertising] today is to primarily push the brand in an endearing fashion that triggers the recall factor.”

Abir Chakravarti, VP Bates, believes that the rules of the game have changed, “The famous AIDA principle – Attention, Interest, Desire, Action – works only in parts, with most of the focus on the first two. In today’s proliferating brands and media avenue universe, the function of advertising has dramatically altered. Unprecedented brand promiscuity among the youth has demanded an unprecedented focus on grabbing their attention. Also, for the entire AIDA principle to work, a 360 degree spin is required. We live in different times and advertising is trying to keep pace. Sure, there are plenty of occasions when guys and brands go over the top. That’s an irresponsible cavalier approach and totally uncalled for!” And Ujjal Sinha, CEO of the Kolkata-based Genesis Advertising, has the last word. He believes that by and large, today’s ad guys have lost the plot. “In their anxiety to go global, they seem to be aping the West. There is a definite sense of insecurity powered by the mistaken belief that the more bizarre, big budget and spectacular the ad, the more it will resonate with the public. It’s a giant leap in the wrong direction…” Now that is another story altogether. 

HAS TODAY’S ADVERTISING LOST THE PLOT?

CAN WOMEN BE ‘EFFECTIVE’ LEADERS?

We revisit the rhetorical question and jump across to a few women for their responses on why hasn’t the equality query been solved, despite eons of man-woman existence

Relax-feminists, libbers, bra-burners and the army of smart and successful women who are burning the top slot of their respective ‘spaces’ with mind-blowing work and professionalism! The article is not to question or challenge their proven commitment, focus, ability or capability in the area of performance or achievement… but to examine why (despite their proven track-record) the ‘big one’ eludes them. We asked a few people and the feedback was as entertaining as enlightening...

Poonam Singh, a young MBA aspirant believes that women have it in them to be “inspirational leaders because they use the Transformational style as opposed to men’s Transactional style. They are willing to listen, empathise and understand a colleague/subordinate’s problem.” However, Singh believes women have one “serious chink in their armour” – the aspect of emotionality. Unlike men who are focused, one-dimensional, business-like and hard-core pragmatic, women can [and often do] goof up in taking important decisions driven by the heart, not head.

Another student, Eshani Jha stands the stated weakness on its head and emphasises, “It is this very emotional quotient that makes her a better leader.” At the end of the day, she defends, it’s ‘people’ whom you lead – not computers, machinery, buildings, glass, concrete or stone – and therefore the inspirational leader is one who invests as much of the ‘heart’ as the ‘head’. Media House executive (a working mother in her early thirties) Mridula Sahay approaches the issue with her cautious maturity befitting the station in life. “I would hesitate to jump to conclusions or unleash opinions without pulling back and seeing the big picture.” She believes that ‘leadership’ is something that is inborn and (like in men) you either have this trait or don’t. It is seldom acquired. “If this issue [vis-à-vis women] is raised today it is because lesser women are there holding down leadership-status appointments, than men. The reason is basically historical. Women are perceived as the home-makers, while men are the providers, going out, doing jobs of work and earning a living. This places the two in different domains. Leadership – obviously – is more relevant and legitimate in the work place and therefore it has (traditionally) been linked to men. Today, with more women breaking the glass ceiling to invade the once ‘Men Only’-space, questions like these will invariably arise. This represents a tacit recognition of women’s presence in the higher echelons of business and industry and augurs well for our future.”

The critical question is: If leadership is about management, supervision, control and guidance in an authoritative mode, women are born leaders because they deploy and leverage these traits, successfully, everyday! But then, why is there still a huge coterie that still does not perceive women as true ‘leaders’? “Rampant gender-bias, and sex discrimination,” says Priya, a New York based IT employee for a multinational. “But there’s also the fear of experimenting at the top – women, by genetic makeup, cannot withstand the stress and work overload that men can. Therefore, shareholders feel extremely afraid to test out something totally new,” she adds.

Fittingly the last words are provided by an iconic woman who brilliantly fills several spaces with magical effectiveness, Aparna Sen. “Firstly, we need to understand the meaning of the word effective. Popular (male) belief will equate it with success, related to result, performance and achievement. For me, the word resonates with a different glow… It translates into the desire and ability to understand, mould, form, shape and inspire ordinary people to extraordinary heights. It takes into account everyday women who languish in the shadows, an unsung and unheralded community, because they are not high-profile corporate divas like the Indra Nooyis, Sulajja Firodia Motwanis, Vinita Balis, Shobhana Bhartias, Naina Lal Kidwais or Kiran Mazumdar Shaws. For me they are more effective because minus the massive infrastructure or resources of the workplace, these sublime creatures keep doing their stuff everyday, rising above a million problems, fighting against all odds, to emerge victorious.”

Woman, your time to lead will come; but not now... not soon...

CAN WOMEN BE ‘EFFECTIVE’ LEADERS?