The Hindu Business Line : Small sceptics

I was watching some TV programmes with a bunch of kids and their comments during a commercial break prompted me to ask them a few questions that quickly segued into an informal research study of how the world of advertising looks through their eyes.

One of the spots to come up was the new Horlicks commercial. It was a piece of aggressive comparative advertising, with Horlicks dissing its competitor Complan — the usual sneaky ways of showing similar packs while intoning about “other rival products” was given a go-by as a couple of boys and their mothers indulged in gleeful one-upmanship over who had made a smarter decision. The Complan boy said his health drink had 23 nutrients, and the Horlicks boy said, hah, mine has that too. The Complan boy asserted that his drink made him taller, while the Horlicks boy replied, hah, mine makes me taller, stronger, sharper. The Complan Mom says it cost her Rs 170 while the Horlicks kid says, huh, ours cost only Rs 131. The Complan kid looks jubilant at Complan being higher on something — thus revealing, perhaps, his lack of sharpness? The Complan Mom looks annoyed and just to rub it in, a billboard of Horlicks floats past.

G asked, “Are they allowed to make comments like this about another product?” I predicted confidently that there would be a counter-ad from Complan soon, and perhaps even a case against Horlicks. A little digging told me that the makers of Complan had indeed sought a stay on airing of the television commercial, only to be told by the Judge, “We are discussing the health of children here and if such ads are taken seriously, then as per claims made by the companies, children consuming these products should be growing taller and taller.” Sure enough, a print ad of Complan was released — presumably a TV spot will follow — which explained how milk protein (Complan) was better than inferior protein from the kind of sources used by inferior health drinks and urged parents not to compromise on health. I am sure that the battle of the health drinks is not over and we will see some ping-pong games between the two. What interested me more was that the cynicism evinced by the Judge presiding in the case was mirrored by these young kids.

G is a schoolgoing kid who has had enough lessons on nutrition to know that it is unlikely that any one drink could dramatically add to his intellect, height or strength. Such ads only add to his growing criticism and cynicism about ads and brands. “Come on,” he said scornfully, “we are being told all the time to eat fresh fruit and vegetables and to avoid processed food — at school, in articles, at home — and here are ads saying that a couple of spoons of a powder will do all that — how can it be?” If such drinks worked, he reasoned, all the kids in my class would be taller and smarter, unconsciously echoing the words of the Judge in the case. The slugfest between the two brands has only added to his sense of being taken for a ride, doing very little to promote a category that looks increasingly commoditised.

We often hear comments that this generation of kids is smarter and more worldly-wise than the earlier one — my experience with this bunch certainly indicated a high level of critical thinking. Most shampoo ads these days guarantee reduced hair fall — and demonstrate this dramatically with someone tugging the other person’s hair. S pulled at her own locks and grimaced; “The shampoo must also kill nerve endings,” she said, laughing, “otherwise how are all those people smiling when their hair is being yanked?”

“Do you believe the ads you see?”, I asked my informal focus group. S grinned and said, “Umm, I believe 1.67 per cent of them”, in a gentle dig at the percentages flung around by so many ads. Every ad that claimed to have “proven” benefits was questioned by the scientifically disposed kids. Where is the proof? Who did the research? Were they paid by the company? Where are the facts? The kids demanded to know how you could measure hair softness and hair strength to establish quantitative claims such as (this shampoo) “makes your hair three times softer” (Garnier Fructis) or “reduces hair fall by 95 per cent” (Head and Shoulders). All of us have different hair, they said, looking around, how can it work the same for each of us? Perhaps there is a body of dense research underpinning these numbers and maybe these claims are not meant to be taken so literally, but the overarching impression of the next generation of consumers seem to be one of sheer incredulity.

Tall claims and credibility apart, what sort of messages are ads giving young minds? The kids who are being exhorted at home and school to read more were puzzled at the Cadbury Dairy Milk ad with a young girl looking horrified at receiving a book as a gift, and downright disapproving at the other Cadbury ad in which a bunch celebrating Kenya defeating India in cricket through the specious logic of “Koi toh jeet gaya” (at least somebody won). And then we wonder at how our kids are no longer a reading generation or that we lack the killer instinct in sports. The Britannia Tiger Ad has a mother pondering over a strong son and an intelligent son and wishing each could have both qualities – what happened to the Taare Zameen Par philosophy of celebrating each child for his own qualities? Food ads which put pressure on mothers and kids to be perfect in mind and body all blurred into annoying sameness — could it be that they are so lacking in real differentiation that they can only resort to fear and hectoring to sell their pitch?

It’s not that the kids didn’t enjoy hyperbole and humour; ads which treated them intelligently got the most votes — the Happydent palace ad had them all guffawing at the malkhamb performers casting light with shining teeth, as did the Orbit White cow getting marriage proposals, and also the goofy Bingo ads.

At some level, all kids know advertisers are manipulating them and that they are often willing accomplices in this process. However, ads which don’t talk down to them, with claims that demand a suspension of disbelief had the best chance of succeeding in this mutual game. This was by no means a rigorous study, but it seems to be borne out by other research in this area. One body of research points out to increasing cynicism in kids as they age: while the majority of six-year-olds believe some of what they hear in advertisement, by the age of 10 most children are sceptical of advertising claims and few 12-year-olds believe advertising tells them the truth. This seems to offer a warning for advertisers: if children as young as these are already disbelieving and suspicious of advertising claims then it behoves marketing professionals to take a hard look at the unintended outcomes of their advertising strategy. There is also research that indicates that once consumers become aware of false advertising they become less receptive to all marketing — so this short-term approach may be creating a generation of small sceptics whose negative beliefs will make them less susceptible to advertising as adults.

(Radhika Chadha is a consultant in strategy and innovation and the co-author of 'Innovative India: Insights for the Thinking Manager'. Karate-gy is the proprietary name of the strategic exercises conducted by Paradigm Management Knowhow Ltd.)

Related Stories:
TV advertising of shampoos up 65%

More Stories on : Advertising | Back to Concepts | Children & Parenting

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
‘Indian cos have to spend to defend themselves’

‘The Indian market has adopted advocacy faster than many others’

Is the picture dimming?

Small sceptics

Three brands and a disaster

Fear-based sales relationship is dysfunctional