• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• BL Club
• Smartbuy
• Books
• Gallery

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

_ Mohammed Yousuf & P. V. Sivakumar

Iconic connect this? Mont Blanc (left) recently launched a Mahatma Gandhi special edition of pens, and featured Gandhiji in its advertisements. In a recent campaign, Omega used images of US President John F. Kennedy, whose resolve it was to put an American on the moon. (Right) A file picture of the ’Sojourner Rover’ that went to Mars, used in a promotion for limited-edition Omega watches engraved ‘From the Moon to Mars’.

Harish Bhat

Over the past few months, a new and somewhat debatable trend in advertising has suddenly been raising its head. Several brands have been using iconic national personalities who are no longer alive to promote themselves. The images of Mahatma Gandhi,Motilal Nehru, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. have appeared on billboards, TV commercials and newspaper advertisements. Why are marketers walking this road and more importantly, are they correct in pursuing this path?

Consider some recent examples. State Bank of India, the largest bank in India, has positioned itself as “The Banker to Every Indian”. Indeed a sound position, given the bank’s nationwide reach and wide range of products. To reinforce this positioning, it is currently running a campaign titled “The Banker to This Indian”, depicting important figures from pre-independence Indian history. Motilal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore and Sir M. Vishweshwaraya have already made their appearance in this series of advertisements. The creatives appear to be in good taste, and depict these national figures with the respect and honour they deserve. Yet, it is clear that the bank is using them for commercial advantage, which raises several questions in our minds.

On a very different note, Mont Blanc, the luxury brand of writing instruments from Europe, recently launched a Mahatma Gandhi special edition of pens. Billboards featured Gandhiji alongside the opulent black pens, and a more striking contrast is challenging to imagine. For that very reason, the advertisements stood out and cut through the clutter immediately. They generated immediate controversy, with some commentators saying it was in entirely bad taste to use the Father of the Nation for commercial gain. Others said the very thought of promoting a luxury pen costing several thousands or lakhs of rupees using Gandhiji’s name was an insult to a great man who lived and promoted a spartan lifestyle. Yet others found nothing wrong with this approach, as Mont Blanc had earlier launched special editions commemorating well known figures such as Johann Sebastian Bach and Frederick Chopin.

A third and different approach to the use of iconic figures is presented by a brilliant advertisement campaign used by the global watch brand, Omega, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the moon landing, which occurred this year. The connect with the brand is strong, as a specially created Omega wristwatch was indeed worn by the first American astronaut who landed on the moon. Images of John F. Kennedy were used in the recent campaign, to reflect the debonair US President’s resolve and announcement in his inaugural address that America would put a man on the moon. So this was a depiction of a famous man who made the announcement that led to the moon landing that in turn led to Omega becoming the first watch on the moon. Clearly a very indirect association being leveraged very well.

Many marketers hold the view that these advertisements featuring celebrities and iconic figures who are no longer alive is par for the course. After all, these are reputed brands, so they must surely have verified any trademark issues. Hence, if the approach is legally correct, why should brands be restricted from using names and images of their choice?

There are two more strong arguments which further support this line of thought. If the celebrity involved had a direct or indirect association with the brand, then the brand is entitled to state this association, if it has the legal permissions to do so or requires no approvals at all. If Motilal Nehru, also a wealthy barrister of his age, did bank with the State Bank of India, why should the bank not reinforce its heritage by stating this fact?

Also, if the iconic figure involved is depicted in an entirely appropriate manner in the advertisements, which only adds to his or her existing image and does not detract from it, then this is really a win-win situation for both the brand and the person. The dashing, debonair image of John F. Kennedy in the Omega watches advertisements is indeed the way the world and the Kennedy family would like to remember him.

The counter-arguments are equally, if not even more, powerful. These are dead men who cannot express their view about the brand, and whether they would like to be featured for the brand. There is clearly an ethical issue here, because we do not know what view the iconic figure involved held about the brand, if he had a view at all. We are entirely unclear whether Rabindranath Tagore had a happy banking experience with SBI, or whether he complained of being shoddily treated by his local branch manager. We do not know what Mahatma Gandhi thought of Mont Blanc and other luxury brands, if ever he thought of them. And even if we knew this, we do not know whether they would have liked their images to ever appear in commercially motivated advertisements for these brands. Hence, to use their images is entirely unfair to the famous men and women involved.

In addition, how can we ever draw a good line defining which product category is entitled to use images of celebrities and which is not? For instance, if it is in order for nationalised banks to use images of Indian nationalist figures, would it also be acceptable for brands of cigarettes or cigars (which are injurious to health) to use images of Winston Churchill, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Krishna Menon, who were known to be chain smokers? Or for a brand of contraceptives to use images of Chairman Mao, who successfully advocated family planning in China?

And finally, it can be argued that the use of these dead iconic figures constitutes a type of “false advertising”. Directly or indirectly, the brand is trying to make consumers believe that the iconic figures being depicted have endorsed the brand at some point in time, or were at least in favour of it. Even if there is no direct reference to any endorsement, many consumers who do not examine advertisements closely may come to this mistaken conclusion. Hence, these campaigns can mislead consumers, which is unacceptable. As advertising regulators and bodies worldwide advise their members to shun false advertising, and often act against the same, this is also a matter which should be subjected to similar review.

In my view, the scales appear tilted against such advertising, primarily in view of the ethical dimension and the need to keep advertising truthful in fact and in perception. But the jury is still out on the subject. So it is likely that until national Governments or bodies which define advertising guidelines speak, many brands will continue to use this interesting route to appeal to consumers and get cash registers ringing.

(The writer is Chief Operating Officer – Watches, Titan Industries Ltd. These are his personal views.)

More Stories on : Brands | Politics | People

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

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line