Many a slip between lip and lip

Last month, Benetton unveiled its new ‘Unhate' advertising campaign, and promptly shocked and startled the world. The explosive advertisements featured images of celebrities at different ends of political or religious spectrums, in a liplock with each other. US President Barack Obama and China's leader Hu Jintao were featured kissing each other much like two lovers caught in a fit of passion. Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI was shown kissing the Islamic leader Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb. Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu was shown in a mouth-to-mouth kiss with Palestinian supremo Mahmoud Abbas.

Everyone sat up and took notice, and a deluge of voices expressed outrage. The Vatican immediately denounced the advertisement campaign. Clearly, these were manipulated images, used without permission from many of the celebrities who had been featured. Benetton was lambasted by a range of holier-than-thou voices that expressed ethical, moral, legal and other concerns. Indeed, some specific images were withdrawn later by the brand. Yet, with the launch of this campaign, Benetton obtained immediate salience in the minds of millions of consumers worldwide.

Benetton's Deputy Chairman Alessandro Benetton, who unveiled the campaign in Paris, promptly and stoutly defended the new concept. He said that the idea of ‘Unhate' should not be seen in the physical or sexual context.

“The images are very strong”, he said, “but we have to send a strong message. We are not wanting to be disrespectful of these leaders … we consider them conception figures making a statement of brotherhood with a kiss.”

On the Benetton Web site, the objective of the campaign is spelt out clearly. “The aim of this campaign is contrasting the culture of hatred, and promoting closeness between peoples, faiths, cultures. The central theme – the kiss, which is the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders.” Meanwhile, the howls of protest continue.

This campaign is the latest example of “shockvertising”, or shock advertising that rears its highly controversial hydra-head from time to time.

Shockvertising is designed to be provocative. It often has a strong message, but sometimes it is just a brazen attempt at capturing consumer attention.

Other illustrations of shockvertising

There are many earlier and well-known illustrations of shockvertising. One of Benetton's own earlier campaigns shows a black woman breastfeeding a white baby, raising hackles about race. Calvin Klein, a reputed brand of jeans, perfumes and accessories, had once advertised showing teenage models in overly sexual and provocative poses, which instantly stoked concerns of exploitation.

A British advertising campaign against smoking, titled ‘Get unhooked', had shown smokers' faces and lips being hooked with metal fish hooks, to graphically and perhaps grotesquely illustrate how smokers are hooked to cigarettes.

Closer home, many of us will remember the provocative Tuff shoes advertisement of the mid-Nineties, which featured Madhu Sapre and Milind Soman in a full Monty, wearing just two pairs of shoes, one python and nothing else. Women's groups had protested violently at this display of nudity. Around the same time, a brand called MR Coffee had run a sexually explicit advertisement touting the benefits of real filter coffee over instant coffee, titled “Real pleasure does not come in an instant”. That campaign had featured Arbaaz Khan and Malaika Arora.

If shoes and coffee can do this kind of stuff, then lingerie and underwear cannot be far behind.

The Amul Macho undergarments shockvertising campaign, which featured a housewife having sexual fantasies while washing her husband's underwear, drew immediate eyeballs amongst millions of Indians.

Is shockvertising acceptable?

Is shockvertising an acceptable format of advertising, or is it not? Is it ethically and legally correct - in all cases, or in some specific cases, or never ever? Does shockvertising corrupt our innocent minds and pollute our soft eyes, as the legions of moral police would say? How can brands even consider using pictures of public figures in such campaigns without their explicit permission?

Should such campaigns be banned (particularly if they are indecent or inflammatory), or should they actually be permitted and encouraged within some creative boundaries if they serve a larger social good (such as a campaign against smoking or hatred)?

These are serious questions to be deliberated upon by the Advertising Standards' Council and sometimes also by courts of law, and their guidelines will continue to be relied on to arrive at judgements on specific advertising campaigns.

Shockvertising is here to stay

This article does not consider these important questions of legality and morality. Here, I merely make the simple and equally compelling point that shockvertising will never go away; that brands and creators of advertising will always find new ways to startle, shock and provoke people.

The reasons are quite clear. First, we live in a highly cluttered world today, with thousands of brands competing vigorously for our attention.

Shockvertising is one of the best means of slicing through such clutter, and gaining immediate mindspace with consumers. You may or may not agree with Benetton's ‘Unhate' campaign, but clearly the brand has gained immediate salience on the back of this new advertising initiative.

Second, there are so many fault lines in today's world on so many issues, and these are only deepening. On each of these fault lines, there are strongly differing views held by various groups of people, which therefore lend themselves to provocative advertising communication. Some illustrative areas are race and immigration, sexual preferences and homosexuality, and religious fundamentalism in various avatars.

As these are areas of direct and broad relevance to our lives, brands will wish to connect with us by stating a definite point of view on one or more of these subjects. After all, consumers don't want their brands to be boring, and one of the best methods to break boredom and become interesting is by stating a clear point of view on a contentious subject.

Third, consumers are humans, and there are two fundamental aspects to human nature which are a direct reason for shockvertising. While some of us may not admit it, most human beings love to be titillated. Deep within we also often like to be drawn into provocative debate on some subjects, at least once in a while, because we are an argumentative species, and perhaps because this gives life an interesting and engaging dimension. The corollary is that brands will feed both these consumer needs through clever advertising which titillates, provokes or shocks, while remaining within some reasonable boundaries laid down by law.

Finally, in the world of marketing, there will always be some brands that take pride in being edgy, much like there are several other brands with conservative viewpoints. Brands such as Calvin Klein, Fastrack, Diesel and Virgin are some examples of brands which take great care to cultivate this edgy feel. Such brands will naturally engage in edgy and provocative advertising, as this is integral to their brand proposition and tone.

For all these reasons and more, shockvertising is here to stay. Even as we reflect on the infamous liplocks in the new Benetton advertisements, we should anticipate that there will be many more such interesting, shocking, even startling marketing campaigns coming our way!

Harish Bhat is Chief Operating Officer – Watches and Accessories, Titan Industries Ltd. These are his personal views.

COMMENT NOW