Scandal, odium and contempt

There is a scene in Arth , a confessedly ‘semi-autobigraphical’ film by Mahesh Bhatt, where the protagonist, an out-of-work film director played by a slim and broodingly handsome Kulbhushan Kharbanda, is screening an ad film (which he agrees to make because he needs the money), to the client.

As the film rolls to an end, the client asks: “But Mr Malhotra, where is my product?” As an enraged Kharbanda assaults the client for failing to see the ‘poetry’ in the ad, the client screams, “I paid you the money to advertise my product. Not for your self indulgence!”

Arth was made in 1982, but the issues which were raised by that particular fictional incident blew up in the face of India’s Rs 36,200 crore (FICCI-KPMG estimate, 2012) advertising industry last month.

For those who missed the show, the story in brief: A series of three poster ads were created by Blue Hive, a subsidiary of India’s largest advertising agency JWT India, itself a part of global advertising behemoth WPP, for Ford’s hatchback car Figo.

The ads, designed to highlight the size of the small car’s boot, depicted various well-known personalities, ranging from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to socialite Paris Hilton, carting away some equally well-known celebrities, including reality TV stars, the Kardashian sisters. To make matters worse, Berlusconi’s ‘victims’ were shown in an explicitly sexual bondage situation, while Hilton was shown kidnapping the bound and gagged Kardashian twosome.

Flights of fancy

The ads were uploaded on an advertising Web site which showcases ads from around the world, quickly went viral, and led to a shockwave of outraged protest online. To make matters worse, JWT and Ford claimed that the ads were never meant to be commercially published, but to showcase the creative ability of the team and were intended to be entered at the upcoming Goafest, Indian advertising’s equivalent of the Oscars.

Several heads later rolled, including that of JWT India’s much respected Chief Creative Officer and managing partner Bobby Pawar, and Vijay Simha Vellanki, the creative director at Blue Hive, along with an undisclosed number of people at JWT, and at least one reported sacking at Ford. The latest development is that the Kardashian sisters are threatening to sue Ford.

The advertising fraternity is in turmoil. Not just because of the sackings — which undoubtedly sent a chill shiver down many an advertising spine — but over the ads themselves. Because, as it turns out, these ‘ads’ were not created with the serious purpose of furthering the sales of the Figo, but with the altogether different purpose of securing an award or two for the agency at Goafest (and, almost certainly the client, since no Goafest entry is accepted without a client’s approval letter).

These are known as ‘scam ads’ in the trade, scam because they are not ‘real’ ads meant to promote products, but are rather flights of fancy meant to showcase the creative talent of an advertising agency.

A few years back, a set of such ‘scam’ ads, created by another industry biggie Ogilvy & Mather, which had openly racist comment, had led to a similar uproar, and a tightening of rules for awards. There is much hand wringing over the return of scam ads (as if they had gone away) and some defence for the folks that got axed, ranging from “such overreaction will kill creativity” to how there is so much pressure on agencies to win awards. Writing in the Economic Times , Prasoon Joshi, one of India’s top advertising creative talents and the South Asia president of the McCann Group, said: “The intent of these kinds of ads is not to offend or hurt. Primarily, these ads are not meant for the consumer at all, posted as they are in select industry websites and media vehicles and entered for industry award shows. It may be deemed juvenile, but surely not malicious.”

That argument is not likely to cut much ice in a court of law. If the Kardashians carry through with their threatened lawsuit, JWT and Ford might be in deep trouble. After all, the definition of libel reads: “Printed or written material, signs or pictures that tend to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule may be considered libellous.”

And being depicted as Paris Hilton’s bondage slaves, they could argue, is surely bringing their name into “scandal, odium and contempt”, which the UK’s Law Lords have ruled defines libel!

Freedom of expression

But so far, both sides appear to have taken the advertising fraternity’s primary defence — that in any creative process, one has to provide freedom of expression — as a given. In fact, everybody accepts the advertising industry’s definition of itself — as a ‘creative’ outfit — at face value.

Is it? Let us consider an alternative scenario. Bobby P is a freelance cartoonist, who comes up with this funny idea featuring celebrities in odd situations, dashes off a few cartoons, and puts them up on his Facebook page. There are several ‘likes’ but also several negative comments from people angered by the thought process which finds depicting women in bondage situations funny. If any member of India’s huge Republic of Hurt Sentiments takes the trouble to complain to the cops, Bobby P might even get arrested, for violating India’s ridiculous cyber law.

However, almost certainly, Bobby P would have been able to mount a credible defence, based on the right to freedom of expression.

The reason Bobby P, unemployed cartoonist, can mount such a defence, and the reason Bobby Pawar, CCO of JWT cannot, is simple. Advertising is not ‘free speech.’ All advertising, by definition, is paid-for commercial expression. It is paid to be created, and it is paid (with some exceptions) to be distributed in the media. As Kharbanda’s client reminded us in Arth , creators of advertising are paid to advertise the product, not indulge themselves!

Selling an image

This is not to say that advertising is not filled with talented people. As a glamorous and well-paid profession which is, at least on the face of it, not as stultifying as a nine-to-five cubicle job, it has always attracted some very bright and creative people. Salman Rushdie started as an advertising writer.

Prasoon Joshi has many successful and interesting films to his credit. But when Rushdie and Joshi were doing their day jobs, they had to stick to the rules. Their creative talents had to be channelled to meet the paying client’s objectives.

Yes, a lot of advertising is very creative. But then, so are many software programmes. But you don’t find software geeks walking around claiming to be ‘creative’ persons. Advertising is all about selling an image — but the danger lies in falling victim to one’s own hype.

As a reader pointed out in a comment on the issue in advertising trade journal Advertising Age, “We are brand stewards, for crying out loud. Our entire reason for being is to shape brand messages in support of our clients' objectives, and we get paid a lot of money to do it. We are the antithesis of ‘free speech’.”

Amen to that.

COMMENT NOW