A recent advertisement for what is euphemistically called “intimate wash” product has managed to grab global attention, becoming a viral hit on the internet, while outraging feminists, infuriating social commentators and even reviving the debate on India's caste system and “colour” hang-up.

While many writers have waxed wroth on the objectification of women, others have lambasted the obsession with fair skin in Indian society and the inherent racism and prejudice which this reflects. But the ad for ‘Clean and Dry', a vaginal wash which promises fairer genitalia, is provocative at many levels. The advertising itself appears to hint that a fairer vagina is the key to a happy (presumably) married life, which predictably sparked a storm of protest on social media networks and caused outpourings of indignation across the World Wide Web.

But the product, or more accurately, the idea behind the product, does much more than that. It raises a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed by all stakeholders in a free society, especially those committed to the concepts of free markets and free competition. The question is this: Should a product be marketed just because it can be?

THEORY AND PRACTICE

In theory, any society which believes in free enterprise should have no complaints with the form which such enterprise takes. The government has no business deciding what products should be made or sold. It should be left to the ingenuity of the manufacturers and the marketers to come up with products and services which consumers want, or could be made to want with marketing.

In practice, such a laissez faire attitude tends to work pretty well. The market for something which nobody wants dries up pretty quickly. Enterprises making such products quickly fall by the wayside, without the benefit of an all-knowing, all-seeing government issuing permits and licences.

But even societies which believe in absolute freedom of enterprise place reasonable restrictions on products or services which are seen as generally harmful to society, or at least damaging to certain vulnerable sections. So, tobacco in its myriad forms can be manufactured or sold virtually in every country in the world, but most nations ban the sale of tobacco products to minors, and many, like India, place restrictions on how and where it can be advertised, or sold (like the ban on selling cigarettes near educational institutions, for instance). In fact, the World Health Organisation (WHO) says on its website: “A comprehensive ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship could decrease tobacco consumption by an average of about 7 per cent.”

Ditto for most other popular ‘vices'. Alcohol is legal in most countries, other than professed Islamic states. However, even in the liberal West, booze cannot be sold to minors or in environments where unaccompanied minors are present. The WHO actually lists controlling the availability of alcohol; the marketing of alcoholic beverages and pricing policies as three of the top 10 policy initiatives for governments everywhere.

Prostitution may be providing a useful service to society, but it is still illegal in many countries, and even where legal, is strictly controlled.

And so on. The list is actually surprisingly extensive. Where no such bans or controls exist, the demand for such products is sought to be controlled through state policy, by imposing punitive taxation.

A worldwide study of the impact of taxation on tobacco consumption by WHO found that a tax increase that raises tobacco prices by

10 per cent reduces tobacco consumption by about 4 per cent in high-income countries and by up to 8 per cent in low- and middle-income countries.

Such bans or controls excite little or no comment, because they are seen by a vast majority of people as reasonable and justified. The trouble starts when we move on to products and services which are more difficult to classify as fulfilling a genuine need.

Take junk food, or colas. Little nutritional justification can be extended for them, but their consumption, unless in excess, is per se considered if not harmless, at least not actively harmful. And thanks to smart marketing, fast food and soft drinks are today counted among giant global businesses. Even in India, the per capita consumption of packaged drinking water is said to be a third of the per capita consumption of carbonated beverages, even though the consumption of clean, pure water has manifestly more health advantages than the consumption of coloured, sweetened, carbonated water.

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

But it can be reasonably argued that such distinctions are best left to the consumer. That the customer knows best is a dearly held belief of business. And in most cases, it actually is true. As Ad guru David Ogilvy famously pointed out: “The consumer's not a moron, she's your wife”. Most consumers are able to exercise informed choice. If the choice is misinformed due to false or misleading advertising or marketing, that is quickly clarified by actual product experience. Word of mouth can destroy a brand so effectively that even billions spent on advertising will not be able to revive it.

Nevertheless, there are always businesses which are willing to take that risk. This is why regulation becomes so important. Freedom of commercial speech (which is what advertising is, essentially) is a sub-set of freedom of speech, constitutionally enshrined and legally protected even in societies which in practice offer no such latitude to their citizens.

But all rights come with responsibilities, something which is often conveniently ignored by marketers or legally facilitated by clever lawyers, who ensure that the letter of the law prevails over its spirit in courts of law. The trouble is, responsible, regulated behaviour and maximisation of the bottomline are not always convergent objectives. Which is why businesses have always argued in favour of self regulation over governmental or even independent, statutorily empowered regulation.

Often, this even works. Films offer a good example of this. Films are censored in India by a centrally appointed Board. But just because films have a censor certificate does not mean that what is shown on screen contains nothing offensive or distasteful. Television, on the other hand, is self-regulated, and has largely managed to do a better job of keeping the downright outrageous off the screen.

Advertising, too, is self regulated. But its track record is as mixed as that of other professions like law or accountancy, where the regulators and the regulated mostly hail from the same fraternity. The small fry are sometimes punished. The big fish usually go scot free.

The ‘Clean and Dry' issue pinpoints the inherent contradictions of self regulation. Where does one draw the line? Who decides whether vaginal whiteners are worse than facial lighteners, so effusively marketed (and so enthusiastically bought)? Or more ridiculous than hair growth tonics meant for babies or high heels for little girls.

It's not enough to say “Let the consumer desire.” Because, as ad men know all too well, a sucker can be created every minute.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW