Smart branding

It's a curious balance between celebrities and brand endorsements. How much responsibility should a public personality bear while promoting a brand? There is a sensible side to this argument i.e., celebs being influencers should steer clear of endorsing tobacco and alcohol brands. The onus on the celeb to be socially and morally responsible is not a hollow one. With thousands of young and gullible minds hero-worshipping actors and cricketers, it's only natural to expect them to be holier-than-thou in the public space, no matter their real personas behind tightly closed doors.

This wasn't always the case. Earlier, many celebs got away with endorsing alcohol brands before setting in of public consciousness. Think Dharmendra and Bagpiper Whisky's 'Khoob jamega rang' ad campaign. The brand even got Sanjeev Kapoor, Shatrughan Singh, Sunny Deol, Shahrukh Khan, Akshay Kumar to represent it. Earlier, when actors endorsed a tipple brand, they would get away with it. But not today. With easily traceable digital footprints and unerasable social media memory, celebs can't go scot-free any longer. Ask Akshay Kumar.

Khiladi Kumar, who had endorsed Bagpiper Whisky in the past as well as a cigarette brand (Red & White), has a whitewashed image now. Today, he carries a super healthy, disciplined persona, espousing nation and character-building ethos through his films and advertisements. So, when he recently decided to promote a pan masala brand, all hell broke loose! Even if he wanted to make some big bucks with the Vimal elaichi advertisement, his fans would have none of it. Out came an apology from Kumar and donation of the earnings from the ad to a social cause. Shahrukh Khan and Ajay Devgn continue to endorse the same brand; their reputations either remain sullied or their fans have no great moral expectations from them or both. Anyway, similar to Amitabh Bachchan's tryst with pan masala company, Kamala Pasand, Kumar too walked away from the brand endorsement.

There is a social and moral responsibility expected from celebs, especially in India, leading to some refusing products of addiction while others make the moolah anyway. But what about the companies themselves? Since they operate legally, marketing their products is within their right too. I mean, you will have to sell what you produce, and since products of addiction can't be advertised directly (India banned advertising of alcohol and liquor since early 90s), surrogate advertising is the only option. To explain to the uninformed, surrogate advertising is when a Cancer causing and Liver cirrhosis inducing tobacco, gutka, or alcohol brand rides on the coattails of an innocuous looking sub-product of the same company — soda, mouth freshers, glasses, CDs, etc. And even though the booze or chewing tobacco brand is not blatantly mentioned, brand recall is still created in the mind. Let's accept that as long as production and sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and now even marijuana in some countries, is legal, the companies, for the sake of unit economics, must make sales too. They are running a business, people! And a business that hugely benefits state and central governments by mopping up sizeable excise duty.

Bridging the gap between the moral and economic aspect in such a scenario puts a brand-maker in a predicament. Alcohol companies have been using 'drink responsibly' campaigns while cigarette packs display gruesome pictures of mouth cancer. These companies and their clientele also pay the 'sin tax', since they are deemed to be harmful to society. If the companies respect and follow the regulations laid down by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), till where should the moral responsibility of the companies, which are keen to grow their sales numbers, truly extend? Skirting absent rules for the digital space is best avoided by brands but using celebs in print and TV advertisements is a legal marketing tactic to grow sales. If Akshay Kumar won't, some other bloke will.

Not to mention there are other so-called 'sins' that celebs must not promulgate. Take condom ads for example. Few years ago, Sunny Leone's Manforce ad urging people to 'Play with love this Navratri' found no love and lots of hate. In fact, the Indian government has banned condom ads till 10 pm so that kids are not swayed by them. Most kids today don't sleep by 10 pm and are more well-versed with the birds and bees that we were at their age, but who cares, right? Our governments are watching Doordarshan, when the kids have shifted to Netflix. In India, condom ads also immediately become about promoting sex rather than about safe sex, for which they are specifically manufactured. Since they are known to cause a furore, few mainstream celebs (actor Ranveer Singh being one of the few recent ones) opt to endorse condoms ads, even though there is no 'harmful to health' aspect attached to it. In my opinion, there is, at times, too much responsibility thrust on celebs too. The Indian public is also highly opinionated about brands that celebrities endorse rather than pressing issues of national importance.

To summarise, on one side, there are business matters to be considered, while on the other there are morals and public good. How should brands navigate this conundrum? Think out-of-the-box. Sponsor immersive digital content or set off the health risks of its products through direct or indirect marketing of socially aware causes; create reputation without causing a brouhaha, take responsibility to promote mindful consumption of the product. A smart and responsible brand will learn to walk the tightrope and yet be able to advertise features that define it while staying within the paradigms of rules and regulation. It doesn't always have to be surrogate advertisement if branding agencies put on their thinking caps.

The writer is an author and media entrepreneur. Views expressed are personal