Can ads impact popular culture?

Commenting on the impact of the VCD boom in rural India, village politician Chandraprakash Dwivedi said, "Now village girls want to dress like Rani Mukherjee in Bunty aur Babli -- this within four weeks of the release of the film.

In Ujjain, men want a hairstyle like Radhe Bhayya in hit movie Tere Naam.

Bindis, blouses, and bangles define the concept of beauty for girls in small towns --influenced by the looks of the saas-bahus in the umpteen TV serials beaming into their drawing rooms on various satellite channels.

A recent WHO report said that Hindi film heroes shown smoking on screen is a major promotion of the smoking habit -- instigating the government to ban smoking on screen.

Clearly, the entertainment industry of films and serials has a telling impact on the behaviour of Indian society. Is the impact of advertising as powerful?

Consider this for a moment. The Hindi film industry produces about 200 films every year and generates revenues of about Rs 2,000 crore (Rs 20 billion). The same consultant's report estimates advertising spends on TV to be about Rs 5,000 crore (Rs 50 billion) --and more than a thousand films are produced and aired every year.

Hindi heroes and heroines change every decade -- with the exception of an Amitabh Bachchan -- but brands like Surf, Cadbury's, Asian Paints and many more have been part of many of our lives for decades and continue to be the gold standard in their respective categories.

Films are seen once or twice while ad films are seen over and over. Yet the advertising for many of these iconic brands doesn't seem to drive social change in behaviour and values as strongly as some of the heroes and heroines do through their portrayals in films and serials.

The social and cultural impact of advertising tends to be limited to the occasional introduction of new lingo -- a Dil Maange More or a Chal Meri Luna.

Most advertising tends to be, as Edward Kosner once said, "a trailing indicator of popular culture". Why is this so?

To begin with, much of mass media advertising is aimed at consumption rather than consumers' lives. Mass media advertising is still believed to be about salesmanship and not about influencing change.

However, today for many brands that are already well-known, actual sales and conversions take place at the market place -- at the time of purchase -- rather than at the moment when the prospect sees the ad on the tube or in the newspaper.

But the industry has still not come to terms with this reality and is so hesitant to redefine the purpose of mass media advertising. After all, it's much easier for marketing men to create an ad and air it than mount a massive bazaar programme to force final conversion at the last mile.

Secondly, advertising, at least in India, has gradually moved away from being about selling dreams to selling reality. And this in its own way has slowly but surely taken away the glamour and aspirational values that brands are supposed to fulfil in consumers' life.

Interestingly, films and serials tend to connect with viewers by selling "real emotions, in unreal, fantasy worlds" while the best mass media advertising is gradually trying hard to sell "real emotions in a real world" -- taking away the glitz from brands.

(The worst advertising however tends to be about "unreal emotions in an equally fake world".) Clearly, it is the innovative products introduced in the market that are actually influencing social change more than the messages beamed out. Products rather than brands are driving change!

Finally, too much of consumer research is taking the magic out of brands and their advertising. The consumer is a rear view mirror and often forces much of the advertising to get into her own real world.

John Shaw, regional planning director, Asia Pacific, Ogilvy and Mather, postulates much research (qualitative and quantitative) is often conducted among the late majority or laggards within a typical product life cycle curve.

This is because these are the kind of consumers often available for research groups and as research respondents. By definition, they need hard rationale to sell to.

And so they tend to push advertising into the functional, real boring world. Advertisers and advertising agencies need to get sensitive to Malcolm Gladwell's theory of "tipping point" that trends (of social behaviour or product adoption) are set out by a group of mavens or early adopters.

The challenge to any marketer is to identify this group and get it to adopt the product. Similarly, it is this group brand advertising that must be aimed at to influence and so must be researched in!

So how should advertising change?

For starters, focus more strongly on execution. Disproportionate resources, in terms of time and money, are spent in generating ideas than in the actual production of the film.

While lots of iterations go into the development of ideas, when it comes to actual final execution, film makers are given limited time and money and are expected to get it right first time -- unlike at least the Hindi film industry, where the best films are made with a lot of care and love to get the craftsmanship right.

In the film industry, the execution is as important as the story or script -- in advertising, ideas are everything. It is a great tribute to the Indian advertising film makers that they are able to do the job they currently do within the constraints they operate in.

Much of the film influence comes from the fact that today the best Hindi film makers work with cutting edge-fashion, dance, and set-designers to showcase their stories in cutting-edge stuff that can set trends.

Indian advertising film makers need to be allowed to work with cutting-edge artistes from other creative fields to upgrade the impact of the stories told.

Advertisers and advertising agencies must recognise the power of the brands they are creating mass media advertising for. For many iconic brands it's not a case of brand building (which linguistically and psychologically gives the impression of under-construction) but exploding their power to influence and add value to society at large.

As already said, this will become easier if advertisers and agencies recognise the changed role of mass media advertising in impacting consumers -- from hard-selling to actually quietly influencing and initiating social change.

Asian Paints' recent foray into Har Ghar Kuch Kehta hai and Lifebouy's foray into "clean environment" are movements in that direction. Benetton's "United Colors" campaign of the 80s/90s, championing the cause of unity, should be the inspiration and not Nike's "Just do it"! Brands should be seen as beacons that drive society and culture change.

Finally, advertising needs to recognise that it needs to search for insights and ideas at the tip of society rather than in the belly of the market.

And go back to be what they were supposed to be -- "the myth makers" or "the dream sellers" rather than be "salesmen". Brands are about fulfilling the unfulfilled desires of consumers -- they are surrogate dreams rather than functional solvers of life's problems.

The best Hindi movies work because their creators still see themselves to be dream merchants.

In short, mass media advertising needs to see its audience as "people" they are influencing rather than "consumers" they are selling to. That will make brands and advertising more powerful and have greater influence on culture.

Something worth thinking about.