Defending Gillette, or maybe not

Almost exactly 9 years ago, a brand from the P&G stable ran a very cool campaign titled ‘Smell like a man, man’. It showed an attractive African-American man in a towel talking directly to the camera (i.e. ladies watching the commercial) about how Old Spice body wash would make their man smell like the man he portrays. His attitude added to the charm – his persona was described as “wildly smug, cool-cat smooth dude”. The campaign was wildly successful, and it also won a Grand Prix for film at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival. In short, lots of claps and pats on the back.

Fast-forward to the present. Another brand from the P&G stable runs a campaign with the message ‘The Best Men Can Be’. This time, it’s a razor-and-after-shave selling brand that urges men to challenge themselves to do more so that they can get closer to their best. What an awesome, inspiring message! What could possibly go wrong here?

Umm, if you are with me till here, you know how polarising this campaign has been. Maybe there’s no hidden message behind the casting here too – in two different situations, the guys about to harass women being white, and the guys stopping them being black is just coincidence. But this ad made many men uncomfortable, and they are raising all kinds of questions about the ad.

Rather than look at those questions, let’s look at why they should be questioning this campaign at all. The first and most obvious fact is that this ad evoked a reaction. Meaning, it touched a chord somewhere. You could like it, hate it, scowl at it, but you couldn’t ignore it. Maybe it made you feel inspired, threatened, irritated, or simply angry, it means it did a fantastic job. It got your attention and it made you react. Strike one.

Next, is how this ad makes men feel about being a man. Some would feel being reduced to a stereotype. Or feel guilty because it holds them to a higher standard. Some would feel uncomfortable because it urges them to address an issue they have been quiet about, while some others would wonder if they really would have to interfere in a fight to earn the respect of their sons and be their hero. Again, this simply means that it touched upon a relevant, urgent issue that forces the viewer to take a stand. They aren’t just paying attention, they are now emotionally involved. Strike two.

Last, is the significance of the stand that they have taken or will take. It is not going to be an easy decision to make. If they agree with the argument, they have to plead guilty – guilty of being part of a group that has made not just workplaces, but every other place as well, unsafe for women; guilty of allowing, if not propagating a stereotype about men being aggressive, tough, and strong; guilty of asserting their masculinity by objectifying women, feeling entitled to their bodies, being insensitive to their feelings, emotions, and most importantly, consent. On the other hand, if they disagree with the argument, they fear being exactly what they have been accused of for decades – ‘good guys’ being complicit in the stereotyping of men, and harassment of women, even if only by inaction. Now they aren’t just emotionally involved, they are put in a moral dilemma. Strike three.

That a simple ad can do this, is by itself, pretty amazing. But let’s not get carried away. It’s just that this is the first ad that talks about this issue head on. And that too, by a brand that makes products almost exclusively for men. (You had forgotten it makes razors for women too, right?)

So, are justified men in applauding it or booing it?

Which camp is the bigger one? The right one?

What do I know? I am just another advertising guy.

Disclaimer: While I am hardly taking a side, it’s important to point out my employer has P&G’s competitor, Unilever, as one of its biggest clients. Also, that these views are my personal views, and they don’t represent anyone else’s.

Look at the Sunset

Just completed reading a book by Paul Arden - God explained in a taxi ride.

It was recommended by a friend, and both of us thought it would be fun because I am a atheist... or agnostic... whatever.

In an attempt to understand the concept of God, I came closer to understanding my beliefs in God. The author provokes us using a simple question, "Look at that sunset. Who created it?" He goes on to say it could be God, or Accident, or Fluke. If you think is a Fluke, then you believe in Fluke. For you, Flukes are God.

Overall, the point being whatever your answer to that question, that's what you believe in. Personally, I think my answer would be "I don't know". And applying the same logic, my God is the unknown.

I think the logic is clever. 'Coz that's what I do, I read up on stuff that's unknown. I surf, search, find, discuss and most of the times the topic is not something that's already known to me. It's something new and different, something I have come to experience for the first time.

What it means, is that like everyone else, I too am spending my time and energy in following my God.

Absolutely hate to admit it, don't I? :)

Mind over Matter

Should I thank this girl to make me come back to blogging? On second thoughts, no. My ego won't allow me to boost someone else's :).


Today's 26 November. 2 years ago, Mumbai was hit by the hatred of a few people. And 14 years ago, my cousin had gotten married. They live a very happy life now, my cousin and her family. All, except one, of the attackers, aren't even alive. The only one alive is on death row.

Why he would have done it was easy to figure out. Most probably, something bad happened to him, and then, someone did a little brainwashing and voila! There was a terrorist ready to chop a few innocent heads off.

What bothers me more is everyone else, who want this man dead. Why would they want it? It's not that they personally will benefit from this guy's death. It's not even that they would lose something very important to them if this guy remains alive.

Yes, he is dangerous to be left out in the open. But that doesn't mean he should be killed.

What would have Batman done? He who has taken a vow not to kill anyone. What would have Mahatma Gandhi done? He who believed 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. What would have I done? I who don't have a belief as strong as these guys.

Maybe I would have made sure that he adopts a child and sponsors his living. That would have made him realise how easy it is to kill and how difficult it is to live.

Maybe I would have forced him to stay alone and away from everyone else, like Robinson Crusoe. That would make sure he can't kill anyone, and is still made to work for keeping himself alive.

Maybe I would have narrated to him stories of the victim's families and friends... told him about the grief, the loss, and the practical tragedy his actions resulted in. That would have brought about a broader understanding of the world.

It doesn't matter what I would have done.
'coz I am not the one doing anything.
I am not the one asked to kill innocent people.
And not the one asked to kill guilty people.

I am just a bystander, who will observe this, and move on, once the tamasha is over. My life is good!

The event won't matter to me 14 years later. And I am pretty sure the marriage still matters to my cousin and everyone else.... including me.

An Indian Politician speaks

Hi. I am a politician in India.

Well, that's all you actually know about me.

You don't know my educational qualification, and you have assumed I am illiterate, or only moderately educated.

You don't know me personally at all, and you have made up your mind that I am dishonest and corrupt.

You have no clue about my income and its sources, and you have decided that I have earned crores of black money.

You don't know my standard of living, and you are sure I am a lavish spender.

You don't know why I joined politics, and you have assumed I am in it for personal benefits.

You don't know my dreams about India, and you have decided I will be selfish after coming to power.

For years, you have waited for someone to get into politics and clean the system. Maybe I am that person. If we work together, maybe we will cause miracles for our country. Maybe you will know this once you listen to me.

And you are not bothered to even listen to me, or ask me something.

Twenty-20 Foresight

As every other inactive Indian blogger, this moment would serve as an opportunity to get over the blogger's block, and I too, am making the best of this opportunity.

However, this post would be different (I hope) from the countless other posts that might get into the nitty-gritties of the Twenty20 tournament, the Final match tonight or Indian team's performance, or probably even how each team performed throughout the series.

This post is rather about my thoughts as a bystander to this exciting event.

Similar to what happened when the One Day International format was introduced, this format too faced the initial criticism from the purists. But at the end, as many articles and blogs have said, everybody is happy with this format. And almost everybody's sure that this would add to, and not replace, the other formats.

In hindsight, the reasons for these seem quite obvious. We were trying to measure the advantages and disadvantages of the Twenty20 format with our understanding and experience of the ODI and Test Match formats. The reactions, hence, were:
- It would be crunching it too much for it to remain interesting
- It would simply become a slog-fest, and the resultant runs would be so much, it would be very frustrating for the bowlers.

Overall, while some of the disadvantages are true, the format has its advantages too:
- It is long enough to keep things exciting, but short enough to hold everyone interested throughout the match.
- While compared to the other formats, the batsmen's strike rates would be higher and bowlers economy rates would be lower, the T20 records would simply get their own life, just the way ODI scores are no more compared to Test scores.
- As more of this format is played, the strategising would evolve and we would have similar analyses and planning in the matches and series, the way we currently have going in the Test and ODI.

But my gut feel is that the game would still be plagued by the current vices. There is enough money and not enough emotions riding International cricket (when compared to Football) to boot out the bookies.

I can only hope that the game comes out clean soon.

Mobile Manners

I haven't travelled outside India, or even to a lot of places outside Mumbai. So I can't really give a perspective on this opinion. But being within a small place in this big world, I have come to realise that the human race has got a lot of things it doesn't really deserve.

One of them is the mobile phone.

Imagine this. You are going in a local train trying to reach your office on time. The train is packed like crazy and the air is hot and humid. You have probably been through two quarrels already from your way to this place in the train. You are trying to relax a bit.

And then rings loudly the phone of the person standing next to you. He answers it and then for some reason, starts talking as if he is living in the distant past when trunk calls were hard to hear. A minute into the talk, everyone in the coach knows what the conversation is about.

Now imagine this happening almost every alternate day in your real life.


Life does not stop there. If you are thinking it is only the people travelling in local trains who do this, galat jawaab! These incidents happen at all levels across social gatherings, be it office meetings, or people sitting on the dias, or people in the cinema hall. And I am sure I am not the minority when it comes to being on the receiving side of such incidences. Mobiles have become one of the biggest sources of rude behaviour in public.

Some time back, Hutch had started an ad campaign on mobile manners.
My opinion - PLEASE RESTART!!! We desparately need some teaching!!!

Moral Polices Everywhere!!!

Here it goes again. One more extra-ordinary ad and people just don't get it.

They have simply lost it, over the SBI 'Bholu' ad. The intellectuals, who just watch TV and want to comment on everything they see, have not liked the ad because it showcases poor people and their lives.

I don't understand why these people do such things. For every 'Chandni Bar' and 'Chameli', these same guys would appreciate the effort and give awards to the makers. But when it comes to advertising, the makers would become insensitive a*sholes, who want to commercialise the lifestyle of poor people.

How can the intelligent people be so dumb?

Why can't they understand concepts like breaking the clutter, like having 'what if' situations in ads to get your message across. Do they not understand even something as simple as target audience???

A great personality also puts his own version of the ad. I would love to ask him - Sir, with all due respect, would you have even noticed an ad like what you have 'created'?

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT!!!

The moral of the story: Leave the ad-making job to the creative guys. It is not everybody's cup of tea.