By Rajiv Raghunath & N Jayalakshmi
One wonders whether ‘Toxic Masculinity’ should be so easily passed off as creative freedom when it comes to advertising. The controversial recent TVC of brand Layer’r Shot that was called out by people for “promoting rape culture”, indeed raises many disturbing questions.
To begin with is the question of how such an advertisement was even conceived.
While the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B Ministry), and the Delhi Commission for Women criticised the advertisement, after which it was pulled down from every platform, broadcasting the advertisement itself reveals the rot within, so to say.If one had to go back to the genesis of the ad, a team obviously conceived of the idea and it passed muster with the brand management, before the TVC was produced and relayed to the media channels. At no point through this whole process did it occur to anyone that the ad was downright distasteful and unacceptable.
This shows that in the name of creative freedom, some creative professionals are seemingly pushing the boundaries in decadent ways. Reports suggest that the ad was developed in-house. What is puzzling is the statement of clarification issued by the brand after the ad came in the line of fire. The clarification at best was mere tokenism, and not the result of any introspection. From the statement issued it is also quite obvious that the concerned decision makers in the organisation saw nothing offensive or distasteful when they gave it their approval.
It brings to light questions on the current approval process to be complied with before an air goes live. Reportedly, advertisers do not require the approval of any external body before airing their ads. It is only when an ad has courted controversy, does the ASCI, which has a consumer complaints council (CCC), come into the picture to take action. So, in this case it emerges that the question of approval did not arise since no ad agency was apparently employed by the brand for making the ad.
Well, it is possible that the Layer’r ad was used as a publicity gimmick. It is not uncommon for some brands to plant something controversial in the public mindspace and it grow bigger and become a beast of its own, all the while creating a bigger brand presence in the collective consciousness. Distasteful? Most certainly so.
But hey, who’s to judge?
May be, it’s time to pause, go beyond the set framework for what is defined as “objectionable content” and consider the social implications that such ads could have. Looked at any which way there are critical questions that need to be addressed in the case of the Layer‘r ad and the moot question remains – who finally takes ownership and responsibility? There’s also a bigger question – at a time when individuals are subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, and even penalty in some cases, for seemingly objectionable/insensitive/controversial content on public platforms, how come corporates/organisations/brands can get away by a perfunctory apology for something that very clearly violates social sensibility?
Keepp on writing, great job!
Thanks for the post!