Of insensitive advertising
(February 7, 2005)Respecting people with disability doesn't come easily to Indians, and comes far less easily to people in business.
When I was twelve, my mother was operated upon for cataract. I was happy for her, happy that she would be able to see clearly again, happy that she would read and embroider. But shortly after she was operated upon, for reasons I did not understand, she developed corneal ulcer. Overnight, she permanently and totally lost her eyesight. She was in her early fifties then, and for the next 35 years of her life I saw how blind people live.
In the process, I learnt to respect people with disabilities. It is something that doesn't come easily to Indians, and comes far less easily to people in business. One reason is our population, and the low price we attach to life itself. Did you know, for instance, that a whopping 12 per cent of Indians live with some form of disability? That is 120 million Indians - enough to have a voice of their own, enough to cry foul when they are treated with indifference and, oftentimes, outright cruelty. For the most part, we are not sensitised as children; so if there is a lame boy in class, you can be sure he will grow up with a disgusting nickname. Such acts of insensitivity are usually associated with lack of education. But, this probably has nothing to do with education. It has to do with pervasive insensitivity, and lack of inclusion.
Take this example: I opened a magazine to see a motorcycle advertisement from the house of Bajaj. The format was that of an eye examination chart, followed by a short copy which ends with the words: 'Now, only a blind man will buy any other bike.' I was aghast. Are we trying to say that blind people are dumb, and that only people who can see (as the advertisement suggests) can make an intelligent choice?
I was so upset about the advertisement that I told my wife Susmita about it. She explained the context to me. Apparently, Hero Honda has been running an advertisement that shows a blind man purchasing a motorcycle for his son. He asks for a particular model by name, insisting that his son must get only that bike. Nothing crass about it. Except that I could question the centrality of bringing in a person with a disability to make an advertising point. Why not a lame person, why not a deaf person, why not a bald person, why not the advertising agency executive who thought about the creative? Why only a blind person?
For a moment, let us suspend judgment on creativity gone wrong. After all, people can say: I have the money to pay for the advertisement. So, I decide what disability best sells my products. Someone else can say: Article 19 of the Constitution gives me the Freedom of Speech. So, I am within my rights to do what I want. After all, there are 9 million Indians who (fortunately) will not be able to see the advertisement and tell us that there surely are better ways to sell a good product like a Hero Honda motorcycle.
What completely baffles me in all this is why the house of Bajaj had to jump into the fray with something downright offensive, in a show of competitive advertising that is below the dignity of a market leader. It speaks badly of the management of the agency that cleared the advertising line. It speaks worse of the client who cleared it without thinking about the cruelty in the so-called creativity. Probably it was a product manager with an MBA from a reputed institution that does not teach the basics of social sensitivity as an essential ingredient of marketing. Perhaps the top management of Bajaj Auto has norms of delegation, so they can turn a blind eye when operating people clear offensive advertising like this. Or, should we question whether top management must indeed be held accountable for its failure to lay down guidelines impacting corporate communication?
Leadership is about inclusion and sensitivity. I know those in the top management aren't the ones who write copy or clear marketing crusades. But they can set the norms, so that the organisation does not stoop low to conquer.
