Who Decides What Should Sell?

IN A RECENT AD, a girl washed festive colours off her face and when done, looked at herself in the mirror. Black eyes stared back from her scarred face.

- Ajai Kumar Dayal

A large number of people felt it sensitised viewers to a negative aspect of the Holi festival which was becoming commonplace. But a large number of people were offended, saying it demeaned a cultural practice by highlighting something which they felt was an aberration.

I would presume that the creative marketing team had pondered long and hard on whether the problem was serious and widespread enough to ring an alarm bell for society. But it seems the view they were presenting was not accepted widely enough.

However, what about advertisers who are selling products which are recognised to have negative impacts on people’s psyches or their bodies. The list is long and illustrious, face whiteners glorifying fair skin in a dark skin country, gutka and tobacco products which cause cancers, high sugar drinks which contribute to obesity, ineffective and even fake supplements et al. Obviously these products sell enough to support their high-profile campaigns with high production values and often, high-cost endorsers. They blanket the media ecosystem and it is no surprise then that the products are soon spread across the country. Why shouldn’t these companies continue to sell such products? Why should they take a value judged position to decide to continue or not?