When you see an ad featuring a famous person, what goes on in your mind?
Take this new ad for Cinthol featuring actor Siddharth. He plays a doctor in the ad.
We (the audience) know that Siddharth’s profession is that of an actor, not a doctor. Yet, he plays a doctor while also espousing the product benefits of the soap. Now, which one of the two are we supposed to ignore (suspension of disbelief), and which point are we supposed to take seriously?
Ignore the make-believe profession Siddharth has been accorded? And take seriously the product claims? Why? Because ads are like films… make-believe? If so, why not include the product claims too under make-believe?
This is not a problem in an older Cinthol ad featuring actor Vinod Khanna where he simply played himself – a glamorous star living his life large.
There is no question of ignoring one element while trusting another.
Akshay Kumar too has played a doctor, for PolicyBazaar. So, are we supposed to overlook the fact that Akshay is not a doctor but the claims made by PolicyBazaar are real? Why?
Like the Vinod Khanna ad, Deepika Padukone plays herself in an ad for Asian Paints. Again, no issues with believing one part and distrusting another.
Once again, Deepika, and Farah Khan, play themselves in this ad for Britannia Good Day Chunkies. Easy to believe!
But, Deepika plays a small-town shopkeeper’s daughter in this Britannia Good Day ad! Should we suspend disbelief and accept the role she is playing? I can rationalize that in this way: the ad does not make any rational claims like Cinthol’s germ protection or PolicyBazaar’s money-related claims! Instead, it showcases simple human emotions that can be felt and exuded by anyone, actor or not.
Another test: should we take this army man seriously, in this Kajaria ad?
The army man is Ranveer Singh, the actor. If Ranveer plays an army man in a film, we know that the entire film is scripted entertainment and we don’t take any of it seriously. But in this ad, Ranveer is an accessory to specific claims about Kajaria laminates. So, should we take those claims alone seriously and overlook the fact that Ranveer, the non-army man, is faking one?
No such problem in this Relaxo footwear ad where Ranveer simply plays himself, with an extension to his persona from Gully Boy.
Let me test my own logic once more, using another tough cookie: Aamir Khan playing an old man, for PhonePe.
Should we take the product-related claims alone seriously? And ignore the old man Aamir that is obviously make-believe? One argument I could make is that Aamir is not a professional that we are supposed to trust – he is just any old man… that is, a generic character. A bit like the shopkeeper’s daughter Deepika, perhaps.
But then, where would this PhonePe ad be placed on this logic since it features Aamir Khan as an inspector, a profession!
My logic: both Siddharth and Ranveer were not named in those ads above. They played generic doctor and army man, respectively. But Aamir is ‘Inspector Desai’ in the PhonePe ad series and that could help us ease into the suspension of disbelief while taking the product claims seriously.
Of course, you may argue – aren’t Siddharth and Ranveer too ‘obviously make-believe’ in the Cinthol and Kajaria ads given our knowledge that they are not a professional doctor or an army man, respectively? Why should they not having been named as a character matter?
One feeble explanation could possibly be this: In those ads, both Siddharth and Ranveer seem perfectly serious within the rules of their profession. But Aamir not only has a character name, but he also plays a goofy character in an obvious make-believe way.
One more test: this ad featuring Amitabh Bachchan, Nagarjuna, and Manju Warrier.
Amitabh plays a father, Nagarjuna his son, and Manju plays Nagarjuna’s wife. Should we take their characters and fake relationships seriously? The ad’s main selling point is trust! To convey trust, should we have fake characters (unnamed!) portraying fake relationships? Would it have been better if there was at least a feeble attempt to not show the 3 actors as themselves and ease them into their characters?
What does that ‘feeble attempt’ look like? Here is an example: Ajay Devgn plays a professional, a train ticket collector, in this Dabur Babool ad. He is shown to be ‘S K Sharma’, and not Ajay Devgn. This is much like Aamir’s Inspector Desai in the PhonePe ad.
I’m sure there are a lot more ads featuring famous people that we could use back and forth to test this line of logic, but fundamentally I believe that brands and agencies could use some internal logic to make credible claims in ads beyond just about the product or service.
1. If it is not a comical ad that exposes the obvious make-believe setting, then using a famous actor as a professional when she/he is so very obviously not, could be done with naming them away from their real selves that helps the audience reconcile the make-believe set-up and split the trust factor – trust the product/service claims, ignore the make-believe setting. That is, call out the make-believe set-up at the outset.
2. If a brand is making a very serious, rational claim about the product or service, it is probably best to not create a fake professional out of a well-known actor to espouse those claims. The fake profession and the real claims may jar, as a combination.
3. It is perhaps better to use unknown models to play professionals (this is very common in ads where we see totally unknown models play doctors, police officials, or insurance agents and make perfectly serious claims about the product or service) even if we are likely to see the same model play some other character in another ad. But given that they do not have instant recognition like a well-known star, this could pass.
4. Getting the actors to play themselves is the easiest way out, of course. If that is not an option as per the needs of the script, the other option is to completely immerse them into a character, named or unnamed, explicitly, so that it eases the viewers to start from that point of suspension of disbelief.
—
This is an evolving thought, of course. The next time you see an ad featuring a well-known star, try using this line of thought to test it out. If you find an anomaly or a gap in the logic, let me know so we could explore it together.