Shorter version on audio:
YouTube:
Spotify:
Full post:
After a long time, I’m glad to see a new underwear brand ad that has a relatable insight, is layered with an eye-popping narrative device, and is also humorously engaging 🙂
I’m referring to Dixcy Scott’s new campaign starring Rahul Dev, made by TBWA\India.
But before I talk about the Dixcy Scott campaign, allow me to start with their rival, Lux Cozi’s new ad featuring Varun Dhawan, made by Ogilvy India.
Why? Because the end goal of both brands’ ads are the same – when you wear well-fitting innerwear, you are more comfortable, and hence more confident overall (among the other things that affect your confidence, well-fitting innerwear are one thing less, in the larger scheme of things). But, on the contrary, if your innerwear is a bad fit, the result is a nagging annoyance and discomfort that only a man can explain fully and with a lot of emotions 🙂
What Ogilvy does with the Lux Cozi ad is to translate that comfort (demonstrated by Varun Dhawan) as ‘Chehre pe muskaan’. That is, if your innerwear is comfortable and well-fitting, you have a smile on your face. Basically… it shows in your face.
This is, of course, true, and I can vouch for this as a man 🙂
But, well-fitting innerwear is not the only thing that directly results in a smile on your face. In fact, you may forget well-fitting innerwear after you wear them in the morning after a bath. You may appreciate the fit as soon as you wear it, but then life takes over your mind.
So, to connect a smile on your face when you are in the office, or when you are walking in the road…. to the innerwear you wore in the morning and have adequately forgotten about it—it is innerwear, after all—is an advertising-led exaggeration and a stretch. But this is an acceptable stretch. Or, this stretch (pun unintended in the context of underwear and banian) has been normalized over the years through many brands connecting the dots between overall happiness during the day and the innerwear a person is wearing.
Now, let me come to the Dixcy Scott ad.
The first reason I loved the new series of ads is that the narrative draws a direct line between innerwear and something that happens to the 3 people showcased in the ad long after they wore the innerwear in the morning.
To be sure, unlike the Lux Cozi ad that uses positive reinforcements (“you’ll be happy with your product”), Dixcy Scott’s ad starts with a negative portrayal first. It demonstrates how bad underwear or banian can affect you. This demonstration is instantly relatable to any man who has worn bad fitting underwear, in particular 🙂 It’s simply something we instinctively know and understand since most of us would have gone through this.
Where the ad makes a brilliant leap is to frame this discomfort as a ‘body language’ problem. And if you think about it, they are absolutely right!
No doubt, body language consists of a lot more than what is caused due to bad fitting innerwear (eye movement, hand gestures, body posture, among many others), but uncomfortable innerwear does cause a physical discomfort that can definitely be added under body language. This is clever thinking and very intelligent framing. Instead of merely showing a man squirming due to ill-fitting innerwear, Dixcy Scott makes it a serious condition by framing it as a ‘body language’ issue.
But that’s not all!
The agency could have simply offered the product as a solution after setting the premise of poor body language. That’s only half the job done and would have resulted simply in a reasonably engaging ad.
Where the ad becomes eye-popping hilarious too is through the Rahul Dev narrative device 🙂
In a perfectly everyday situation (job interview, sportsman-coach talk, guy talking to his girlfriend’s father), when a 3rd man enters the scene wearing only his underwear, you cannot not be interested. Even as a script, on paper, your eyes will pop out reading it, with a ‘WHAT??!’ 🙂
The agency frames Rahul Dev as the narrative device… or ‘body language translator’ to spoonfeed to the viewers the discomfort the man is feeling and which resulted in him not being confident enough during a situation when he absolutely should be. It’s one thing to have butterflies in the stomach or the inner trepidation when taking a big step, but simple, existential things like ill-fitting innerwear could also throw a man off the track and make him seem less confident in the overall outlook just like how a poorly worn tie may, or a not-so-shiny shoe may, or even uncombed hair may.
So the line Dixcy Scott is drawing from ill-fitting innerwear to physical discomfort during an important occasion/situation in a man’s life is far more direct—and relatable—than the line that Lux Cozi is drawing from well-fitting innerwear to a man being happy at the office.
The only issue with the ad is that it takes that visible discomfort of the man (caused by the innerwear) and has Rahul doubt his entire capability in handling the situation he is in! So, Rahul questions (or perhaps articulates the thought of the other man, in a more authoritative position): “If he cannot get his own stuff right, how can he (a) perform well in the sport, (b) do this job well, and (c) look after your daughter?”.
I understand that this is played for laughs and it sounds funny too. But instead of declaring it as a fact, the script could have simply raised this as a question of the other man as voiced by Rahul.
For example, Rahul now says, “This man’s own elastic is loose. How can he look after your daughter well?”.
Instead, a better framing could be, “Are you doubting his capability to look after your daughter because of his poor body language? Relax – the man’s body language is not a reflection of his capability. Its cause is something far simpler. Here, allow me to solve that superficial problem…”.
It is true that people judge others based on body language cues. While body language cues are indicative of, and representative of the outlook of a person, they are not the only ones someone should be using to take a sweeping decision. There are several other factors too and most of us would have benefited from another authoritative person trusting the inner ‘us’ and giving us an opportunity even when we seemed tentative at the outside.
But having said this, I do understand that the way they have framed the ad, seems great on paper as a cause-and-effect connection.
Ok, so Rahul Dev walks in, dressed only in his underwear, explains the problem scenario, and offers Dixcy Scott as a solution. This, any other innerwear brand could do too. To make it relevant and specific to Dixcy Scott alone, the narrative inserts 3 brand-centric features: better sweat absorption, anti-microbial finish, and durable waistband. These 3, when not present or when not available in a brand of innerwear, could be seen as direct causes of discomfort… a.k.a body language problems.
Of course, I’d take these product claims with skepticism since I have never purchased Dixcy Scott products before. Plus, there is the ‘wash factor’ – the more you wash these products, they tend to loosen up (pun unintended, again) and that would be your cue to replace them, obviously. I usually stick to Jockey out of habit, but I must add here: I’m not averse to trying a Dixcy Scott just to test these claims.
And then the closure! How would the previously uncomfortable man (with poor body language) behave when he’s wearing Dixcy Scott innerwear? This is on expected lines, understandably. But Rahul’s final ‘Chhaa gaye’ is a nice, humorous touch to the closure.
Another factor: Dixcy Scott has worked with Salman Khan in the past.
But I’m glad they resisted the urge to have Salman as the ‘body language translator’. Given his aura and image, and enormous recognizability, he may have made for a less believable ‘body language translator’ despite the fact that it is a made-up role. Rahul Dev, with his salt-and-pepper stubble and obvious middle-age, makes for a far more relatable and believable ‘body language translator’ than Salman would have with his picture-perfect body and super confident demeanor. Rahul Dev is an actor too, but not as well-known as Salman and he can also pull off the ‘everyman’ look.
I’m glad the underwear/innerwear segment is looking beyond the attraction of the opposite sex as a lever to sell products (the Dixcy Scott ad has no women at all). That narrative has probably been done to death already, and this more-grounded insight in the Dixcy Scott ad has been delivered very well with a winsome narrative device too!