By now, everyone has denounced that abominable print ad by Bombay Shaving Company (BSC)/Bombae that the brand released on the back page (not the front page, as many have mistakenly pointed out) of HT City, Hindustan Times’ city supplement in Mumbai, on April 27, 2024. Usually, a controversial ad campaign is said to ‘split the internet’, but in a rare, unintended move, Bombay Shaving Company managed to ‘unite the internet’ against it!
Some of the team members at the BSC/Bombae have tried to justify the ad on the back of their CEO’s post being heavily criticized, but as the saying goes, “When in a hole, one should stop digging”.
As a communications professional who has seen such situations play out in the past in both my client-side stints and agency-side stints, my recommendation would be for the CEO to offer a simple, honest apology, on LinkedIn, where he also mentions that he and his team should have listened more carefully and intently both before and after the release of the ad. And, after that, just shut up. This is the time to stop talking about the ad and not make things far worse than what they already are.
However, this post is not about what the brand can do after the ad. That part is fairly straightforward given the deep hole BSC finds itself in. There’s not much the brand can do, now.
But what should the brand have done while the ad was in discussion internally? This part may be useful, as a post-mortem for other brands, agencies, and especially start-ups with in-house creative teams like BSC.
The starting point is something I had recently mentioned in a different context (of personal branding) – Think like your worst critic. The basic idea is to question your premise from the extreme opposite direction and see if you can convincingly respond to the counterpoints.
While the ad was being planned or discussed inside BSC/Bombae, were there counterpoints? If so, what were they/what did they sound like? And how were they dealt with?
Imagine an internal meeting at BSC/Bombay a few days before the ad’s release.
Someone may have proposed the ad, to begin with.
“Hey, did you see the news about a UP exam topper being trolled for her facial hair?”.
“Yeah! Really sad state of affairs! I feel really bad for that girl”.
“But think about what we can do, as a brand!”.
“Err, why should we, at BSC/Bombae do anything about it?”.
“Because she was being trolled for facial hair, remember? And our entire business is around ‘facial hair’!”.
Now, at this point, the conversation could have gone in two directions.
Direction 1: “Sure, the trolling was about facial hair, but why exacerbate the issue by raking it up again and make things worse for her? She was trolled and bullied and tons of people online shut those bullies down already”.
Direction 2: “Wow, that’s a fantastic connect! It works across two dimensions – moment marketing and to position our brand as being empathetic. Let’s move this up the chain!”.
It’s possible that the team went with the latter.
But if there was at least one soul at BSC who countered the idea with the former, how was it met with?
“Why see it as making things worse? Why not see it as our brand’s support to the girl, against the bullies? Why can’t we use words carefully and thoughtfully and make the ad genuinely well-intended?”.
“Okay, what do you have in mind?”.
“One, except our logo, there need not be any other direct or indirect selling of our products anywhere in the ad. And two, we have the opportunity to ‘deinfluence’ the use of our product if we get the framing right… say something like she never being forced to use our razor!”.
Reaction?
Direction 1: “No, I think this is getting progressively bad. Would you tell that—’never being forced to use our razor’—to that girl if you met her face-to-face? Considering she is still a minor, wouldn’t you rather have a more serious conversation with her parents if you met her? No brand has entered this territory with any kind of moment marketing. Just using ‘facial hair’ as a basis, I don’t think we should enter this zone. The context of her being trolled for facial hair is completely different from the context of facial hair that we, at BSC, deal with. It’s unwarranted and could also backfire no matter how we frame it because, in the end, people would simply see it as a razor company opportunistically misusing this news for marketing, regardless of how good our wordplay is, or how much empathy we throw into the mix. Think about it – we are Bombay Shaving Company – that’s what will come through. If at all enough people within BSC feel strongly about it, let’s do something privately, on our own, by reaching out to her parents with some offer of help. I don’t see the need to take a public stand on this issue by using the brand’s voice”.
Direction 2: “Oh, that’s interesting. I like the ‘deinfluencing’ idea! Goes well with these online content creators showcasing harmful levels of sugar, salt type things in products and asking people not to buy them. A brand deinfluencing its own product’s usage could be novel! Let’s move this up the chain!”.
Assume that the latter prevailed in this layer too. What next? The creative discussion, of course. There could be enough counter voices at this stage too.
“How about we address the ad to Prachi? A ‘Dear Prachi’ type call out at the top would make it direct and personal, I feel”.
“But can we use her name like that, that too, without her permission?”.
“If someone asks, we can always say we meant ‘a Prachi’, not ‘The Prachi’. Can’t we?”.
“That’s vague and dishonest. In any case, once the ad is out, we can’t react to individual responses with who we meant, and we didn’t mean to call out. We should be careful here. Without her permission, it feels disingenuous to use her name, particularly on the back of her name still being in news. I feel it will backfire on us”.
Let’s assume this was shot down, and the ‘Dear Prachi’ suggestion was approved.
Next?
“How about we include a rhyme of ‘hair’ with something relevant to her studies? That should be cool, right?”.
“Like what?”.
“Hmmmm, how about ‘hair’ and ‘A.I.R’, as in All India Rank?”.
“Oh, c’mon! She has just topped her standard 10 exams!! I did read her interview where she talks of engineering being her interest and her intent to crack the IIT-JEE exam, but why add to the pressure?”.
I imagine this would have been shot down too and the ‘hair’ – ‘A.I.R’ rhyme stayed.
Next?
“So, we have ‘Dear Prachi’ to open the ad. A hair-AIR rhyme for showcasing our clever wordplay, and a deinfluencing ending along with our logo. Anything else, folks?”.
“I think we have a winner. We have picked up a topic that is in the news currently, has a connection with our business if we use the lens of ‘facial hair’, and I feel we have covered all potential red flags.”
“Still, don’t you folks think we are being facetious here? After all, our other ad campaigns for Sensi Smart 3 (April 21) and Bombae Rolling Razor starring Alaya F (April 25) are already running in Hindustan Times. Those are directly relevant to our business and help sales. Why dip into wordplay and moment marketing when there’s no reason to? Particularly a sensitive topic like this where we have no business to offer a comment. Why not have Shantanu talk about how he felt on his LinkedIn page and also add pointers about how many team members at BSC felt the same too? Why involve the brand?”.
“Oh, not again! I thought we had moved past all that. As for the need for this ad, I’d say that this would help position Bombae, a women’s range, as a progressive, caring brand. That should help us win more first-time buyers because they would see us as their ally after this ad. Plus, let’s not call this ‘moment marketing’ at all. This is not some careless social media post at the spur of the moment. This is a print ad, a full-page one at that! That’s quite a commitment from our side. I see it as corporate social responsibility. We are making a statement about who we are, with this ad!”.
“I concur. Let me also share a post on LinkedIn first thing in the morning summarizing the fact that we are not overtly selling any product in this ad. In fact, let me frame it as ‘a heartfelt message to a fellow Bae’ and play up the ‘Bombae’ connection as cue”.
“Sure thing, boss!”.
“Great – can’t wait for the ad’s release!”.
There are at least five counterpoints above, in the fictional conversation. Even if I assume that these were offered in internal discussions, the need was to take them seriously, at each stage, and listen more intently. Perhaps ask more people for their views. If possible, seek opinion from young girls who may be going through what Prachi is going through, to understand their perspectives, or how they would feel if they were named in an ad like this and offered the same lines in the ad along with a Bombae logo. Even better, talk to doctors about the condition (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome – PCOS) and make yourself aware of the nuances involved.
If BSC/Bombae had done a slightly more diligent study on Prachi’s condition and not just focused on the trolling, either they would have dropped the ad entirely, or framed it in a very, very different way, perhaps addressing the trollers instead of addressing Prachi (and not mentioning Prachi at all), directly or indirectly.
This is not ‘overthinking’. This is the bare minimum effort required before you put your money and brand’s voice behind a/any sensitive topic that is making news. Of course, such deliberations too do not guarantee that every brand would get it right, and brands still make mistakes. Zomato’s Kachra ad is a good example since Zomato generally, by and large, is a bit more thoughtful in the things it does. But things do go wrong despite best intentions and deep deliberations. In such situations, Zomato is again a good example to look up to – the apology and backtracking comes from the CEO himself, and not just the brand logo. And Deepinder usually is direct in admitting the goof-up, or thoughtlessness (as demonstrated in the recent ‘ve-only green uniform fleet’ fiasco.
It helps that brands (and at the CEO level) observe more keenly and think more deeply before plonking the brand into moment marketing. And if things go south, be human and open enough to admit the blunder as honestly as possible.