One of the most basic lessons I learnt in my PR days (across both client-side corporate communications and agency-side public relations) is ‘do not repeat the negative’.
There is ample reason for this. And all those reasons lead to a simple human truth: framing.
A really good example of framing (where a famous person repeats a negative about him and makes it true!) is Richard Nixon’s ‘I am not a crook’ speech.
Even when he was trying to remove himself from the ‘crook’, the second he uttered it, people imagined a ‘crook’. By uttering ‘crook’, he evoked the picture of the very thing he wanted to avoid being associated with him.
Another simple example: If I ask you NOT to think of an elephant, what do you picture in your mind first?
The basic idea is to not reiterate the negative aspect again and focus, instead, on the remedial actions taken (from a PR context).
This lesson is particularly relevant when a brand has a prevalent negative perception in the market and wants to change it.
A really good example of positive framing being employed to tackle negative perception in PR/advertising is Cadbury Dairy Milk’s communication in the aftermath of the famous ‘worms’ controversy. The brand roped in Amitabh Bachchan to assert that their chocolates are safe. But instead of reiterating that their ‘chocolates do not have worms’ (negative framing that recalls the problem again), what Amitabh Bachchan was asked to speak is a masterclass in positive framing.
The positive framing is also crucial because it does not assume that the entire world is aware of the ‘worms’ controversy. A lot of people do know, but why inform even those who don’t by talking about it again?
That brings me to the new OYO ad that goes in the opposite direction as far as framing goes.
Here is the ad, made by the agency Moonshot.
To be sure, the ad does not explicitly say that the perception of OYO is that of a ‘cheap hotel that couples book for lovemaking’. But it does strongly imply that perception through the expression of the family, the audience that OYO wants to target with its new service offering. For someone like me who has not booked a hotel room via OYO and who had no previous perceptions about the brand, the implication is registered for the first time.
Then, the voice-over (after the ‘reveal’) says, ‘Yeh wahi OYO nahi, yeh hai OYO premium serviced hotels’. Err, does that mean that OYO has 2 tiers of rooms now – ‘wahi OYO that are cheap rooms use by couples’ and ‘premium serviced hotels’ that even families can consider without shame or embarrassment? I don’t know, and I don’t intend to find out either.
I do understand the intent behind this communication: To establish a counter to the currently prevailing negative/poor perception through a new service offering. But in trying to negate the poor perception, why imply it so explicitly? Why not establish the positive features of ‘premium serviced hotels’ without the preamble that alludes to the negative?
I assume that preamble is done in the name of humor. ‘Subversive humor’, considering Moonshot’s usually hatke ideas.
You may argue that without setting the stage for ‘what was’, they cannot talk about ‘what is’. But that is not true at all. The ‘what is’ could easily be followed up with reactions of wonder, surprise, elation (from the family members)… all positive sentiments, without starting on the ‘what was’. Yes, that would remove the element of the so-called ‘subversive humor’ out of the narrative, but that is only because I’m thinking of band-aid solutions based on an established narrative. There are many more ways to infuse humor, subversive or otherwise, if we think through the brief afresh, from scratch, without alluding to the negative perception as the starting point.
It’s a bit like Old Spice claiming in its campaigns explicitly, “Not your father’s (or grandfather’s) scent”. That Old Spice is associated with previous generations was a commonly held perception till they changed it by doing quite a few ad campaigns (including the ‘The man your man could smell like’ campaign starring Isaiah Mustafa). But none of their campaigns reiterated that they are not your father’s/grandfather’s brand anymore. That’s framing in action.
It’s a bit like the standard Indian film trope featuring anti-heroes (or ‘heroes’ who are absolutely miserable and horrible to people in the film – you know these kinds of films anyway). Towards the end, they may pay for their sins or repent, but by that time, the audience would have only one takeway – someone is having solid fun being horrible, notwithstanding the ending.
That works in movies because there is no continuity in terms of a narrative core to focus on, but it does help in corporate/marketing communications because there is always a central core called the ‘brand’.