Well this is a rhetorical question right? But we do give a lot of importance to pants..Don’t we? If a person is a professional working in an office he/she has to be in pants and if a person is not in pants/suits but in pajamas or in this case salwar suit playing with a kid, he or in this case specifically she is judged as non-working homely home maker aka housewife. And isn’t it surprising that she has E-MAIL in her mobile??
Oh My Dear Lord!! A salwar suit wearing, playing with her kid type has an E-Mail facility in her mobile. This is shocking!! Yes the advertisement hits a shocking node. This is breaking news...She can afford an E-Mail because it is available only for Rs 1 per day. Oh My Lord..Dear Lord!! What a life saver for homely home maker!
This advertisement gave me goose bumps. Literally I sat up straight and saw it multiple times. Every time it took me to another level of disgust. I normally don’t pay much heed to ads. They are mostly hideous, part of a race, trying to outsell each other. And in the process out-sell every moral and ethic in the book. I have been a part of the process, seen things take shape quite closely and hence I am more disillusioned.
But this ad took being judgmental to a new level. Look at all the elements. The lady who is obviously a working professional gives a skeptical look to the other lady who is homely poor woman with a child, not wearing pants . Literally the look tells us she is already looking down on the other lady for no reason.
Even when the homely lady who doesn’t have anything better to do, offers help; the lady in pants gives an incredulous look and says something that qualifies as a taunt...big time.
And Voila!!
What happens?? The lady in pants is proved wrong because the homely lady [Not in pants] has an e-mail facility in her mobile, which she can easily afford now because it is so cheap. Otherwise how will a homely lady with a child [Not in pants] be able to afford such facility?
Oh My an E Mail!!
This advertisement speaks volumes about the judgements prevalent in our society. We mark people and roles in water tight compartments and refuse to believe otherwise. We follow what is convenient and everything that is different is not convenient. So we pick up stereo types, don’t fight them, rather sell them and sell our products through them.
I know marketers draw their target audience [TG] and define them as a single person. So in this case who was the TG? A 30 something homely home maker playing with her child, who otherwise won’t be able to afford an e mail facility but is now using it because it is cheap. So now she can help an office going professional [in pants]. But my question is what is the basis of this TG definition?
Do they really think there are these two type of women?? And through this ad they are reaching this identified type??
I am not sure how many homely non-pant wearing females would relate to the advertisement but I really really want the marketing brains behind this ad to come and live where I do.
I would love them to see some of us home maker aunties with kids roaming around in hot pants with our i phones/ i pads, checking e mails and FB and speaking in ENGLISH.
Oh My GOD...maybe next they can try and sell some English speaking courses to us. If e mail is so unexpected from us, then English speaking courses are gold mine.
Common teach us English Mr. Marketer!!
Comments
Post a Comment