Of late I have been watching a strange phenomenon on prime time television. There are at least three advertising commercials in which a woman is seen thrusting her extra clean underarm at unsuspecting fellow male passengers with a superconfident demeanour. Yes, the brands/products in question are antiperspirants and deodorants, and traditionally armpits have played very significant roles in creating the selling arguments. The only thing I am a little baffled by is why on earth an otherwise fine woman would proudly flash her armpit? We have heard of flashing a smile aided by the able assistance of a toothpaste brand or even flaunting a great body with some support from a low-fat dietary supplement product. But flaunting one?s armpit?
This phenomenon could actually be an indicator of something significant. No, I am not for once saying that armpits may have gained greater significance in our beauty code. But it?s actually about how product marketing is trying to change its course and trying to build a different relationship with consumers.
Traditionally, the marketing discourse had been about making people feel inadequate. It was almost the flag bearer of the cruelty of capitalism.
Advertising had ridiculed people on every possible shortcoming and at times created shortcomings out of thin air. Advertising unabashedly told the dark girl that her father would have been better off having a son (remember ?kash mera ek beta hota? ad for a fairness cream?), the short boy in the school was routinely ridiculed by a brand of health drink. It was necessary for advertising to create an image of low self-esteem for every viewer. Chapped lips, cracked heels and dandruff-ridden hair was always portrayed with alarming social consequences?be it being unworthy of love or coming up short in a job interview. The capitalist?s argument was simple: I will make your self-image extremely low and just in case you want it back you need to buy all the products and services and in that process fuel the economy. Perceptions of beauty and fashion, in particular, have been terribly distorted?advertising has almost invented parts through which people can be made to loathe their own bodies. Pimples, wrinkles, grey hair, bad breath, yellow teeth, oily skin were advertising?s tools to make people feel inferior. Armpits in that scheme had an important role to play. It played on people?s lack of self-confidence and a tentative self-examination of one?s armpit led to serious doubts. And then, of course, the fabled deodorant would come to the rescue and the hapless protagonist would get back a spring in her steps and confidently get closer to the world. Why did this discourse change? What led to the unabashed flaunting of great looking armpits?
It all started with some visible symbols in recent India that clearly indicated that India is no longer worried about the collective memories of scarcity, tentativeness and self-doubt. As a nation, we started believing in a euphoria called ?our time has come?. In every forum, the new confident India was being discussed. We were ready to conveniently ignore our shortcomings in infrastructure and public health and were happy to discuss our elite academic institutes, our IT industry and how many Indians have made it to the list of world?s richest people. These trends were quickly picked up by marketing. Advertising started pointing the way to confidence and not the way out of inadequacies and doubts. It was no longer the rejection of dark skin but the triumph of fair skin. It was not about the woman with cracked heels trying to unsuccessfully cover her heels but it was about shiny polished heels looking good in expensive footwear.
But in this process, advertising also learnt a new safe procedure. Something that can be explained by the ?prospect theory? of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory has its roots in behavioural economics and it states: ?Give someone the choice between a guaranteed small gain and a possible large gain, and they?ll probably take the small; but give someone the choice between a guaranteed small loss and a possible large loss, and they?ll probably risk the large.?
It, therefore, suggests that if one uses advertising to create a sense of inadequacy, most customers will risk the impact of not buying (i.e., the possible large loss) rather than pay for your product (i.e., the guaranteed small loss). Capitalism and its favourite child?advertising?quickly figured out that it?s much safer to show the brighter side than the darker side?it?s much more prudent to be inviting than intimidating.
Projecting the brighter side of the user in a personal product is almost becoming a norm. Today, the social appreciation of fair skin, white teeth, soft skin, great hair, etc, is dominating advertising and marketing narratives. But somewhere in that process advertising got carried away and created stories around social confidence because of great armpits. They know it?s important to be positive?but maybe they need a lesson on the extent of this positivity. Advertising is the culture of the consumer society. But it lacks cultural authority. Maybe the new armpit narrative is a clear indication why it lacks the authority.
The author is managing partner, BBH India