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!!