By Avik Chattopadhyay
The rude intrusion into the new parliament building on December 13 when Manoranjan and Sagar threw up yellow smoke amidst our lawmakers drove the nation into a tizzy. Five people were rounded up, with the sixth to be roped in soon. The others are Amol, Neelam, Vishal and Lalit, the last person still absconding. Their occupations cover the spectrum from being unemployed to being an autorickshaw driver, a competitive exam preparer, a plumber apprentice to a teacher. They came together for causes like the farm laws, unemployment, the Manipur crisis and the general state of affairs. Justified? Not at all. A most immature act, actually, as an independent, democratic nation provides enough methods of expressing angst and raising red flags.
They claim they were inspired by an act of April 8, 1929 when Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt set off two low intensity bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly hall. That was against the Trade Dispute Act and Public Safety Bill.
The colour of the smoke bombs chosen by Manoranjan and Sagar was significant… the same as the colour of Bhagat Singh’s turban… ”Basanti”. They were there to make a statement, not to kill. While the media equated the act with the dastardly attack on Parliament 22 years ago, they felt they were emulating the act 94 years ago.
They are rebels, with a cause, but without direction. They wanted to highlight the plight of the common man. They stepped in to the “temple” of the world’s largest democracy to wake up those elected by the common man to, what they claimed, bringing the key issues to the forth.
The sheer hyper-histrionics that some sections of the media went into was something to be seen. The saner part of the media thankfully called it a “breach”. Two unarmed people and one yellow smoke canister seemed enough to make the house literally come down. What ensued was straight out of a Marx Brothers movie. The opposition created verbal terror. The chairs of the houses countered that with expulsion terror. Probes have revealed that the position of joint secretary of security was vacant for 45 days. Furthermore, the entire place was understaffed by 40%. When the yellow smoke billowed, the smoke detectors refused to get into action. Holy smoke!
The Prime Minister could have actually met the five and had a candid discussion on what brought them take such a step. That would have been a great example of leadership, where immaturity can be given the back seat to assuaging anxiety and addressing frustration, setting an example for others who might have had similar ideas.
Sadly, nobody likes to deal with a rebel. You wish your neighbour had one that you eulogised but never would want one in your own home. You garland the rebels in history but round up the ones in your own time. For society does not like rebellion as an act. You do not enjoy disruption. You abhor disturbance. The same goes for rebel brands.
When you look up “rebel brands” on the internet, it throws up “challenger brands” to you. Even the Economist falls into this trap. Have a look at this article – The rise of the rebel brands (economist.com). Design firm Pony.insights says, “Rebel branding is an unconventional marketing strategy that contradicts traditional norms and breaks the existing rules of the industry. These brands position themselves as iconoclasts, bucking conventional wisdom, and challenging the status quo in innovative and often provocative ways. Rebel brands dare to be different, seeking not to fit into an existing market but to create new spaces and to redefine norms. They are unafraid to disrupt and they thrive on controversy, pushing boundaries with their unconventional approach.” And then goes about citing examples like Tesla, Patagonia, Netflix and Chipotle as rebel brands. Brand strategy platform BrandStruck cites examples of Lyft, Salesforce and Dollar Shave Club as how rebel brands have expanded their market appeal.
These are NOT rebel brands. These are mere challenger brands. Brands that have challenged convention and the set boxes to redefine business solutions and metrics. That is all. Their deep down purpose was to eventually go mainstream and become as large as the then legacy or conventional brands, if not bigger and more profitable. To be challenged by yet newer ones. And the cycle of “Brand Darwinism” goes on.
Rebel brands want to disrupt. They do not wish to sustain. They wish to deconstruct. They do not fuss with reconstruction. They leave a mark. They are both bothered with legacies. They wish to be rare. They are not looking to be copied. They are bothered about impact. They do not measure returns. They are very good from far, part of folklore and case studies in business schools. They are not about making pre-placement talks and recruiting people.
Can I cite any example of a rebel brand? Trying very hard and by habit falling back to the automobile industry I can think of only three through the 140 year timeline – Gustav Trouve’s electric car in 1881, the “Wankel” engine in 1934 and the newly launched Tesla “Cybertruck” in 2023. All have huge shock value and have made the world sit up and gasp “aaahhhh”. The first two have had short lives and I do not see the last having a long one either. But just like the Nihilists do, they shook up the equilibrium, got people out of their comfort zones, whether through technology or design and mightily embarrassed the ‘establishment’.
The next time someone cites you examples of this or that brand as a “rebel”, be careful not to get swayed by the enigma of the term and remind them that those are mere “challengers”. For rebel brands, due to their very nature, do not last for long. But surely leave a lasting impression.
Avik Chattopadhyay is a Gurugram-based brand and business strategist and commentator. He writes on MxMIndia on alternate Thursdays. His views here are personal.