With apologies to none at all
By Vikas Mehta
When I joined the world of advertising more than three decades ago, I was lucky to be part of Lintas, now Mullen Lowe Lintas. While there were advertising agencies which were producing very creative, hard-hitting ads or agencies which produced ads that were strategically sound and would not elicit a second glance, Lintas had positioned itself as an agency which built brands. Be it Surf or Lifebuoy or Kitply or MRF Tyres or Chrery Blossom… the list was long.
What I also discovered was that Lintas was heavily invested into public service advertisements. Many memorable ads were made. Causes like anti-dowry, you are no better than a buffalo at an auction if you ask for dowry. Or anti-drugs, drugs means death; or even the one which used sugarcane juice vendors to highlight the importance of hygiene in avoiding diseases during monsoons. The last one, I remember, was effective enough to elicit protests from sugarcane juice vendors who protested outside Lintas offices at Express Towers in Nariman Point, Mumbai.
But I always wondered how much of an impact the ads made amongst the target group. Sure it got awards, peer appreciation etc, but did they make a change in society?
And this thought resurfaced when a friend with family had a close shave in a car crash because the husband in the front was wearing seat belt though she and children in the back were not and they did get bruised and cut. And I wondered why people still do not wear seat belts inspite of many public service ads and messages.
The feeling got reinforced when I saw an emotive and impactful ad on not drinking and driving. Watch it here. And again, the same feeling resurfaced. Why do such well-made ads not really work?
One can point to many a reason. Wrong targeting, not insightful, sporadic or inconsistent messaging and so on. But the answer is actually quite simple.
And here I go back to the Lintas analogy. While some ads are creatively outstanding, some bang on strategy, are they really building a brand? Strangely, while Lintas built many great commercial brands, I do not think it build a public service brand.
Any public service messaging remains just a message if one does not treat the issue as a brand. We don’t communicate a product. We communicate to build a brand. We communicate to ultimately sell Lux or Dove. Not a soap. We define a focused target group. We look deep to find an insight. We try and identify what should the rational and emotional benefit be. We create a desired response and then we also build a brand personality. Finally, a brand idea is crafted.
Do we do all this in public service ads?
The brutal answer is no. Most of the times we identify a cause, we try and find a creative insight and work to create and ad. And that’s why the ad does not work. It’s a one-off. It’s about maybe shock-and-awe. Or it’s about tearing emotions. It could also be a straightforward presentation of some interesting facts. It’s aimed at mostly everyone, or just your peers. It has no defined brand personality and most importantly, it has no ownership.
The starting point needs to be ownership. Someone… it could be a corporate, it could be an NGO or even the government if it seriously wants to tackle an issue needs to take ownership of the issue. And then brand it. ‘Do not drink and drive’ is a message. Not a brand. Ditto for ‘smoking kills’ or ‘wear seat belts’. The brand-owner needs to find a phrase or a name which will be used in all pieces of communication. We live in a world of hashtags and acronyms. That could be the answer.
And then create a brand document followed by a creative brief. Define the target group. They could be multiple. For example, in case of drinking and driving, it could be the millennial partygoers or a public transport driver. Write separate briefs. Create different pieces of communication. Decide the appropriate media.
Currently, the thinking is more to create a shock-and-awe effect. In case of both drunk driving and seatbelts, most communication deals with what can happen if one does not wear seat belt or drinks and drives. But if we look at the issue from a brand perspective, the bigger issue could be (my perspective solely) that most millennials think that this will not happen to me. Or I know I can handle my drink. If we do a proper research amongst our decided target group, we will be able to actually pinpoint the actual issue. Reach an insight. Decide on our desired response.
To do all that lets treat public service ads as brands.
Let’s nurture the brand.
Grow it.
Make it effective.
Spend on it strategically and with proper planning.
If, the Got Milk (note the brand name) campaign with the brand idea of moustache could work to increase per capita milk consumption in the United States, no reason why a public service issue cannot be handled like a brand.
What do you think?