Click-shhhhh-click, and on it came again, on the big screen in the agency's conference room, where many an ad had been dissected frame-by-frame before being either spiked or forwarded to the client. This TV commercial was different. It was already on air, and the client was pleased with its performance-a double-digit bounce in sales of Fairshow, a complexion lightening cream. Just that sundry NGOs were up in protest against it, and the agency's CEO, Rajkamal Tripathi, wanted to decide whether to recommend yanking it off air before it could hurt the client in any way.

Opening shot: nurse with newborn announces, 'It's a girl'. Parents exchange morose glances. Father contorts his face to a near grimace. Mother looks down, sheepishly. Cut to the future: daughter, now grown up, overhears father tell mother, 'Old age wouldn't be an issue, if only...' Voice trails off, as camera pans across the modest family's living room, to rest on the TV screen, which shows a dashing young armyman placing his medal around his father's proud neck, and then bending down to touch his feet in gratitude. Cut to daughter's shadowy face, suitably sulky. Solution time. Sulky daughter discovers Fairshow, lightens up her complexion, and the next thing you see, she's a corporate highflier-complete with doting parents.

"And they have a problem with her success?" asked J. Ramamurthy, or Ramu, Creative Director on the campaign, "what would they rather have-the girl-finds-groom-at-last cliche?"

"This is not about 'rather have', Ramu, and you know it," said Tripathi, firmly, "We're not seated here as some sort of censor board. We've got a business situation here. A small but vocal segment of the audience has taken a grave view of the spot, and if the negative reaction outweighs the potential benefits to the client, we have to take it off the airwaves."

Ramu nodded, as the chief gestured to Katrina Kumari Rajavat, the 30-something Associate Client Services Vice President who had just returned from a field trip to gauge public reaction to the advertisement. "What's your take, Katrina?" asked Tripathi.

"Recall is very high, I must say," she began, "and consumers from amongst the target audience don't have much to say beyond that, either positive or negative."

"Fact is," interjected Ramu, "the ad is doing its job."

"It's the NGOs who're objecting the loudest," continued Rajavat, "and their primary objection is to the first part of the ad-the depiction of gender preference."

"That's the prevailing reality, my friend," shot back Ramu, shrugging.

"Reality whatever it may be," said Tripathi, "but our critics are very uncomfortable with the way we've shown it, and it's in our client's best interest to ensure that we do something. Either make amends or dispel their misgivings by explaining our position."

"Ah-so they acknowledge the power of advertising," said Ramu, "I thought people were saying advertising is a spent force, nobody cares for it anymore etcetera etcetera."

"No-that's only the opinion of half-wits who do not understand advertising but still want to write books and become marketing consultants. Advertising is a huge influence. That's why all the fuss."

"A fuss over showing it the way it is," fumed Ramu.

"As I see it," said Rajavat, "their problem is with the message being sent out."

"Oh great-so now they're telling me that reality is for arty film-maker types to show to a select highbrow audience? We lowbrow ad people should stick to the rose-tinted view of the world."

"Wait a minute," said Rajavat, "there's a difference. Cinema tries to reform attitudes by holding up a mirror to social folly. Here, we stand to gain commercially from the reinforcement of these social stereotypes."

"C'mon... look at the ad again, and for goodness' sake, look at it from the eyes of the target consumer. Are we reinforcing stereotypes? We're giving the girl hope. She can't change society, but she can adapt to society. If she plays her cards right, she can overcome anything-that's a fairly inspirational message."

"Critics still find the ad regressive," said Rajavat, unmoved, "also, the correlation between skin complexion and corporate progress has been taken very badly."

"I have no idea what charmed circles these people move in. Most of India's TV-watching population would connect with this ad, let me tell you, and they know the brand is talking straight. Why can't we all accept life for what it is?"

"It's not that simple, Ramu," intervened Tripathi, "It's not about this 30-second clip. Like it or not, this issue is becoming symbolic of a larger fight over social values. A fight over things like equality under the law."

"What?!"

"Let's put it this way," said Rajavat, by way of elaboration, "The law is against discrimination in any form...gender, complexion and so on. But discrimination exists, and is widespread. That's bad enough. Now, do we want to accept and institutionalise it-hey, change your face and be accepted-or do we want to take society closer to the enlightened ideal?"

"So, you think advertising can change the world?"

"Ooof, I did not say that, but the NGOs certainly think that we can-if people like us in positions of influence and responsibility stop the tacit acceptance of regressive social practices."

"What? So you want us to show a young girl as a rebellious little thing who snaps our heads back the right way around?"

"No," replied Rajavat, "preachiness doesn't work, but female empowerment is growing slowly, and Hindi cinema has already made some complexion breakthroughs over the 1990s. Maybe we should move with this trend."

"And miss the larger audience I need to target?"

Rajavat fell silent for a while. And then spoke, slowly, "Perhaps the problem, at its root, is the very public glorification of the ideal female form-the Barbie sort of idealised archetype that gets inserted into human consciousness. That's the phenomenon these NGOs are against. They also oppose beauty contests because they say it is nothing but mental slavery to an arbitrary set of conceptions of what is desirable and what is not."

"These NGOs are probably against business itself," sighed Ramu.

"That's not the issue here," cut in Tripathi.

"Okay," said Ramu, "so let's go by the law. There is no law against this Barbification they find so offensive. Every society upholds models for the rest to emulate, physically or otherwise. Also, let me state upfront that the ad is only speaking for a product that is legal. Besides, what happened to freedom of expression? As a brand, we ought to be free to say what we want, period."

What should the agency do?

1 2