"If the consumer has no problem with the ad, then it isn't wrong for either business or society. However, the NGOs' concerns need to be addressed too" R. Balakrishnan, Executive Director, Lowe

Ramu is right in believing that the primary role of any ad is to connect with its key target audience in the most compelling manner, thereby resulting in higher sales of the brand. The entire issue should be seen from the consumer's point of view-if she has no problems with the ad, then fundamentally the ad is neither wrong for business nor for society. His views come from a desire to not patronise the consumer and paint her as a 'poor and illiterate woman' in need of guidance. His view is borne out by data that suggests the bulk of consumers of this category are, in fact, literate middle-class women who exercise their choices carefully in all FMCG categories.

In the skin care category, most consumers consider fairness as a surrogate for a bundle of benefits-oil-control, blemish-reduction, clear and fresh face, sun protection and so on. So when they express a desire for fairness, it is this entire bundle of benefits that they are actually looking for. Unlike in the US and Europe, in Asia the predominant beauty need is not anti-ageing or blonde hair, but lighter and clearer looking skin. In India, 93 per cent of women would like their complexion to be two shades lighter as they believe it makes them more attractive and confident.

The Fair & Lovely ads, for example, showcase stories where the woman challenges the unhealthy societal realities of status quo and discrimination, and empowers herself to carve out her own future. They carry the brand's message of hope and self-confidence, which in turn is echoed by consumers who identify with the protagonist and have developed a high degree of emotional bonding with the brand. The positive message of the brand is underlined by this summary from Quantum Research: "Fair & Lovely's fairness is a transformative state that is linked to creating a competitive advantage for oneself and gaining control over one's destiny at the personal and social level."

At the same time, Tripathi's concerns about advertising not offending any section of people, however small, need to be borne in mind. The agency, therefore, should meet the NGOs and explain the basic premise of Fairshow ad. The precise executional elements that irk the NGOs need to be identified, and changes made in such a way that the controversial parts are eliminated, yet the key brand message of positive change and empowerment is not compromised.

"The communication challenge for the agency is to get marketshare and not a share of controversy. It would be best if the ad were to be withdrawn" Suhel Seth, Chief Executive Officer, Equus Redcell Advertising

I believe Rajkamal Tripathi has a bigger job at hand: his agency could become the subject of such severe controversy that may put the corporate for whom he is working at some level of corporate-image risk- and for that cost, no 30-seconder is worth it. The creative director's logic of the ad doing its job is equally facetious since there is a certain primitiveness about it, which a brand such as Fairshow could well do without. Brands are not built by exclusion; they are built by inclusion. So, for Fairshow to position itself as a fairness cream for dark women is different from positioning it as a fairness cream, period. You don't have to mock darkness of complexion and lace it with social conditioning only to establish your brand as a fairness cream.

Tripathi would also need to worry about two other people in his agency-the kind of people who, through their recklessness and inexperience, can derail the agency at least in image terms. I do not believe Ramu is a capable creative director if the only solution he finds for positioning Fairshow is to look at a trite manner of depicting a socially dangerous trend, which in itself will make the brand look antiquated and of poor character. And add to that the damage that the agency would have unwittingly caused to the company that owns the Fairshow brand. This myth about controversy leading to recall is one that can create permanent damage, and here, the agency cannot take that decision on behalf of the client.

The other concern, about censorship and its impact, is a silly one. Advertising is about self-regulation; advertising does impact consumers, so just as we object to banal programmes on television, there is every possibility that this advertisement for Fairshow may cause anguish to certain groups. No brand communication is devised to detract from communicating the key brand benefit and in the case of Fairshow, it will be remembered more for the controversy it creates rather than its benefits. The communication challenge for Tripathi's agency is to enable the brand to get marketshare and not share of controversy. It would be best if the advertisement were withdrawn. The protestations of Ramu notwithstanding, especially when Ramu does not have a stake, either as the head of the agency or as the owner of the brand.

"There's no need to take the ad off air. The agency should instead showcase real customer reactions to demonstrate the ad's harmlessness" Madhukar Sabnavis, Country Manager (Discovery), Ogilvy & Mather

Tripathi, Ramu and Rajavat need to step back and identify the real issues relevant to the TV commercial under discussion. 'Fairness to promote fairness' and 'Glorification of the ideal female form' are extraneous to the subject on the table. The principle is clear-if a category can be marketed and there is no restriction on its advertising, you are breaking no legal or industry code. The only issue germane to the problem is 'gender bias' and the 'social responsibility of advertising'.

Clearly, the team that created the advertisement saw no social irresponsibility in its release. The commercial has worked-the double-digit growth reflects it-showing it has made some positive connection with the target audience.

It builds on a reality but actually promotes the empowerment and emancipation of the woman. It provides hope and tells the woman that she can make it, albeit with a little help from a friend-Fairshow. It in no way says it's better to have a male child, nor does it say life is hopeless for a girl. Clearly, the NGOs have failed to understand the commercial.

Is bringing reality to the forefront socially irresponsible? Not really. Few people take advertising so literally as to believe that Fairshow is the only reason that the girl made it-that it is the panacea of all social evils.

There is no need to yank the advertisement off the air. The agency should instead attempt a media relationship exercise, getting real consumer reactions to the advertisement to demonstrate its 'harmlessness'.

It is good to be the conscience-keeper of the people but better still to let them judge for themselves. Years ago, MR Coffee ran an 'explicit sex ad' on 'Real pleasure doesn't come in an instant'. Housewives didn't buy the product and the advertisement proved ineffective. On the other hand, Subhash Ghai's Choli Ke Peeche Kya Hai song was a resounding success despite controversy.

"Advertisers can and do mould public opinion. That's what brings in huge responsibility. On this count, the ad certainly is backward-looking" Subhabrata Sarkar, Creative Director, TBWA

The commercial under fire stretches the limits of acceptability on two counts-gender preference, and colour-of-skin bias, which is a 'cream-a-theid' that creams and soaps seem to have hit upon of late as the ultimate promise to make a sale.

I say limits of acceptability, and not morals, ethics or laws, since most such discussions typically degenerate into a debate on one of these, and further into who the guardian of such lofty ideals should be. The issue here is not of any of these, but one of responsibility.

Yes, as advertising folks, we are a potent force. No, there are no laws against such advertising. Yes, the situations mirror reality. No, the ad has not been rejected by consumers. Yes, the communication has worked. But finally, there is no denying that we can, and do, mould public opinion. That's what brings in a huge responsibility. On this count, the ad certainly is backward-looking, and transgresses this limit.

Interestingly, though, the context in which the message has been delivered is avoidable. I'm sure the mind that came up with this one can certainly come up with an alternative situation, just as 'involving' to give out the same brand message. Individually and collectively, we can easily ensure that we do not dabble in such storylines.

We are an intelligent bunch of guys, prone to getting carried away at times, but mostly capable of ensuring that we stay within those sacrosanct 'limits of acceptability'. There are more grave issues-communal disharmony, Kargilesque encounters, street children-facing humanity that we need to address. This ad is too trivial in comparison, to merit such attention.