Will IPL survive the exit of Lalit Modi?” IPL is a concoction of some of the biggest religions and crazes of the Indian public — cricket, films, glamour and time pass. It has the support of some strong business houses through both franchisees and sponsors; is packed with star cricket players — domestic and international — and has the glitz of film stars and is now a big TV event. Marketers are already scheduling their launches — product and new campaigns — around it, depending whether they can afford to be on it or not. Yet, reporters are quite unabashed and unembarrassed to ask this question to Lalit Modi’s successor and the members of the governing council: “Will IPL survive the exit of Lalit Modi?” It seems a no-brainer at one level — how can one man make all the difference? — IPL will survive. Yet, hidden within the question is a deeper Indian mindset — the feeling of comfort to connect a brand, an event to an individual, a face and drawing reassurance from that!
It’s hard to say whether this is a stage of economic evolution, a deeper cultural phenomenon, or more — it’s worth a deeper exploration. One school believes that business moves from a “family” structure to a more “professional” structure as economies develop. And this becomes a necessity as corporate and brands become global. The biggest western brands from Levers to Proctor and Gamble to McDonald’s to Kodak started off as “family” businesses (set up by two Lever brothers to Mr Proctor and Mr Gamble and so on) but as they grew in scale and size, they had to reorganise themselves into more “professional” outfits with their own systems and structures independent of their founders. In a “family” system, the stakeholder’s trust is driven by the “founders”; but once the “professional” system comes into place, affinity is driven by the values and associations built by the brands and corporates associated with them. This school believes it’s only a matter of time before Indian corporates and brands evolve to that state.
However, another school may be equally relevant and true. Look at the most thriving brands in India today — Tata, Birla, Kotak, Bajaj, Reliance, Mahindra, Infosys, Wipro, the Future Group, to name a few. Behind them stand strong people (or more appropriately “in front of them”) with either associated myths of the past or stories of vision into the future that create brand reassurance for general stakeholders.
The need for a human face has its roots in our culture. Hinduism is an “idol” religion keen to give forms to our Gods and comfortable with multiplicity of them. We are both a hierarchical and affiliative society — where family is the core unit. Overlay that with the Hindu belief that there is no right or wrong but only the “best” path at any given point of time — there is a need of a “father figure” to guide us and whom we need to trust to get a sense of stability in life. In business, the human face that can be trusted helps make that connection — as both the voice of authority and the source of comfort that will provide guarantee and yet set things right if anything goes wrong. In the commodity era, consumers were buying the trust reposed in the “face” of the friendly neighbourhood grocer. In the branded era, who is that human face?
This cultural truth makes one question whether India would ever move towards the true “impersonalised yet professional” brand management. The strongest family brand “Tata” is a professionally run company. Yet, deep down all stakeholders, from consumers to trade to employees to investors, connect with a face — Ratan, JRD or Jamshetji — through myth or reality. It remains to be seen if a living Tata doesn’t head the group for decades, whether the brand charisma will remain the same over time!
More From This Section
This leads us to perhaps an interesting insight into the success of celebrity advertising in this country. At one level, celebrities provide execution cut-through and image associations. However, at another level, celebrities also provide consumers with a “human face” for the brand — and subliminally build trust and stature. The consumer understands the celebrity cannot be held accountable for the brand’s performance; however, there is a feeling of comfort that if the celebrity is endorsing the product, it must be of acceptable quality — after all, her reputation in the larger world could get tainted if the product is not good! Not surprisingly, many top-end luxury brands — from watches to beauty to accessories — use local celebrities in their print advertising to gain connect. The celebrity is one step removed for the brand owner-endorser!
An alternative to an individual human face is the “face” of the government. From time immemorial, the public has always believed it’s the duty of their leaders — the maharajah in olden times to government in modern age — to take care of and protect them. So, when brands take up larger social causes in their communication — Lifebouy promotes the cause of personal hygiene; ICICI Prudential Life insurance drives education programmes in schools; or Tata Tea takes on an anti-corruption platform with its “Jaago Re” campaign — they subliminally don the role of the government and thus get traction at a higher level. In the branding world, the current belief is that brands need to have a stature to do such things — but maybe brands can actually build stature on the back of such causes.
Our political parties are more defined by the people rather than their manifestos; sports interests are driven by stars rather than the game. India, today, is clearly a personality-driven culture — and will continue to be so in future. In such a culture, it is natural for doubts to be raised on institutions like IPL if a strong personality associated with it moves on. It, however, also gives a window into how brands could be built in a market like this. While “impersonal” brands may exist in the longer term future, it may be worthwhile to recognise that today giving a face to a brand — beyond benefits and values — can help foster quicker, stronger connect with consumers. Brand-owners in a culture like ours may be missing a trick if they want to be “professional” or remain “self-effacing”.
Something worth thinking about.
The author is country head-discovery and planning, Ogilvy and Mather, India. The views expressed are personal. Comments at: madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com