First November, then January and now
February – and in between a demanding, damning December – life has been
difficult for Aamir Khan – since he decided to speak his mind about the ongoing
‘tolerance Vs intolerance’ row/debate.
While we can count valid reasons on why the
government should have retained Aamir Khan as the brand ambassador for the ‘Incredible
India’ campaign, the Snapdeal decision that was reported today sounds a regular
fallout of the controversy.
That is simple, straight formula for
celebrity brand endorsements. If some company pays a hefty amount for an
Amitabh Bachchan or an Aamir Khan, it has every right to ensure everything goes
right with its brand – with no probability of that ‘write-off’ scenario when
the brand ambassador would start hurting the brand.
Yes, like the ‘Incredible India’ campaign,
here, too, nothing is in absolute ‘black and white’ and there is much – like the
rough financials of Snapdeal, an e-commerce retailer, and Aamir Khan’s high
annual endorsement fee (reportedly Rs. 15 crore) – to read for (in between the
lines).
It would have made sense for the government
to retain Aamir Khan as the ‘Incredible India’ ambassador because it would have
sent a positive message that we, as a nation, were resilient enough to decipher
and discern about a viewpoint about something that was threatening to rupture
the social weaving of the society.
Yes, we as a nation are resiliently
tolerant – and that is why we all are stakeholders into any such development –
and that is why we need to speak our minds – and Aamir Khan’s views on ‘rising
intolerance’ should be seen in that context.
Yes, being a sensible celebrity with a mass
appeal, Aamir Khan did cross the limits here – but given the nature of the ‘Incredible
India’ campaign, promoting and selling India as a wholesome package –
continuing with Aamir Khan could have proved, in fact, a boon. People would
love the concept that India (and its government) was transparent enough to
differing views – and was a tolerant society.
But that appeal is limited to campaigns
like the ‘Incredible India’ series.
The same cannot be expected from profit
driven corporate entities – like Snapdeal – or any other company.
Snapdeal, though illogical, was forced to
distance from Aamir Khan’s intolerance remark in November and had to
discontinue its advertising campaign. Aamir’s observation that his wife had discussed
the possibility of leaving India after a raging debate on the growing incidents
of intolerance made her concerned for their child’s security infuriated many
and Snapdeal faced the brunt in the social media space with many uninstalling
the Snapdeal app.
Though some reports say Snapdeal registered
a surge in its app rankings in the period, still, any for-profit entity cannot
afford a controversy-hit brand ambassador. The business of ‘corporate brand
management’ that believes in ‘playing it safe’ doesn’t believe in that.