Many years ago, when Indian advertising was all about inane, if catchy jingles and cloying family values, along came an ad which caught the imagination of the public like few other ads of that time did. The devil sprang on to your screen every night, rolled his eyes, bared his fangs and urged you to be evil.
It said, it is perfectly fine to want. To desire. And resent when you do not have what you covet. It said, I know there is a child inside you that is unreasonable, go ahead, indulge that child. Go ahead, be jealous, it is ok.
And it said all this without saying a word on screen.
Envy is an emotion that is best silent; it simmers, it seethes, it bubbles just under the surface. It is a look full of longing and resentment. It is a nasty dig here, a casually dropped word there.
It is a fervent yearning for harm to the object of one’s envy. In other words, a stone thrown plumb on the screen of your neighbour’s new tv.
No words said. Just neighbour’s envy, owner’s pride.
Cut to the present. The devil in its other incarnations.
(pic courtesy: agencyfaqs)
Dressed in prim black. Walking beside you. Talking to you. Preaching. Advising you to think.
The devil is not about thought, it is about feeling; feeling powerless in the grip of emotions that are otherwise unpleasant. It is that emotion that gives shape our our need for one-upmanship. It is that truth which lives within each of us, and at our weakest moments raises its wicked head.
It does not walk next to us. Or advise us to think before acting. It is just a green presence in our lives whose influence the best of us cannot escape.
Adults think and act, children do not. Suddenly, the child within us is no longer drawn to the devil. Ondia is no longer about envy but about rationality.
The devil acquired a voice. And in turn, lost its fangs.
***
Also Read
An earlier post on the Onida ad and the devil using the framework of transactional analysis – Giving the devil his due
This interview from the advertising agency and assorted others within the company on the thinking (?) behind the new devil. What is interesting in the whole approach is that the devil helps us take the advisory route of telling consumers to make a purchase based on facts in a humorous way, so that consumers are not offended,said Sharma.
If facts are all that are needed, then why the devil is he there?
Considering all my friends call me the Onida Man (because of the shaved head), I have always had a certain affinity to the dude. You put it exactly right. The Devil was about appealing to the baser part of humanity, which was all the more interesting in an Indian context. Plus, he looked cool, and represented a very literal devil-may-care attitude. This one’s lame. And the bald wig’s makes his head look too big. Me not like.
Aditya, true, the devil was less about television (owning or wanting to own one) and more about that base instinct, envy – it could be about anything. And the new ads completley fall flat that way…
that old ad was brilliant.
Too bad they couldn’t build on it. You don’t want a guy in horns actually talking to you….
exactly! the guy looks less like a devil and more like some weird corpo character straight out of dilbert – devilbert or something 🙂
the old ad was brilliant – and what is disappointing is the way they minds worked towards this “short cut” – have familiar and popular image (the devil), will use for entirely new campaign. grrrr.
You did say that right. And I felt there was somethig more to it as well. I remember having read in some report (or blog? Im not sure.) of the SBI people trumpeting their insecurity through screams of having the most number of ATM’s in the country. After all, why would a leader announce its insecure feeling?
And Onida asks straight – “Why would you want to buy your neighbour’s brand?” Far from making your neighbour feel envy!
Krish, did you read about the SBI ad on my blog? here – 🙂
There is something just not right about the Onida ad – too much “gyan” from the devil…
Alright, so I have preached the priest (wonder if there is such a phrase as this – but it does sum up what I did). Thanks for reminding me where I read the piece 🙂