"The snack is sacred". No, this isn't an ad for laddoos. It is for a burger! And what's more to prove its sacredness--Goddess Laxmi sitting on top of it! Watch for yourself.
My reaction to such antics is not one of anger, disappointment or hurt. It's just plain lack of understanding. Why on earth would Burger King (and other corporates who have done similar things in the past) think that this ad would actually attract more customers into their joints? I'd really like to get into the mind of the genius marketing person who cooked up this idea. And to those who think God sells everything including food in India, this ad appeared in print in Spain! Were they counting on their prospective customer's awareness being "just right", in that he/she would know it is a Goddess, but would not know that the Goddess is from a country which finds a conflict between godly things and non-vegetarianism?
Laxmi burgers anyone? How about Hindu bikinis? Ganesh footwear? Forget Gods, would any of these manufacturers put the photograph of their own CEO (a human) on their footwear? (in the current economic recession that may actually boost sales) How about a female manager highest in the food chain of their corporation "supporting" their customers?
Tit-for-tat is a futile exercise for these people. They belong to countries and societies that already make fun of their own greats, arguably even God. The point is, everybody has sensitivities that they hold dear to them. And everybody else ought to respect that. Even the biggest funnymen have their sensitive spots.
But I digress. From a pure managerial, marketing or corporate point of view, why will this sell anything? Even if there are people who would not find this offensive and even claim it is downright amusing, are they such a significant part of any market to warrant such a marketing strategy? Or is it the shock value that is being banked on? Would anybody care to enlighten the lesser intellectuals like myself?
Corporate apologies, I'm afraid, are extremely feeble. "We apologize for anybody who may have been hurt with our advertisement. We did not intend to cause any hurt...It is our corporate policy...". They give the impression that the advertisement was an extemporaneous, unsupervised phenomenon, akin to an employee sending an email. I guess someone at Burger King accidentally sent the wrong attachment to the printers! We all know that didn't happen (if it did, that is the strongest argument yet for layoffs!). So the only logical conclusion is that advertisements like these went from brain to paper, to several eyes presumably connected to several brains, and all collectively agreed that not only was this acceptable, but it was worth the dollars they were about to spend marketing/selling it! If Burger King counted on the collective awareness of Indian mythology among their Spanish customers, why couldn't they find even one such aware person in their own organization to verify their claim? I mean any dimwitted Indian (not even Hindu) would've seen this coming! Or were they banking on the controversy that it would create, so that people who would come to BK out of curiosity would suddenly discover another feeling--hunger?
We Indians are just as hypocritical as any other well-meaning beings on this planet. We still celebrate the return of Ram (an avatar of Lord Vishnu) to Ayodhya (such a peaceful place these days) by bursting firecrackers, one of which has the image of Goddess Laxmi (Vishnu's wife) that gets blown to smithreens and garbage, much to our glee! I'm a bit ashamed it took a Laxmi burger to introspect and discover the irony of the famous Laxmi bomb....but here it is! I guess I'm victim to a marketing strategy from Sivakasi.
P.S.: Coming to think of it, why don't they use that fact to reduce noise and air pollution during Diwali?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Roddick and the Wimbledon Waterloo
Another Wimbledon 5-setter final! Finally the great Federer is facing competition worthy of his accomplishments. And what a great one this was.
My heart goes out to Roddick though. I was never a Roddick fan. I always thought the most he brought to the game was a typical arrogant bravado, chest-thumping and feeding off the occassional home crowd advantage. A monster serve does not a champion make. And the guy sometimes looks like he's on steroids when he's playing, what with all the racquet breaking and other histrionics (especially hollow considering he's won only one Grand Slam till now).
The Roddick this Wimbledon saw was a different man. Uncharacteristically calm and composed in his games, a game much diversified from his signature thunderous serve. His victory against Andy Murray was sheer perseverance against a hostile crowd. And then he pulled a rabbit out of his hat...almost!
I mean what more does he have to do to beat Federer! Five sets (almost six if you consider the length of the last one) and broken just once! Serving in the upper 130s in the fifth set! Genuine plays far away from his usual "power-hits", trapping Federer several times with flight, speed and might I say, "Federerisque" placement of strokes. He did what few others have--come back from 2 consecutive Federer sets and drub Federer 6-3. The champion may have won today, but according to me, clearly not the better player of the day. The match truly reminded me of the Federer Nadal 5-setter in 2007 (the one that Nadal lost). The resemblance was at several levels--Nadal came into that match after long, gruelling games, showed uncharacteristic grit on grass and simply ran out of steam in the end. Roddick came into the final after a 5-setter with Hewitt and a gruelling duel with Murray. He didn't run out of steam, just luck. He's increasingly looking like the Ivan Lendl of this generation.
Federer looked less than his best. Unforced errors, unbelievable misses and moments of diffidence considering his crushing record against Roddick. Roddick deserves full credit for bringing Federer face-to-face with much of his own game and almost getting an upper hand. Its not easy at all changing your game and on-court personality like that after so many years. He has earned a new fan today.
A small footnote on Federer's post-match speech. This player is known for his extraordinary humility in the face of his stellar achievements, but this comment was a bit uncalled for: "Andy I know how you feel. I was in the same situation last year, and I managed to come back and win here..." paraphrased). He most probably didn't mean to, but that comparison was a bit unfair (as Roddick pointed out "yeah, but you had already won Wimbledon 5 times by then"). Normally Roddick comes off as arrogant to me, but that retort was fair. Losing the throne after 5 years must have hurt a lot, but it cannot be compared to being defeated for the third time in the same tournament by the same man, and this time due to anything but superiority of play! Federer should've pictured himself at the receiving end of it from Nadal after Roland Garros...Hopefully Federer will realize he mis-spoke.
My heart goes out to Roddick though. I was never a Roddick fan. I always thought the most he brought to the game was a typical arrogant bravado, chest-thumping and feeding off the occassional home crowd advantage. A monster serve does not a champion make. And the guy sometimes looks like he's on steroids when he's playing, what with all the racquet breaking and other histrionics (especially hollow considering he's won only one Grand Slam till now).
The Roddick this Wimbledon saw was a different man. Uncharacteristically calm and composed in his games, a game much diversified from his signature thunderous serve. His victory against Andy Murray was sheer perseverance against a hostile crowd. And then he pulled a rabbit out of his hat...almost!
I mean what more does he have to do to beat Federer! Five sets (almost six if you consider the length of the last one) and broken just once! Serving in the upper 130s in the fifth set! Genuine plays far away from his usual "power-hits", trapping Federer several times with flight, speed and might I say, "Federerisque" placement of strokes. He did what few others have--come back from 2 consecutive Federer sets and drub Federer 6-3. The champion may have won today, but according to me, clearly not the better player of the day. The match truly reminded me of the Federer Nadal 5-setter in 2007 (the one that Nadal lost). The resemblance was at several levels--Nadal came into that match after long, gruelling games, showed uncharacteristic grit on grass and simply ran out of steam in the end. Roddick came into the final after a 5-setter with Hewitt and a gruelling duel with Murray. He didn't run out of steam, just luck. He's increasingly looking like the Ivan Lendl of this generation.
Federer looked less than his best. Unforced errors, unbelievable misses and moments of diffidence considering his crushing record against Roddick. Roddick deserves full credit for bringing Federer face-to-face with much of his own game and almost getting an upper hand. Its not easy at all changing your game and on-court personality like that after so many years. He has earned a new fan today.
A small footnote on Federer's post-match speech. This player is known for his extraordinary humility in the face of his stellar achievements, but this comment was a bit uncalled for: "Andy I know how you feel. I was in the same situation last year, and I managed to come back and win here..." paraphrased). He most probably didn't mean to, but that comparison was a bit unfair (as Roddick pointed out "yeah, but you had already won Wimbledon 5 times by then"). Normally Roddick comes off as arrogant to me, but that retort was fair. Losing the throne after 5 years must have hurt a lot, but it cannot be compared to being defeated for the third time in the same tournament by the same man, and this time due to anything but superiority of play! Federer should've pictured himself at the receiving end of it from Nadal after Roland Garros...Hopefully Federer will realize he mis-spoke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)