Off-White? Nah.

Once upon a rare time I looked at myself in the mirror and the first and most instinctive colour I could describe my teeth was 'Off-White'. My faked smile turned natural. The reason? I remembered the blessed advertisement in which the amazingly cute kid replies to the seemingly under-rated question "What colour are your teeth, kids?". And he says, in an angelic tone that I or any other person who's ever seen that advertisement would ever forget, "Off-White!". I loved it. It's one of those things one remembers that will never cease to paste a smile on one's face. It's a happy statement.

But this raises a question that I've been wanting to ask. What was the brand of that toothpaste? Which, in turn, brings me to the question that this post revolves around. Are the choicest of advertisements bigger than the brands they endorse?

The Hutch ad (I hate using acronyms and slang alike. I'm learning to adjust through this, though. Thank goodness for blogging) with the unforgettable pet dog; the brilliantly choreographed Nokia ads featuring the tatooed guys and the canoes; the creative genius of the Honda ad (I'm not sure if it's open to public eye), to name some of my favourites. Noticeably, though, none of these actually have any direct relation with the attributes/features of the product/company. It seems Ogilvy, Mather and (warring-)family have moments of creative brilliance, pieces of of extraordinary audio-visual/emotional appeal, and that in the process somehow relate it to one of their core principles or fantastic features. Far fetched, no doubt.

Now there are three kinds of ads today. One, the simple, low-budget 30 second reminders that this product still humbly exists in stores near you. These may also include scientific research of some kind. "Bah! Who cares?" Second, where the starlets and models start to filter in. They reveal, with much hesitation, some new product/feature available to the dear consumer in an (modestly termed) 'innovative' way. "Bah! Who cares? Hey, but who's that model, man?" Another sub-type of these exists, which purely attack the sentiments/emotions of the to-be consumer. I don't like. They unnecessarily exaggerate. "Poor old man, had to go all the way to the bank earlier, now just has to make a phone-call!" The third, well, is nothing but an ostentatious display of raw brand power (read money). Here, the big stars dance, act, flaunt and flex their muscles. And they say to you, "Yeah, well, we are endorsing something. But don't bother about that, guys. Get a load of this first!". And the girls go, "Gawd! Ooooh! Look at Hrithik! Isn't he looking, just, you know, like, fab!?"

Let me say, at the very not-so-outset, that I dislike interruptions in the cherished time I share with my television programmes. I hate forgetting what I was watching. Of course, one or two ads in the middle, tickling the creative fraction of my mind are most cetainly welcome. But then, of course, coming back to my trivial point, I am easily able to associate the ads mentioned a few paragraphs ago with their brands. Any which way, I think it's genius, this business of advertising and marketing. Who knows how they affect market share or if anyone, for that matter, is compelled to buy the product after seeing flowery advertisements which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the product under consideration. But I like. Stay within limits, Mather, and thou shalt be appreciated with all my heart and soul.