Soon after losing his Incredible India contract as a Brand Ambassador, Snapdeal too broke ties with Aamir Khan. We wonder if the star is paying the price for calling India an intolerant nation.
The Quint spoke to Brand Expert, Harish Bijoor, to decode Aamir Khan’s not so incredible exit from Brand Ambassadorship.
After ‘Incredible India’, Snapdeal also dropped Aamir Khan as its brand ambassador. Is Aamir simply paying a price, for his ‘intolerance’ comment?
Aamir Khan sure has stirred the pot. I am sure even he did not imagine the kind of a debate it would stir. The end output of it all is the fact that Aamir is seen as the poster-boy of the tumult on intolerance. Aamir was the brand ambassador of the Incredible India campaign, and his comment on intolerance actually gave a new twist to the phrase ‘Incredible India’ altogether. Brand ambassadors wear two hats at a time. One of who they are and another that represents who they represent in endorsements. The Snapdeal action may or may not have anything to do with the tumult, but that only the two parties would know.
Should celebrities be more cautious while making public statements, even if that meddles with their ‘Right to Speech’?
Absolutely. When a brand ambassador signs the dotted line to endorse a brand, he/she or it (in the case of other types of brand ambassadors such as dogs and cats and monkeys as well) tends to sign on the theme that the brand can do no wrong. In many ways, brand ambassadors first endorse the product and vest it with their complete credibility and then endorse it to the world of consumers. Celebrities, therefore, need to wear the brand hat forever. There is no taking it off.
What does Aamir Khan need to do to rebuild his ‘positive’ brand identity?
There is nothing like success. Success has this zany way of erasing memories and public memory is, in any case, proverbially and really, really short. The more Aamir is seen involved in causes that are close to his heart and close to the heart of India at large, the quicker will all this heal. A fair bit of extreme jingoism hit Aamir and his image post this controversy that was not to be. Jingoism, sadly, is best fought with jingoism.
Is public reaction on social media putting pressure on brands? Did Snapdeal bow to what they saw as an ‘anti-Aamir’ sentiment on social media?
I do believe that could have been a possibility. The sad part of social media is, however, the fact that there are three types of influences. One is that of the real and innocent consumer. The second is that of the troll factory put together by competition and opposition. The third is neither the consumer nor the troll brigade, that just unwittingly jumps on to it all. For commercial brands, it is very difficult to distinguish between the three. Brands love to insulate themselves neutrally. Worst of all, brands hate religious and political controversies. Religion and politics have the ability to inflame the masses quite a bit. Best to avoid both. Brands, therefore, do.
Did Snapdeal play it smart by dropping Aamir? What would you have done?
I think Snapdeal played smart. With a grudging heart, I would have done the same.
When Aamir spoke about ‘intolerance’, it amounted to ‘Brand Aamir’ taking on ‘Brand Modi’ (who stands for a ‘blemish free’ India), is that why Aamir lost out?
Yes, this hypothesis is a possibility for sure. The might of the political establishment was pitted against the might of a star. In the medium-term, the political establishment seems to have won, and the star seems to have lost!
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)