REALITY, ASPIRATIONS and "SOCIETAL FASHION"

This has to be the mother of paradoxical marketing oversimplifications. Sounds weird? That's because it is.
But what exactly is this oversimplication that one is referring to, and calling paradoxical?
The first is that when we position brands, we tell ourselves that we must depict reality, not exaggeration. And the second is that when we talk to a target audience, we cater to its aspirations, not reality.
Now look at the bunch of paradoxes in the first example itself. Speaking in Hindi to a 'Hindi' audience comes from the desire to make the brand be in touch with reality. But now where does the ad appear? On an English TV channel! Now if to the audience, the choice of language does not lead to channel loyalty, then why should it matter to the advertiser. Look at it another way. Sure there is an audience that reads Hindi novels, Hindi newspapers. But what about its professional education? It's all in English. So clearly this audience 'understands' English, whether or not it likes the language. Now should it like the language, or should it like the ad? So why does the language of the ad matter? One could go on and on till the paradoxes themselves are tied in knots!
But now lets look at the bunch of paradoxes in the second example. In 1991, Limelight soap was launched to target rural areas. It depicted the rural reality and it bombed. Market research was hastily done to diagnose the problem. The reason it seems was that while rural reality was being depicted in the ad, the rural audience had urban aspirations! The soap was relaunched in rural areas once again, dressed up in urban tonality. And it was a hit.
Now brace yourself for here comes the mother of all paradoxes:
The first example says language and audience must be married in reality - so the language must be the spoken language. And the second says language must be aspirational and therefore consciously divorced from reality!
So how does one explain this. Firstly choice of language is immaterial and does not drive preference, in the minds of the target audience. Secondly, Reality and Aspirations as words themselves are oversimplications. There is no such thing as reality. And there is no such thing as aspiration. Because, sitting on top of these two issues are 'relevance' and 'likeability', with the latter being more important than the former. Now this simply means that it does not matter whether the language is 'real' or not or whether the serving is real or aspirational, as long as it is liked and is relevant.
And above all it needs to be 'refreshing'.
Hindi baselines under English brand names tell us two things. Thing One - that it is paradoxical. Thing Two - the consumer is also language neutral so it doesn't matter.
Celebrating the 'girl child' in advertising is also what one can classify as 'societal fashion'. Have all the 'boy child' in this nation been provided for that it is now the turn of girls. So why not just 'child' instead of 'girl child'. The overflowing love for animals is another 'societal fashion' in todays age given the fact that this may well be the age when the black buck shivers when sighting an 'aspirational' film star; or when the tiger ceases to exist.
Language too turns societally trendy with people 'sending an invite' and not an invitation, 'meeting UP with you' even if the meeting is on the ground floor and calling anything likeable 'awesome' or 'cool' even it is really hot soup.
And advertising is merely a mirror of societal fads, seeking to justify it all with seemingly rational explanations, which when examined closely, get tied up hopelessly in knots.
But why does it happen, you might ask. Well because we human beings are paradoxical in our very conception. Remember we are after all animals wearing clothes!
Now this weekend look out for another paradox. In your morning walk, watch that man walking his dog. He is in bermudas and the dog in a raincoat!
But this Know Your Brand was supposed to be on 'rituals' (as per the last know your brand), you might say. But on that, next time