‘This is a moment when many people may want nothing more than a return to normalcy, or to a status quo that is only comfortable if we avert our gaze from injustice. As difficult as it may be to admit, that desire is itself a sign of privilege. George Floyd’s death is shocking and tragic proof that we must aim far higher than a "normal" future, and build one that lives up to the highest ideals of equality and justice.’

This statement, made by the Apple CEO Tim Cook, was one of the several made by heads of large corporations and brands condemning the brutal police action that resulted in the death of George Floyd. Usually, this is the kind of statement one would expect a politician or the diplomatic mission of a country to issue in the wake of such an incident. After all, none of companies that have come forward to put their views in the public domain have anything tangible to gain by doing so; if anything, given that at least 40% of Americans seem to be solidly and bafflingly behind the political ideology that makes this kind of abuse systemic, they have plenty to lose.

A decade ago, it would be unthinkable for corporations to take such public postures. Brands have become like commentators that need to opine on everything that happens. Brands are exalted, boycotted, trolled. They in turn make policy announcements, see themselves as arbiters of truth, who weigh in on the issues of the day. In fact, the brand’s role was the opposite – to stay as blandly generic as possible when it came to any larger issues, hiding behind a veil of unctuous corporatese. Its interactions with the outside world were handled by an extremely select group within a corporation and monitored rigorously lest even a sliver of real opinion slither out.

Their concerns were considerably narrower – zone in on a promise and then find ways to magnify them till they felt irresistible. Advertising was the Pied Piper of the world of business, as it evolved its own distinctive grammar, it made no bones about the games of seduction that it set out to play. In a world of brands, our biggest concerns had to do with whether our toothbrush was reaching ‘those-hard-to-reach corners, or if our detergent washed our clothes the ‘whitest white’.

 

The huckster, the trickster, the snake-oil merchant – these were the labels that the world of advertising attracted quite effortlessly. As audiences, we learnt to accept this bizarre mode of communication, this transparently contrived bits of puffery as perfectly normal, watching nonchalantly as beautiful people held up packets of tea or soap and sang paeans to its sterling qualities. We knew we were being had, but we went along for the ride.

Brands took themselves seriously but took the consumers they spoke to even more seriously by elevating our everyday actions into life-altering decisions. What we thought of as the smallest unit of decision making, which soap to buy, whether to opt for lavender perfumed talc or go for the one that was infused with honeydew blossoms was deemed to be meaningful. Brands evoked anxiety, poking at our inadequacies – ‘the publicity image steals our love for ourselves as we are and promise to sell it back for the price of the product’ as John Berger put it. Brands acknowledged awkward truths and delivered hopelessly hopeful solutions. Women cleaning toilets were imagined as warriors – commandos of the commode. Those scrubbing away at surfaces were given products that were crisply fragrant with lime-lemon and a hint of juniper. Cleanliness started having its own recognizable smell.

 

Truth for brands in the old world wrapped itself around the desires and anxieties of all of us, by prising open the subterranean motivations lurking beneath more civilized veneers. The need to be one-up, the fear of not being beautiful enough, thin enough, fair enough, smart enough, of not having a glowing complexion and having blackheads or dandruff. Shame and pride were invoked freely and often as brands sought to first make us feel inadequate and then fill up ourselves with their promises of glory.

The products took a material form, but the brand hovered above the physicality of products, as an abstract idea that somehow captured something essential about the desires that it spoke to. The brand carried within it layers of meaning that spanned all the way from being narrowly physical to the rarefied and exalted. Was Kodak merely about better photographs, was it about making tangible the idea of memories or was it an attempt to simulate a form of immortality? Was Nirma only about whiter clothes that one could get at a cheaper price or did it represent the pent-up energy of a class that had been denied entry into ‘white’ spaces?

In a certain sense brands lived in a post-truth world of their own way before the term was formulated. For they showed little allegiance to facts, contending instead that they spoke a deeper kind of truth. They told us what we wanted to hear or what we secretly feared, and they made us feel better without solving any of the problems that they helped surface.

News on the other hand, lived in a world which celebrated the real. Precision, balance, authenticity, diligence – these were the qualities it aspired to. It looked upon the world of brands as a necessary evil, on the one hand depending on the advertising that paid for keeping the news business going and on the other, trying their best to insulate themselves from the baser motivations that propelled these purveyors of merchandise. Journalism came accompanied by a halo of righteousness, as it pursued its mission of striving to find the truth.

 

Not that journalism did not need to pay attention to the compulsions of commerce. Even if it resisted the malign influence of advertisers, it was often compelled to adopt the instruments that brands employed – framing news in ways that maximized their readership, selecting subjects more likely to get reader attention rather than those that were weightier and more ‘important’. Using headlines that sensationalized rather than merely inform. However, even if this internal struggles with what it regarded as its demons, were a part of journalism, the overall aspiration was clear – to be an authoritative and respected voice as an arbiter of truth.

That struggle is over. Mainstream news has become the advertising of today. It follows the same principles. Truth is what makes us watch more news. It begins with the truths we want to hear and proceeds to tell those dramatically. But it lacks the playfulness, the seduction, the whimsy of advertising. It is programmed to take itself far too seriously. And it serves to make us angry, resentful, bitter, teeth-gnashing, abuse-spewing warriors out to destroy something.

Social media has relocated the idea of broadcasting from something centralized and controlled to something highly scattered and free ranging – the legitimizing of several parallel narratives. Like advertising, social media is less concerned about how we should feel than with the impulses that really animate us.

 

Brands have swapped places with the news. If earlier editors spoke of themselves in the royal we, today it is brands that do so. If earlier newspapers arrogated to themselves the mantle of making sense of the world and pronouncing judgment on events as they unfolded, today it is the self-appointed role of brands to do so. Brands across the world are today obsessed with the idea of a higher ‘purpose’. It is no longer enough to offer someone the prospect of smoother skin; what must be promised is the prospect of revelling in one’s skin. The products are still largely the same but there is a new earnestness, as brands set out to change the world.

If in an earlier time, brands helped individuals in their quest to imagine themselves anew, today they want to make ‘real’ contributions. Brands statements of purpose now boast of loftier ambitions – ‘to make sustainable living commonplace in the world (Unilever), to ensure that the next generation grows up enjoying a positive relationship with the way they look, to help them raise their self-esteem and realize their full potential’ (Dove), ‘to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy’ (Tesla). These are just a few examples of how brands are attempting to tell a different kind of story from the one that they earlier excelled at.

It is interesting that virtually the same forces that have led to the dismantling of the traditional idea of news are responsible for the desire of brands to become authentic, inclusive and socially responsible. The presence of social media which has fractured the mainstream discourse that was shaped by a few, has also given rise to the opinionated consumer who is subjecting the brands to much greater scrutiny. Brands have always told consumers that they are much more than products and services, they are ‘ideas’ and worldviews. Today, the consumer has taken them at their word and is challenging them to live up to their claims. This is why, in a post-truth world, where meaning is being dissolved, brands appear to be climbing backwards towards an older vocabulary of social good.

It also means that brands are abandoning the playful meaning games that they played. Advertising is now a barren field, where nothing interesting grows. The sorcery is gone, replaced by a plodding earnestness. Where brands seduced, now they lecture, rescue, inspire, and evangelize worthy causes. Brands have to say the right things about gender, sexuality, and equality. They have to look after their employees, their customers, safeguard the food chain, and look after the planet.

 

There is a performative honesty that brands have become good at practising. Mea culpa letter written by CEOs are all the rage as brands indulge in a form of public confessional that was entirely unheard of in earlier times.

This is at one level, just another form of storytelling for structurally brands are too deeply embedded in the logic of a profit-first financial system for them to deliver on their lofty promises. On the other hand, in a world where all meaning has become contingent on who is shaping the narrative, the attempt by brands to take on the role of being truth providers is charming, if not entirely credible.