To stereotype or not to stereotype, that’s the question. (Apologies to Shakespeare!)

Every story confronts a dilemma. At some point of the narrative, it has to decide on whether to advocate or challenge the stereotype.

A good book may take several pages to build the story to arrive at this fork and resolve it. But modern communication encounters reducing attention spans. It needs to tell the same story in a few seconds. We live in an era of six second YouTube pre-rolls. (It is smaller than the time you would take to read this last sentence).

This burden of time has pushed us into an era of oversimplification. We use existing human biases about gender (among others) as a storytelling shorthand. Much advertising is guilty of using such gender stereotypes. In a perverse way, these portrayals only further reinforce the stereotype.

In a ‘caveat emptor’ world, marketers continue to use such stereotypes because consumers do not reject such depictions. In fact, such depictions do well in consumer research and in marketplace performance.

Why does this happen? Is this because mainstream India, the belly of the market, continues to live in the past? Or is it that the stereotype is not deemed to be derogatory but a true representation of reality?

Some may argue that portraying women as nurturing home makers is regressive. On the

other side of the coin, such roles are a mainstream reality for women in India. Over many researches and enquiries, brands have learnt these rooted truths. It only followed that these truths have converted into successful communication formulas.

It’s not stereotypical, but just typical?

In such a universe, issues like gender stereotyping are ‘first world’ problems. These only trouble and invite the ire of the niche twitterati. Citizens of this universe would claim that the nation has many more serious issues to solve.

But even if these stereotypes are mass reality, isn’t it time for change? Shouldn’t brands take on the responsibility of dropping the ‘women belong in the kitchen while men belong at work’ conversation?

This pegs the question of whether continuing to show what people think ‘is’, limits their

knowledge of ‘what could be’. Advertisements will get stuck in a rut of rinse repeat culture and newer experience will be killed even before they are explored.

If brands have the power to change the world, shouldn’t they be challenging the status quo? After all, mass reach has the potential to educate and knowledge is power.

Yet, stereotypical male portrayals still fly under the radar.

There is a common saying in India that roughly translates as, “For every truth, there is a

counter-truth”.

In this instance, there is a counter truth. Biased gender portrayals affect niche and luxury brands negatively. This is even more true among an affluent and aware section of Indian audiences. Politically incorrect communication immediately invites the ire of such netizens.

Such niche brands are now popularising the concept of ‘Femvertising’. Empowerment has become a common theme to break mainstream women stereotypes. These brands are reshaping the image of an ‘ideal woman’. Look at ads like Nike’s Da-Da-Ding, Puma’s Propah-lady and Ariel’s Share-the-load!

Brands may get kudos for breaking woman stereotypes. But challenging male stereotypes continues to be fraught with risk. This may be because male stereotypes put men up on a pedestal. (In contrast, women stereotypes tend to be condescending). For example, Gillette got negative press in India when they launched ‘The best a man can be’ campaign. So, we continue to love the macho Indian man. But, the ‘Sati Savitri’ (metaphorical; Victorian Prude) has left the building.

From all this, can we infer a two-pronged approach? Mass brands should stay true to the stereotype in line with mainstream culture. Niche luxury brands should challenge them to be more in line with the world.

The problem with stereotyping is not that it is untrue, but that it is incomplete.

This inference is a result of the cream of the population having evolved mindsets, while the masses happily living their traditional reality. But it is important to understand that this isn’t a conversation about the literate versus the illiterate. It’s about the woke versus the unaware.

If stereotypes stem from mass reality, only mass brands have the potential to change the country’s mindset. The Tatas and Parles of the country have more influence over changing reality than niche brands ever will.

And why is this important you ask?

If a team is only as strong as its weakest player, then India is only as progressive as its

narrowest mind. Why wait for mindsets to evolve when you can be the catalyst to evolve

mindsets?

Many questions follow from this inference. Is it the curse of the popular brand to follow

conventions? What is the cultural meaning of desire in such an orthodox world? What is the meaning of progress in such a universe?

Challenging the stereotype makes it outrageous. But aligning to it makes it unnoticeable. Stereotypes usually paint a unidimensional picture. But people are rarely unidimensional. For example, a mother taking care of her family is not her only and complete story. She can also be an astrologer, marathon runner, fashion diva and part-time shrink to her friends.

This multifaceted nature of human personality gives us a clue. As a culture, Indians believe in the circular narrative rather than a linear one. This is the reason why, we prefer a thali with a little bit of many dishes, rather than the linearity of a four-course meal.

In the same vein, we could expand the stereotype rather than seek to break it.

We wish to call this the Maya Point, as an acronym for ‘Most Aspirational Yet Accessible’

It’s about striking the right balance between how much to keep and how much to change. It’s about walking the knife’s edge between being refreshing and yet not being over-the-top. ‘Maya’ creates fascination for the character within relevance for her story.

Hitting the Maya point requires us to track what is rising in culture. This is worth repeating. As marketers and advertisers, we need to track what is emerging rather than be a slave to what is true.

The third alternative to blind obedience or raw rebellion against the stereotype? We expand the stereotype on dimensions that are already rising in culture.

In sum, expand the stereotype on what is rising, rather than be hostage to its current reality. This creates ‘palatable desire’ at the point of Maya. Maya then is no longer an illusion. What better way to have your cake and eat it too?