The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘normal’ as ‘Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.’ But nothing about the word feels usual or expected anymore.

After a year of living through a pandemic, these abnormal times have started to feel like normal times. And the constant chatter about moving towards a new normal has gotten me wondering, what really is normal? Strange, isn’t it?

HUL is challenging this already blurring idea of the normal. They recently announced, that they will be dropping the word ‘normal’ from all their packaging and communications of their personal care brands. Furthermore, they have also committed to stop editing the shape, size, colour or body of their models, to have a more representational portrayal of what’s real.

This has further amplified conversations about inclusivity, diversity, brand sensitivity and body positivity across the industry. But are these conversations simply lip-service being spoken out loud?

While HUL’s intensions may seem to be correct, it makes me question action.

In a similar move in the past, HUL dropped the word ‘fair’, and changed it to ‘glow’, on one of their popular products. They also said that they would restrict using ‘whitening’ or ‘lightening’, from all their packs and communications. While they dropped the brand name, the product still holds on to its regressive ideologies.

The question here is, what’s in a name? (Apologies to Shakespeare!) How does a mere name change, undo years of reinforcing a stereotype? Merely changing words or dropping them, doesn’t give brands a clean chit.

Isn’t it more progressive to stop selling what’s regressive, rather just stop saying what’s regressive? Perhaps, dropping products that stand for such ideologies, is a better stance for change.

Over the past few years, diversity and inclusivity in campaigns have become like the best friend in a Romcom (they’re there to make the hero look better). It’s like a fig leaf to hide behind from the ire of the Twitterati, with no intent for actionable change.

Brands can be cancelled at any moment. In this internet age, brands, especially those with a strong digital presence, are bowing down to ideologies that were born on social media. It’s not just ‘standing for a cause’, it’s ‘adopt change or be cancelled’.

Out of fear of this cancel-culture, several brands stand guilty of being over precautions. For instance, e-commerce fashion brand Myntra, changed its logo after an NGO called it offensive to women. This led the internet into a laughter frenzy, as the move just seemed unnecessary and no actionable good came out of it.

While I’m not questioning the intension of this move, I can’t help but ponder over the necessity of it. It’s a head scratcher.

When I think about HUL’s stance, a couple of questions come to mind. Is dropping the word ‘normal’ really a step towards inclusivity? Does it change or challenge perfection stereotypes? Has the word ‘normal’ really been creating a biased beauty standard?

Stereotypes create biases. And they need to be tackled. But the word ‘normal’ on personal care products is not a bias. It a technical term meant for the user to make an informed choice. It simply acknowledges that here are different skin types.

So, what is the bias that we are fighting? What is the cause that we are standing for? Or against? Are we normalizing extremism and trying to fix what’s not broken?

It can be said that many Indian brands are guilty of creating unrealistic beauty standards. And there is need for change. But humanizing brands just at the surface isn’t enough to reverse the damage. A change in name, communication, packaging, or in this case, dropping a word, doesn’t cut it. That’s like selling old cookies in a new jar.

We need actionable change. Changes that aren’t just trending topics. To truly humanize brands, we need to change things like product formulation, ecological footprint and emotional impact. Or we’re just armchair activists trying to be politically correct, while hiding from a social backslash.

Brands need to be catalysts of change and not mere performative allies. Because acts of performative allyship don’t really do any good. They just help brands put on a show and get them a virtual pat on the back for being on “the right side”. While it shows support, it doesn’t bring about change.

The problem with this is not that it is wrong, but that it excuses brands. It excuses them from taking actions that change deep-rooted prejudices. We need to ask ourselves if our actions do better for us than the cohort of people we claim to be helping.

And we cannot erase guilt with empty advocacy. This cannot be said enough –
WE. NEED. ADVOCACY. THROUGH. ACTION.

Advocacy cannot begin and end with hashtags. This goes for people and brands alike. 240 characters isn’t enough to bring about change. Don’t tweet to change, be the change.