Brand Scan: Vicks, not as caring for transgenders as it seems

In this age of social media, and especially in that of instant opinions, I take ages to form one. I refuse to get carried away with the flow, taking my time to articulate what I feel about something. Sometimes, it is difficult not to get carried away, especially if the flow is more like a tsunami. So was it with the recent Vicks #TouchOfCare communication. Both trade publications and mainstream media outlets (including DNA) gushed about how beautiful it was. My Facebook and Twitter timelines were overflowing with praise for the video. It was like almost all the powers had conspired to force me to like, share, retweet, and comment positively about it.

And I didn’t. I was completely underwhelmed by the video, and I will tell you why. But first, take a look at the ad (I don’t think it is one) in case you were on some other planet during the past week or so. It is a simple story. A little girl is orphaned, she is adopted by a single mother. The mother is wonderful to her,  and the daughter loves her dearly. Sometime now, we learn that the mother is transgender. The mother and the daughter will live happily ever after.

“Everyone deserves the touch of care,” says a super. And to close, we see a slate that says, “Vicks. Caring for families for generations.”

So why am I underwhelmed? For many reasons, and I will try and articulate them. The first. What does the film have to do with Vicks? What happens to the film if it ends with the same messages as described above, but with a change in the logo? What happens if the Vicks logo is replaced with, say Savlon or Dettol? Or with Benadryl?  Or Burnol? Or Parachute hair oil? Or Apollo Hospital? Or MTR Foods? Or Knorr soup?

Think about it. The leap from the film to “caring for families for generations” is so complex and convoluted that the two – the film and the sign off – do not sit together in comfort and in confidence. The second problem. If the transgender mother were replaced with a normal, female mother, what do we get from the film? A mother and daughter doing normal, mother-daughter things. That is it. Many supporters of the film saw the inclusion of the transgender as the beauty of the film, but to me, the transgender is being used. Yes, used.

It is a gimmicky exploitation of the transgender, not a demonstration of ‘everyone deserves the touch of care.’ If it were something larger than my interpretation, I would love to see what Vicks is doing for the community. Do they have a policy that encourages the hiring of transgenders in their company? Do they have activities that help transgenders in education or employment or even in plain and simple inclusion?

Even if Vicks was just trying to ride the current popularity wave that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) cause seems to be enjoying, that is understandable. Then, all they had to do was end the film by saying “Vicks supports LGBT rights” or words to such effect, not cloak it under the garb of high ground of caring for families for generations.

By coincidence, last week saw the screening of The Saints of Sin, a documentary produced by accomplished Creative Director Swati Bhattacharya. I was most impacted by one of the characters, Pradipta, the transgender who embodied one of the ‘sins’, Envy. Looking at the Vicks film once again, I’m sure Pradipta would be hurt rather than envious if SHE saw the film. The film might do some good for Vicks, but none at all for transgenders.

The author is Editor, Storyboard, CNBC TV18