Inside story

Mainstream advertising for undergarments in India has followed very distinct gender narratives.

If one looks at the ads for women’s undergarments, the TVCs and print campaigns have, by and large, been aesthetically made, and project their utilitarian aspect. For instance, the most recent ad for Zivame, an e-commerce portal for lingerie, features a montage of women from different walks of life articulating their need when it comes to undergarments. The script, like most, has steered clear of sexualising and objectifying the garment and its wearer.

On the contrary, advertising for men’s undergarments has largely veered into the realm of the crass and tacky, not to mention provocative. So much so, the Government, in 2007, had to intervene and ban two underwear advertisements — Lux Cozy and Amul Macho — saying they were “indecent, vulgar and suggestive”. Apart from this, the scripts often promote and venerate hyper-masculinity.

What is the reason for such a stark distinction?

The ads mirror society’s perceptions and expectations of each gender. “This category’s advertising has stereotyped the imagery of the user, which has led to its polarisation,” says Colvyn Harris, Chief Executive Officer, JWT South Asia. Nakul Chopra, CEO, South Asia, at Publicis, elaborating this view, says that the ads are made in keeping with what one feels would “culturally” resonate with the audience. Perhaps, Indian women wouldn’t respond to an ad that is racy, and would prefer it to be staid. He also points out that the “macho male” archetype has been exploited by several other categories outside of undergarments.

Agreeing with him, Richa Kar, founder and CEO, zivame.com, adds that lingerie is a more mature category in the West. “It is perfectly fine to walk with a Victoria’s Secret bag on the street, which is unimaginable in India,” she says. Taking a cue from this, Vivek Mehta, CEO, MAS Brands India, which retails Amanté, says, “Lingerie advertising in India is primarily split into two genres: one which focuses on comfort and the other focusing on seduction, attracting the man’s attention. There are more takers for the first kind of imagery at a mass level.”

Moreover, almost 90 per cent of Indian women do not want to relate with a product that provokes sensuality, adds Bidyut Nath, Brand Manager, Dollar Industries Ltd. However, not all ads for men’s undergarments carry this narrative. For example, Jockey International’s campaigns in India, for both men and women’s undergarments, focus on the utilitarian aspect of the product by projecting it as active wear.

Chennai-based media professional Vijay Vasudevan feels this trend of less-classy ads for men’s innerwear could be because the brands advertised for men are not very expensive and cater to a mass market. “Maybe the orientation of the ads is suited for the segment they cater to,” he adds. Publicis’ Chopra and JWT’s Harris agree, but they also feel that it could be a way to differentiate themselves (Jockey) in an already cluttered market. Zivame’s Kar feels similarly and says that it is a call brands have taken with their messaging.

Why are men’s ads more provocative, suggestive, and encourage more skin show? How did men, who normally objectify, end up being the ones objectified, so to speak, in this case?

A former creative director with an ad agency, who is now a journalist, feels that while advertising for women’s undergarments is restrained and elegant, and that for men’s tasteless, it’s less a function of a person’s moral compass and more a reflection of how society perceives, dictates and differentiates between male and female sexuality. It is more acceptable for men to be projected and accepted as sexual beings, but not so in the case of women, he says. There has always been more skin show in ads for men’s undergarments than women’s, particularly in native brands, points out Dollar’s Nath. A bare-chested man is an acceptable and common sight. For all you know, that could be the reason why we find most lingerie ads, until now, being restricted to magazines, he adds.

Elaborating on the psychology behind society’s sentiments, Anjana Raghavan who has a doctorate in Culture Studies (with a focus on Genders, Bodies and Sexualities), says, “With men’s underwear, perhaps, because the overt sexualisation and objectification is so much less, because it demeans men to be ‘objects’ of female sexual pleasure (which is entirely unacknowledged in any case), there is a distinct connection between underwear, virility/strength and sexual desirability in much the same language as the Axe or Wildstone advertisements. The underwear becomes a proxy for (often) unsolicited seduction by women who cannot ‘help’ themselves.

She adds: “Lingerie/Underwear for women in India in an interesting dual-space where the former is a particularly eroticised realm, while the latter is cast in terms of ‘freedom’ and ‘comfort’. On the one hand, women’s ‘lingerie’ is specifically advertised to titillate and arouse male sexual desire, rather than as something that produces aesthetic pleasure for the self. As ‘underwear’, it can become a space that women claim as exclusively theirs. In the sense that because it is a ‘hidden’ realm, women can exercise a certain kind of subversion in their choices, if they want to. What this actually reveals, is the deeply misogynistic, heteronormative (the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders with natural roles in life)  and patriarchal structures that underpin and govern women’s intimacy and sexuality.”

In both cases, the woman remains the object.

So could it be that norms of morality and fear of censure dictate the way brands conceive their communication? For instance, in 2013, an aspirant for the mayor’s post in Ranchi, as part of his poll promises, called for a ban on lingerie advertisements through posters and hoardings saying that the exhibition of lingerie through advertisement was indecent, obscene and derogatory. If elected, he said he would ensure that no posters and hoardings of bras, panties or other innerwear would be allowed in the city. His complaint was that such ads “pollute the minds of youngsters and divert them from the primary objectives of life”.

“The Indian audience, as per research, is offended when women are portrayed in a sexual manner. While few brands have taken the sensual route, they are able to reach only a small fragment of the audience. In case of a wider audience, several sentiments need to be taken into consideration,” says Sandra Daniels, VP, Marketing, Enamor India. Publicis’ Chopra disagrees. Actresses in Bollywood and their unabashed and uncensored skin-show is proof that the audience has come to terms with women physically exposing themselves, he says.

Does that mean, going forward, we could expect top actresses to model for undergarments like their male counterparts, such as Shah Rukh Khan, Sunny Deol and Salman Khan, do? “In the current cultural context, it’s not likely to happen,” says Chopra.

With inputs from Mythili Rajkumar