Subscribe to Desicritics
Haagen-Dazs, Mistaken Cause
mbjesq
Photo credit: Times of India
As I have written in a different context, Indians have a strange love of parsing insults from the innocuous — or as in this case, the poorly thought-through. Particularly when the phantom effrontery seems to come from foreigners.
The latest uproar involves a newly opened Haagen-Dazs ice cream store, which had the bad judgment to fly the banner depicted above to announce its store opening. It reads:
PARTIED AT THE FRENCH RIVIERA? WELCOME.Haagen-Dazs
EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS
Access restricted only to holders of international passports.
The reaction began with a sketchily described post by Times of India writer and Chief Editor of Times Internet, Rajesh Kaira, on his TOI blog, Random Access. According to Mr. Kaira a pseudonymous "friend" of his was refused entry to this Haagen-Dazs store for failure to proffer an "international passport."
The story was repeated by the TOI as a regular news story. Both pieces carried the headline, "Sorry, Indians Not Allowed."
Since then, it has blanketed the blogs, generating breathless commentary. Feedback from readers has been overwhelmingly incensed and incendiary, even in response to the commendably even-handed post on Desicritics.
The promotion clearly meant to create cachet by equating the consumption of Haagen-Dazs with the romance and luxury of international travel. Was this ice cream seller determined to sell only to people who vacation in San Tropez? Of course not. To people who wish to sell us stuff, "exclusivity" means little more than "limited to anyone who will buy."
In Noida, that means Indians. It makes no sense to interpret "international" to mean "foreign" or "non-Indian". How many non-Indians are regularly hanging-out in the strip malls of the heinous suburban dystopia that is Noida? We can agree that the ham-handed promotion doesn't reflect a great deal of business sense in the first place, but was it really intended to exclude 100% of the store's potential customers?
True, the Times of India writer says his anonymous friend was excluded by the store manager (an Indian) for failure to present the so-called "international passport." Is this remotely credible? First, consider the source: TOI. Enough said. Second, doesn't this smack of, "I know a guy who knew a guy who..."? Third, what the hell is an "international passport"? The only thing I can think of is the United Nations Laissez-Passer, issued to employees of the UN and ILO.
The concluding line on the banner, "Access restricted only to holders of international passports" is, indeed, problematic. It is rather artless and seems takes the theme of "exclusivity" far too literally. But the clumsiness of the language also suggests that this was something generated locally and not by the marketing department of the American overlords. Leaving aside the inanity of the "international passport" requirement, what professional copy writer would follow the word "restricted" with the redundant word "only"? One in India, only.
Common sense suggests that (a) this was a dumb-ass promotional idea, (b) to foster the equally dumb-ass consumption of absurdly overpriced ice cream, (c) badly mishandled in the execution by some dumb-ass Indian ad agency, (d) on behalf of some dumb-ass decision-maker either at the franchisee or within the licensor's organization. The interesting issue is the last. Who was ultimately responsible for this idiocy? If there is insult to be found in this fiasco, was it a racist barb emanating from shameless foreigners?
I did a little investigation, calling first to Nestle, which owns the Haagen-Dazs brand, and then to the public relations office of General Mills, Inc., which owns the rights to all Haagen-Dazs franchise licensing outside of North America. The spokespeople at both companies stated that each store is an individual franchisee, with "independent responsibility and control of advertising and promotion." This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that General Mills didn't have a hand in the fiasco.
And which General Mills?
The next morning, I received an email from the director of Haagen-Dazs brand management at General Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Arindam Halder. Mr. Halder is the architect of brand management for Haagen-Dazs in India, and the man responsible for overseeing the opening of franchises like the one in Noida. His note offers some important details, which support my reading of the event as an ill-conceived marketing idea made even worse by incoherent manifestation:
There have been some reports on various online media alleging that the recently opened Häagen-Dazs shop in New Delhi, India, denied access to Indians. We vehemently and categorically deny this. Häagen-Dazs products and our Häagen-Dazs shop in India are and will always be for our consumers in India.The recently opened Haagen-Dazs shop is open to one and all, and there’s no question of barring entry to anyone on any basis. The preview on Thursday, 10th December had a morning media event which was attended by journalists of repute from Indian media. The same evening we had a launch party for our friends and families, less than 5% of whom were foreigners. Also, during the mock training days at the shop leading up to 10th December, a lot of interest were generated and hundreds of walk ins were given samples of our ice cream. The store is now open to all public and seeing brisk business.
The poster in question was part of initial local store communication at a few locations within the same mall announcing the opening of the new Häagen-Dazs shop in the mall. The message was intended to suggest that you can enjoy, for instance, a taste of the French Riviera without traveling to France – by enjoying Häagen-Dazs. Unfortunately the reference to the international passport holder on the poster may have led to a significant miscommunication. This was completely unintended and we apologize for creating the misimpression that may have hurt our sentiments as Indians.
Regards,
Arindam Haldar
General Mills India
Clearly, there was no intent or attempt to exclude Indians; and we can all agree the brouhaha was the result of what Mr. Haldar euphemistically describes as a "significant miscommunication." But there are two very pregnant ambiguities in his statement. First, the "local store communication" language doesn't make clear who originated the promotional idea or created the banner, General Mills India (namely, him) or the franchisee. It simply says that the campaign was deployed locally, in the mall where the store was located. Second, the last line, in which Mr. Haldar says, on behalf of General Mills India, "[W]e apologize for creating the misimpression", suggests rather strongly that the banner came directly from General Mills India. It sounds very different than, say, "We regret that this misimpression occurred at a Haagen-Dazs franchise."
The concluding apology is also laugh-out-loud funny. So eager is Mr. Halder to self-identify as Indian, he essentially begs forgiveness for an Indian company having offended itself.
What conclusions can we draw from all this?
I think we can agree that there is no evil foreign hand in this story, no American or European racist out to mistreat Indians in their own country or determined to slight them. Indeed, Mr. Kaira of TOI got it exactly right (in his original essay, not the subsequent, abbreviated news item), even if he failed to look at the contribution of the licensor:
Whatever it is, it is idiotic. I checked later and found that the franchisee is an Indian company based in Delhi and the man incharge [sic] is also an Indian. I have often maintained that we ourselves are our biggest enemies. Our mentality is that of slaves and we think anything is good only if its approved by foreigners, or the “holders of international passport”. This is all about how India and Indians see themselves. Foreigners have nothing to do with it.
I don't necessarily fault the bloggers fanning the flames of this supposed outrage for failing to take the 15 minutes Mr. Kaira and I did to pick up the phone and get the facts. It is slightly disappointing, however, that the online commentators have almost uniformly ignored the obvious lack of malicious intent behind the fucked-up promotion. And there is yet deeper culpability in repeating only the tastiest, most shocking morsels of this story, in complete disregard of the basic fact that the errors in judgment were made not by foreigners, but by Indians — even though this was reported and thoughtfully analyzed in Mr. Kaira's original story. This episode presents a cautionary study of how untrustworthy and manipulable online information can become as true journalism cedes way to what passes for "citizen journalism" in the blog world. It is always tempting to tell the story, not according to the facts, but according to the sermon one wishes to preach. The art is to tell a morally compelling story within the bounds of the evidence.
To her credit, and as we would expect, Deepti Lamba's Desicritics essay tells the full story — as it was revealed in the original TOI piece — and doesn't shy away from noting Indian responsibility for both the debacle itself and the underlying attitudes which engendered it. Yet, even Dee reaches the abrupt and slightly ambiguous conclusion that "racist brands" should be chased from India. Brands aren't ethical agents. People and corporations are. And those at the heart of this story were Indian. Perhaps Dee's intended plea is to abolish self-loathing; but somehow the anti-foreign implication creeps through.
There will be some, of course, bitterly disappointed that there is no longer a foreign scapegoat by whom to feel insulted; but they will have no difficulty transferring their ire to me for pointing this out. And it will feel just as good, since I am a foreigner.
If Indians want to salvage some national pride from the situation, they can always take encouragement from the fact this crazy promotion could happen in Mother India, but could never have occurred in the United States. After all, most Americans don't have a passport and have not heard of France.
Haagen-Dazs, Mistaken Cause
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Media
- » Media: Advertising
- » Media: Blogs
- » Media: Internet
- » Media: Journalism
- » Media: Newspapers
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » BizTech: Customer Service
- » BizTech: Companies
- » Desicritics.org articles by mbjesq
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Deepti Lamba
December 17, 2009
11:01 AM
Mark, I do take the TOI journalist's words that the incident happened as he said it did. Indians are too scared to give their true identities when it comes to taking up the big guys.
We do get second hand treatment when foreigners are around.
Even in Bangalore I landed up having a massive fight at a premise which basically gave patronage to expats and Indians 'hung' around.
I also happened to read the TOI comments where someone spoke about havelis in Rajasthan where only foreigners are preferred. If I had my way I would have these places shut down as well. Its got nothing to do with HD being a foreign brand but with the deliberate blantant discrimination.
I am of the firm opinion when goof ups happen mega- corporations are the first to wash their hands off the fiasco and blame the 'outsourced' agency. Nothing new there and it was already talked about in the online world as the news broke. HD did what we expected them to do.
My anger is not against HD because it is a foreign brand but against discrimination. If this happened to be Reliance doing it I'd ask them to be shut down as well.
Heck my kids hold 'International Passports' (Is there such a thing as International Passport in the first place?) and when I travel with them somewhere in Europe I know they will go through separate lines and I can live with it but I'll be damned if I let it happen on my own soil without protest.
mbjesq
URL
December 17, 2009
12:07 PM
Dee:
Sadly, you are not wrong about the differential treatment. I experience it -- in reverse, the often embarrassing "benefits" of this discrimination -- all the time, as you can imagine.
This not-so-subtle racism is not different when it happens at home or abroad. And you are right: it is all-the-more appalling to so how pervasive this is on Indian soil.
I simply don't think that was what was getting worked-out in the Haagen-Dazs cock-up. At least not in overt form or intent. It would quite simply be commercial suicide to embrace foreigners to the exclusion of Indians for a shop situated in a Noida strip-mall.
But your point is not entirely inapt. In sublimated form, the bizarre, insane, incoherent promotion was conceptually motivated, in some substantial part, by a sublimated version of the Indian racism you correctly decry. (The other aspect is the tendency to be overly-impressed by the developmental progress of America and Europe, which you also correctly identify in your essay.) It is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that anything-foreign-is-better should still be pervading the Indian psyche. It is a sad, post-colonial vestige; and it is, frankly, inconsistent with another easily identifiable characteristic of the national vibe: the rabid jingoism.
Are corporate actors to blame in the cycle of prejudice we have both described? Absolutely. So are people -- those at the heart of the drama and all the rest of us who, in one form or another, accede to the ugly status quo. My point was that those are the moral agents -- those capable of doing right or wrong in these situations. Abstracting the blame to an abstract, ethically neutral thing like a brand is not helpful. It allows the blameworthy to evade fault and fixes frustrations on easy, and often undeserving targets. In this case, as it turns out, the targets of ire (foreigners) were not in any way, shape, or form the cause of the insensitivity.
Unless you want to take the argument back to British behavior pre-independence and the endemic inferiority complex this has instilled. I don't think such a position is either wrong or ridiculous. But I also don't think a backward-looking approach is necessarily helpful in moving the culture past the corrosive dynamic you have so well described.
Deepti Lamba
December 17, 2009
12:26 PM
Lets discuss this over ice cream at Baskin&Robbins when you come home;P
Ledzius
December 17, 2009
12:50 PM
This whole outrage is an over-reaction. The author is right about the bad English- "Access restricted only to holders of international passports" means quite the opposite of what it is intended to mean. One of the two words "restricted" and "only" has to go.
I cannot imagine this could have happened with the knowledge of the parent company (though one can get emotional and tend to believe that's the case). For HD to do so will be the equivalent of committing suicide both from political as well as business angles. Americans are not idiots to not realise this basic fact.
This episode has caused needless embarrassment to an American company due to some desi idiot's brilliant marketing idea.
And this is not the first nor is it the last time desis discriminate against their own.
Not long ago, some upscale mall in the NCR barred people who didn't have cell phones from entering it.
mbjesq
URL
December 17, 2009
01:18 PM
Dee:
This is too funny!
You have hit on my absolutely-hate-the-fuckers merchant of overpriced frozen loveliness. Baskin Robbins opened a store last year in Pondicherry, greatly helping to despoil the quickly disappearing charm of the once unique town with its jarringly garish, bright pink, illuminated signage.
How do I respond to this architectural insult? By boycotting the Pondy, of course, and encouraging my friends to do likewise.
"Voting with our wallets" is appropriate -- we just need to be clear on who we are targeting, and why.
Tell you what: we'll do Baskin Robbins in Bangtown and Richy Rich when you come to Pondy.
Best,
MBJ
Deepti Lamba
December 17, 2009
01:27 PM
You have to be back in Pondi for us to visit and I rather we met at Hotel De L'Orient for lunch/dinner. Was joking - I hate ice cream:D
mbjesq
URL
December 17, 2009
01:51 PM
UPDATE: TOI reports on General Mills India's attempts at damage control.
Deepti Lamba
December 17, 2009
02:18 PM
Here is Rajesh Kalra's TOI blog updated to counter what HD says
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/randomaccess/entry/sorry_indians_not_allowed1
temporal
URL
December 17, 2009
03:53 PM
digression of no consequence to others save dee and mark:)
would like to gate crash if the timing is right ...mid march to mid may
Aaman
URL
December 17, 2009
08:08 PM
T, you would be the nuts on the sauce:)
Arjoon
December 17, 2009
10:41 PM
That's the last time i have an Haagen Daz here or abroad unless there is profound apology from the corporate head office ....company's are not this stupid, they can spin stories all they want but what they meant was pretty clear.
Ledzius
December 18, 2009
01:31 AM
I adopt the contrarian view here, and feel that this episode portrays Indians in a bad light.
From now on, most MNCs, including FMCG companies, will require their Indian franchisees or ad/marketing agencies to submit their ads, PR material, etc. for a review by the their overseas headquarters.
For Indians have a propensity to fvck these up, like this incident. Another one is Gillette being discussed elsewhere.
The Indian media/PR/ad agencies are immature when compared to the more seasoned and politically sensitised Westerners.
The fact that a tabloid like the Times of India is India's most widely read newspaper is a testimony to this.
This incident is not only about bad PR, but also common sense turned upside down on its head.
After all, what kind of a company will want to come all the way to India to do business, but exclude Indians once here? Doesn't make sense one bit.
From now on, MNCs will think twice before hiring Indian MBAs.
Dola
December 18, 2009
01:53 AM
I liked the garrulous article.. I did pick up some very nice vocabs from here.. But, any company, whether situated in America or Timbuktu, ought to know how it was being promoted in a certain country. Please no one plead ignorance here. Absolutely no company gives 100% discretion to its franchisee, especially when brand image is concerned. No foreign hand or not, I would not want to know the intention of an advertisement. It is just what I am made to perceive at the first instance. The advertisement only reflected the company’s mentality (Indian or Whatever). And it would be absolutely nice to not have Indians defend these advertisement makers even if the agency is owned by your brother! I am personally not looking for an apology. Just quit India if you can’t respect the color, texture, literacy of the hands that will pay you that money you so badly want here. Who are you to differentiate us and judge us on our own land anyway?
Sumanth
December 18, 2009
02:28 AM
The best solution for MNCs to get out of this mess is to apologize and then work to eliminate all such racist or sexist advertisements.
That will cleanse their sins.
However, some of these companies are led by such assholes, who remain glued to the idea that no publicity is bad publicity. If people are shouting, its good for you and your business.
So, these companies can be screwed from some village court in an Island in North East India, a court in Naxalite infested Chattisgarh or a court in Andamans.
When non-profit trusts start working to eliminate these practices, then these criminals will learn to be civilised.
Dola
December 18, 2009
02:36 AM
Sometime I love ignorance. Atleast one seem to live a blissful life.
Answering the seasoned and politically sensitised westerners-
These were not by desis
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/racism_in_advertising/
This one certainly is true blue american!
http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/6021/2009-09-25.html
Lets not buck pass anymore.. NO one is blaming an american or indian here. Just whoever did it, needs to go back to school..
Just another one for those wanting a deeper insight into this whole racism thing.
http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/index.html
Grow up whoever is not willing to feel the heat.
Ledzius
December 18, 2009
03:30 AM
Oh, really? How about all our desi ads for fairness creams? Try showing one of them on any TV channel in the US, and before you can say 'Haagen Dazs', the NAACP will be all over you..
If we have to throw out HD, let us also throw out along with it the desi dude who came up with this idea in the first place, and revoke his citizenship. Fair deal, huh?
Amitabh Mitra
URL
December 18, 2009
09:31 AM
Haldar Saheb thought that this would be a great breakthrough in the advertising world.
I wish he could give me an international passport in South Africa so that I may try his Haagen Icecream
arundhati thapar
URL
December 18, 2009
09:55 AM
Thanks for the much needed voice of pragmatism on this issue. Reading through the initial coverage of this story, you couldn't help but wonder if the owner/franchisee of the shop had simply set out to commit commercial hara kiri. Bad judgement seems to be the more likely culprit.
Anon
December 18, 2009
04:07 PM
"But the clumsiness of the language also suggests that this was something generated locally and not by the marketing department of the American overlords."
You seem to be implying that Indians are clumsy in creating ad copy compared to Americans. That's borderline racist, no?
Chandra
December 18, 2009
09:53 PM
Poor copywriting. This is not surprising considering the fact that with the advertising and PR business expanding rapidly many agencies are finding it difficult to hire quality copywriters.
mbjesq
URL
December 19, 2009
04:39 AM
Anon:
Your borderline accusation is borderline proof-positive of the opening and concluding riffs of my essay, that many Indians will go out of their way to construe an insult from the perfectly benign where foreigners are involved, no?
Sadly, you quote the remark which borderline upsets you with borderline dishonesty, omitting these lines: "[W]hat professional copy writer would follow the word 'restricted' with the redundant word 'only'? One in India, only."
You may have only borderline awareness that English usage differs among Anglophone countries. Indian English carries a colloquialism not found in American English, but very much found on the banner; namely, the redundant or extraneous use of the word "only". This thought was conveyed, with a degree of humor and subtly you will surely regard as borderline, in the punchline: "One in India, only."
The "clumsiness of the language" was to reproduce spoken, regional idiom in written text trying to cop an attitude of internationalism and snobishness.
I hope I didn't insult your intelligence with this painstaking exegesis of the obvious; but you seemed borderline clueless.
ajay
December 19, 2009
11:37 AM
I finally get to read a sane article on this issue.
Indians preaching and protesting against racism is a bit thick. After all we are the fairness cream buying, caste and creed querying bunch. And to fly off the handle on an ill-thought out sign board that intended no malice is quite the tops.
The folks who decry Hagen Daz may be better served to fight the day to day discrimination in India against everything from Muslims to single women, gays and what have you, who face a host of problems in dealing with simple issues like housing in a conservative housing society.
J Srinivasan
URL
December 19, 2009
12:11 PM
Sane article?! LOL
Chandra
December 19, 2009
09:18 PM
"The folks who decry Hagen Daz may be better served to fight the day to day discrimination in India against everything from Muslims to single women, gays and what have you, who face a host of problems in dealing with simple issues like housing in a conservative housing society"
Discrimination against muslims? Where?
Discrimination against women? Where?
Discrimination against Gays? Where?
Sumanth
December 19, 2009
11:11 PM
Fighting discrimination inside India and fighting discrimination by business houses (from India and abroad) are two different things.
It is illogical to argue that unless we have absolutely zero discrimination inside India, we should not open mouth about about other issues.
This is actually an attempt towards social censorship, where people discourage us to speak against rich, powerful and influential as they internally feel it is risky.
ajay
December 20, 2009
11:49 AM
@Chandra,
Discrimination against muslims? Where?
Mumbai, in middle class housing societies in Dadar, Andheri, etc. Even celebrities aren't spared.
Discrimination against women? Where?
Bangalore and Hyderabad. Single working women always have trouble finding apartments to rent since landlords are reluctant to rent to them.
ajay
December 20, 2009
12:44 PM
@J Srinivasan,
"Sane article?! LOL", Care to elaborate on what made you LOL? I am willing to wait till you grow up.
Add your comment