Insult comedies, Sarcastic humor and Consumers...

‘Any publicity is good publicity’  they say. Quite literally! In the past few years, I have noticed Indian consumers enjoying abusive / aggressive shows and have now taken to a new genre which is insult comedy. There is a hint of verbal violence in most youth oriented shows in the recent times. Roadies, to begin with, featured Raghu who could not mouth a sentence sans an explicit. Then came ‘Bigg Boss’ – a show so loud and abrasive where contestants put one another to shame by their histrionics. It is worth noticing that the most crass, foul mouthed contestants and hosts are remembered for the longest time. Let me list down some:

• Raghu and Rajiv the bald twins who enjoy belittling contestants
• Infamous Dolly Bindra who shook up the Bigg Boss house with her nasty and loud comments
• Himesh Reshammiya and Ismail Darbaar’s outrage and walk outs in Sa re ga ma
• Rakhee Sawant, well, in almost every show that she is a part of. But one cannot forget her squabble with our very own Mika paaji

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Very recently, groups like the AIB (All India Bakchod) and The Viral Fever that create parodies on topical issues and (consumers all time favorite) the Indian film industry have been in the news for their sarcastic sense of humor and abusive content. However, their comedy sketches have been superhits with the consumers today! What I wonder is how has our otherwise conservative society taken to such offensive and antagonistic shows.

These insult-filled attacks are buttoned up under the garb of entertainment and comedy, but what I find interesting is how these channels and groups manage to feed such derogatory content to their viewers. What amazes me further is the willingness of viewers to enjoy such abusive shows…What do consumers like about these shows? What is it about today’s consumers that makes them revel in such satire? What about explicit comments and belittling people do consumers today find funny?

Over the years, Indian consumers have become much more aware therefore evolved. Improved quality of education, increased exposure as well as opportunities and accessibility through technology have changed the way consumers think. Social networking sites have provided consumers with a platform to express their views with utmost honesty – if you don’t like it state it, if you are feeling hurt write a status, you do not agree with what is happening around you publish a comment - thus making them more tolerant and accepting of sardonic content. Perhaps they are conditioned towards reading or hearing disparaging content. So if a show like AIB knockout or videos by pretentious movie reviews or mockery by The Viral Fever have explicit content, it does not evoke revulsion – it probably is what they are accustomed to. Sarcasm seems to have become the choicest genre of humor.

Let us delve deeper into what has brought consumers to enjoy sarcastic humor…Humor has been a topic of interest for cognitive neuropsychologists. Theories suggest that comprehension of humor lies in the lobes of the brain, frontal lobe being the key area that processes humor. Some neuropsychologists reckon that the frontal lobe as well as the areas around play a pivotal role in comprehending different kinds of humor. Sarcasm activates brain networks engaged in language processing and mentalizing (involves inferior frontal gyrus and prefrontal cortex). Research also suggests that the brain regions (especially the frontal lobes) become more complex and richer as humans evolve. Given the amount of exposure that the current generations possess, the ability of today’s generations to comprehend satire does not come as a surprise. This is perhaps what show makers cash in on. Sarcasm sells big time with the newer generations! Perhaps the new age comedians should thank the complex and ever evolving frontal lobes for this.

Let me be honest at this juncture and express how much I have enjoyed watching these caricatures. Be it the rib tickling burlesques of Arnab Goswami and Kejriwal put up by TVF (The Viral Fever) or the witty yet jocular skit by AIB about Alia Bhatt’s general knowledge. What prompted me to write this article were the other skits by TVF and AIB where actors like Ranveer Singh, Arjun Kapoor, Karan Johar, Parineeti Chopra and Shahrukh Khan have willingly allowed show makers to (for the lack of better words) whip their asses! The AIB knockout event had a turnout of 4000 viewers – an enthused battalion gathered to see two famous celebrities stripped off their dignity. Well, I will not deny that it was funny. I thoroughly enjoyed the do (though I did not watch it Live). But what I wonder is why would consumers today (and when I say consumers it includes me as well) get a thrill out of humiliating someone…and mostly celebrities?!

Gossip is not the essence of this genre of shows. While consumers enjoy watching shows that reveal scandalous, incandescent secrets of the film fraternity, the shows that we are talking about today are much different. They are a lot more intense and demeaning than gossip shows. Some theories that I would like to put forth to explain the success of the shows with abashful content especially towards celebrities:

·         Aspirational versus relatable?

Celebrities are no less than demigods for the cinema loving masses. They are believed to have it all – money, status, power, luxurious lifestyles and multitudes of followers. It is this sort of life that people aspire to live. Most would give an arm to be in the shoes of their favorite celebrities. However, this makes celebrities more aspirational than real; therefore, if I may say so, distant and unrelatable in some ways. Shows like AIB knockout and TVF insult comedy videos highlight the negatives of these celebrities. It conveys to the consumers that these celebrities that they worship are real people who make mistakes, whose lives are not as perfect and who also get spoken to the way normal people do. When consumers see Arjun Kapoor or Ranveer Singh (the youth icons) use abusive language to defend themselves, they connect with them instantaneously – Arre yeh toh apne jaisa hai! Therefore, it won’t be incorrect to say that insult comedies make celebrities more relatable and bridge the farcical gap between their lives and that of the consumers.

·         Subconscious need to inflict pain?

Consumers strive all their lives to earn a decent living. Most celebrities, on the other hand, are believed to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Glamour associated with the film industry and being a star overpowers the efforts that go into becoming one and living up to the set standards or expectations. Consumers lead stressful lives owing to the rise in competition. There is constant pressure to convert opportunities into businesses and please clients and the management at the same time. In spite of putting in their heart and soul, most consumers feel underappreciated. This feeling of not achieving as much as one should makes consumers resentful of those who have overachieved (in their opinion). I am not trying to say that celebrities are overachievers but they are definitely more established than our corporate consumers. These consumers are not contemptuous of celebrities but of people who win accolades, who earn much more, who get appreciated for their work and who seem to have more relaxed lifestyle as compared to theirs – in their minds they could be juxtaposing their boss’, classmates or their subordinates with celebrities. Therefore, consumers actually enjoy shows that haul criticism at the successful – perhaps helps them legitimize their own efforts.

·         Sadistic traits?

‘Everyday sadism’ is very common. Every individual has sadistic tendencies. Research suggests that internet has played a large role in sharpening this dark side of our personality. Sadism is said to have a strong association with trolling tendencies and enjoyment of trolls – a very common internet behavior. Therefore, internet in a way is habituating consumers towards unfriendly and insensitive content. Everyday sadists, it is believed, exploit others for personal pleasures – could be de-stressing, just having a hearty laugh, brainless fun. We as people, enjoy watching somebody else being the butt of the joke and who better than celebrities – are always under the media scanner, their lives are considered public property by some and they are known to all

The aforementioned theories are not proven and should not be confused as facts. These are just fragments of my mind. Considering all that I have written so far, evolution is the key culprit that has encouraged rise in derisive content. I won’t be surprised if comedy becomes murkier than what it is now. Only time will tell whether this new sphere of entertainment is a virtue or a vice but as of now (in my opinion) there does not seem to be anything wrong with it…

Current trend in TV shows and human psyche

Inflation has compelled people to seek alternatives to spend weekends and their free time. TV channels are cashing in on the opportunity and airing newer shows which would cater to the tastes of all members in a household. Some channels like Zee, Sony, Colors, Life OK flaunt a plethora of shows , a buffet from which each member of the family can choose a show of their liking.

What amazes me is the rise in period dramas - the talk of the town being the innovative promotions and larger than life sets of Mahabharat! The newspapers,some months ago, divulged the mega budgets of period dramas on Hindi General Entertainment channels. Why the sudden affinity for epics? What about these shows attract television consumers? 

Majority, when asked about their reasons for watching these shows, rationalize by saying that they are educative and informative. But is that a good enough reason to explain the escalating rating points and inception of new period dramas? Some speak about the grandiose of the production values. But what is it really that triggers the eagerness to watch the show? I wonder more so because the content of the show has its limitations. The writers do not have the liberty to twist the plot or add scenes which audiences favor. The current viewers are well read, observant and evolved. They are practical and expect a certain quality from the shows that they watch....So then is this pragmatic attitude a reason why viewers prefer true stories with war heroes?

Television has always been the viewers world away from their world -  an escape from the monotony of their daily routine. Shows act out their repressed emotions. They visualize themselves in the shoes of some characters and wish they could become like some. This empathy and aspiration are a result of the situation that the characters find themselves in and its relevance to the viewers lives. Shows are a route to tackle these situations heads on (through the medium of a character) which in real life they elude.

For years, psychologists have debated the influence of nature versus nurture and proven that the external factors have as much influence over ones actions, emotions and behavior as intrinsic factors / heredity does...I was thinking about the current situation of our country and how has it disrupted the lives of every resident. The upward trajectory of crime and corruption has aggrieved commoners beyond relief. The country seems to be drowning in the tide of injustice. In the last couple of years, we have seen it all - terrorist attacks, peace marches, candle marches, rape cases, scams...It is bound the pressurize the human psyche. The constant bombarding of unjust, painful and irreversible situations has left the Indian population in a frenzy. We revolted, wrote letters to the President, organized peace marches and now we have reached a point where we have become complacent and accepted the injustice as a part of our destiny. Everyday the newspapers cry out gruesome stories of killings, rape cases, abductions...The experience or knowledge of such injustice can be emotionally paralyzing. It annihilates the notion of justice and leaves us feeling helpless and resigned. In trying times a religious country like ours inadvertently starts seeking something that they can place their faith in. Perhaps a super power that can save humanity or a warrior, a savior. At this point, I cannot help but recite the stanza from the movie Tridev :

"Paap se dharti phati...

 Adharm se aasman...

 Atyacharon se kaapi insaniyat...

 Raj kar rahe hai haiwani..."

A sentiment experienced by almost all Indians at present. So what do we wish for in a situation that is beyond our control...?

"Paritranaya Sadhunaam....

 Vinashayachya Dushkrutaam...

 Dharmasansthapanarthaya...

 Sambhawami yuge...yuge.."

(The famous verse recited by Lord Krishna to Arjun : to deliver the pious, annhilate the miscreants and when the wrong doings outweigh the influences of religion He will intervene in some form)

Period drama does just that. They reassure viewers that ‘in the end, there will be justice’. Mythology tends to win over people easily. It is a safe harbor that helps rest anxieties as the visual depictions of Gods (saviors) rekindles faith, trust and an overall feeling of being protected - secured by a power far larger than you. Shows like Mahabharat, Mahadev thus work well. 

Shows like Jodha Akbar, Maharana Pratap, Shivaji yet again echo similar sentiments. The bravado of an individual and his ability to fight in order to safeguard his people and his empire is aspirational and reassures viewers that saviors have emerged in the past and so will they in the future. Someone will change the situation for them. These war heroes or Demi Gods act out their repressed emotions of rebellion and outburst against injustice.

I was sifting through the television rating points for these shows soon after the Delhi and Mumbai rape cases which led to an outrage among the Indians. I noticed that the week after the Mumbai rape case came to light the ratings for Jodha Akbar soared by 1000 points almost - a need for a strong woman warrior perhaps? Or an aspirational figure who inspite of being a woman was not demure, gullible and helpless - a situation contradicting the current situation of women in the country. 

Mahadev which was at 2.4 in October soared to a 2.7 and stayed constant for the next 2 months. This was after the Delhi rape case which took place in December 2012. It is a mere observation basis secondary research and might not hold true even. I am not discarding the channels efforts to present its viewers with better content even. It could very well be possible that the storyline introduced an exciting twist in the tale. It is only a thought that lingers on in my mind…

I have also noticed a rising affinity for female characters who are dutiful yet speak their minds and are portrayed as far stronger than they were earlier. This shift from soppy, tolerant, gullible bahus to the new age women who values her self esteem as well as her traditions has been gradual. Having met consumers from different parts of the country, I can confidently say that the ever tolerant, submissive women are a passe in TV shows. They want their protagonists to retaliate. The mythological shows also reflect the strenght of women – Jodha, Maharana Pratap’s mother’s character. Even the new version of Mahabharat portrays a far stronger Draupadi than the previous interpretations did. The posters depict an angered, confident Draupadi standing amidst the Kurukshetra seeking justice. The tagline states ‘Draupadi ke pratishodh ki mahagatha’. I found this extremely positive and worth watching. It shouts out loud 'We are not weak..We will not tolerate injustice' - again an emotion felt by every woman today!

Therefore I say that extrinsic factors / situations play a crucial role in influencing consumer choices and decide the fate of a product / service / show.

Newspapers in the last few weeks have been early morning reminders of the deteriorating and dysfunctional economy. So Maud Pansing's interview in Economic Times was a pleasant read as it spoke about the evolving consumers in India, their willingness to loosen their purse strings and importance of brands in their lives. These non compromising consumers and their loyalty towards their products born out of their need to feel good is indeed a rising phenomenon.

According to Pansing, people want to look and feel good when the economy goes down. In my opinion, the endeavor to look good is not just a result of a downward spiraling economy. It is becoming a norm in most cases. Indians have grown conscious of the way they project themselves. Increasingly, women have been investing a part of their income into grooming.

A deep dive into the Indian fashion / cosmetics market elaborates on the different consumer portraits especially in the fashion category.

The status seeker:
These are the individuals who emphasize a lot on the external appearance. For them, the brands that they choose reflect their personality. It is of utmost importance to look good in the eyes of the world in order to feel good. Flaunting brands is the key to pacify their need of belonging to the aspirational class.Their efforts could at times make them seem attention seeking but to them, dressing in the right manner and owning brands is their way of differentiating themselves from the majority population. They feel that their projection of themselves will elevate their position in the society. Therefore they will be seen buying original brands, driving fancy cars, carrying fancy handbags and aspire to own bigger brands. Awe and admiration is what they seek from the society

The need driven:
These individuals focus on the utility of the product. Their purchases are solely driven by their requirements and they do not indulge in frivolous spending. They do not shop in order to project themselves in a certain manner. According to them their confidence levels are not determined by their external appearance. Their rationale is extremely simple and straight forward 'I will buy it only if I need it'. They need products which help them feel organized, meet their requirements and are cost effective. They are the marketers worst nightmare!

The essayer:
They indulge in variety in order to project themselves in a specific manner. These individuals hold similar beliefs like the status seekers. However, unlike status seekers, brands do not entice them. For them it is important to look good but brands are not their sole aids. They will buy products which are used by majority they know or fit into their price cap. They believe that one can look good without spending too much. Their preferred choices are mid ranged brands, or it could even be a first copy of a leading brand. Originality is not a factor that plays a crucial role but the end result of the products used has to be desirable. The main difference in the status seekers and essayers is that status seekers attempt at being different from the rest while essayers try hard to be a part of the majority. Their needstate, here, is to come across as more confident. Acceptance and appreciation by others like them is their objective.

The rationalizer:
Every buyer rationalizes his or her impulse purchases in order to pacify the superego. However, these individuals tend to rationalize their planned purchases as well. They might come across as confused shoppers but actually, in their minds, they are always calculating the pros and cons. There is a continual effort to establish a connection between their needs and products shortlisted. I recall a shopping trip with a friend who wanted to buy gym wear. After walking into every possible outlet, he chose 2 shorts - a black and a white with the exact same print on the right hand lower corner. He knew he needed a minimum of 2 shorts. Yet he spent 10 minutes debating on which one to buy or would it make more sense to buy both. To him, buying the similar pattern in two shades seemed pointless but his rationale was that he needs 2 shorts and buying two different shades will give him the liberty to use different colored t-shirts. Rationalizers thrive on the support from co-shoppers - a nod or an approval - as this helps them convince themselves of the ingenuity of their purchase.

The maximizer:
They are the ones who seek quality and variety at a lesser cost. They believe in value for money products. They prefer buying products which look expensive but are reasonably priced. Brands and stylish products do play an important role but whether the brand or the product is worthy of the price quoted is of utmost concern to this set of people.

Of the aforementioned consumer categories, the need driven is the least fashion conscious. However, style though a subsequent parameter, seems to be grabbing attention of the need driven as well. Utility remains to be the primary requisite but these utlity seekers are also veering towards products that are visually appealing to some extent.

The consciousness about fashion and the desideratum to make an impression has seen an upward trajectory. The rise in literacy, professional opportunities & avenues and accessibility of international brands has worked in favor of marketers as more and more people are consciously purchasing branded products. Owing to the rise in mass affluent and emerging affluent class, marketers are capitalizing on the opportunities to sell affordable luxuries making India one of the developing markets in beauty, healthcare and fashion...

Mind Games

Decisions - neither simple to take nor simple to understand. Recent events have made me ponder about what goes into taking the decisions that we do. The smallest of decisions are thought over - either consciously or subconsciously! Most often we do what 'suits us the best'...but what does that mean?

Everyday decisions are not as rational; majority of the times these are spontaneous - governed by emotions and moods. By spontaneous, I don't say they are not thought over...However, spontaneous we may be, our little friend who resides in our head keeps an account of all that we read, write, see and analyzes it before we can blink an eye. He has the data ready all the time, he only presents it at the time we need to 'take a call.' Therefore, I say that the decisions taken even at the spur of the moment are pretty much thought over at a subconscious level.

The decisions which involve a trade-off or a large investment might seem a little more complicated than our everyday decisions. Many would say we weigh our options and choose what we feel is more beneficial. But I still feel the choices are emotional. At the outset, one will always justify ones decision by applying logic and make believe the importance of taking that decision. But I feel logic is what we use to convince ourselves of the rationality of our emotions. Right from our childhood we are conditioned to trust evidence rather than going by our gut feel. As we grow, we are expected to take a "well thought" decision instead of following our heart (emotions). Therefore, quantifying emotions or rationalizing them at the time of decision making is a defense mechanism that we use to pacify our super ego.

I met a few car buyers recently. Majority wanted to buy a vehicle for the comfort of bigger families. While the first criteria was the price, there was no compromising the original purpose. Some settled for smaller cars or cars of a lesser quality engine but higher comfort level that fit into the price bracket. In such cases, the price might seem to be the deciding factor...but it is true only at a superficial level. However, the key trigger in the purchase, when you dig down deeper you will realize, is the comfort of the family - a more emotional than rational call!

So how is this decision any different from our day to day decisions? Perhaps because there is a conscious effort to validate our emotions by evidence. I was once told by a very Senior Training Consultant that decisions are a result of fear. Advertisers don't sell products, they touch upon what consumers fear and the product sells itself. Boeing does not sell an airliner, it sells safety thousands of feet above the ground. Kelloggs does not sell healthy breakfast, it sells the fear of obesity. Olay does not sell creams to nourish your skin, it sells the fear of not being beautiful. For that matter, Thumbs up and Mountain dew do not sell adventure, they sell the thought of overcoming the fear of death!

Therefore I say, decisions are a function of our emotions!