Magnum Opus (aka Wall's Balls)

Wall's is anything but inconsistent. The ads suck, if you'll pardon the expression.

The Magnum ads have, once again, sparked a debate in Pakistan. Not the philosophical kind that raged in the West and on the Net about its "5 Senses" ad ... and whether it was blatantly sexual or merely sensual (the line is rather blurred between these two words now).

The current debate, with participants ranging from advertising and marketing execs to students, centres around whether local context, culture, values, and taboos must be respected or not. Many worry that such ads will open the door, at one of the worst moments in our history, to a flood of obscenities. Others are turned off and disgusted. The few who do not oppose it merely suggest we accept the fact that selling is a no-holds-barred enterprise. Some may even argue that, by being placed on a billboard - a medium that does not offer the luxury of reaching for the remote control and switching it off - it tramples upon the choice of those who do not wish to see this or have their kids exposed to it. At least not when they are together.

Here is one comment from a female participant of the above-mentioned discussion. There are dozens of more blunt and angry comments that I did not see fit to quote. i drove by karsaz today and saw the blown up magnum ad. even though the ice cream is amazing (took a bite off a friend's magnum), the ad made me feel kinda... sick. this is not about ethics, this isn't about what is socially acceptable. i did not want to have an ice cream that hinted at what magnum was hinting at. that is not pure indulgence for me. it so isn't. did the ad work? it worked in scandalising people and creating a hype. did people go out and buy the product? i'm not so sure. i'll say it again: the ice cream was amazing. but thinking about you-know-what is not what i want to think about while having it. thank u whoever-was-in-charge for spoiling it for me.

That the ad 'hints' (to use the above writer's word) at what it does is no accident. An earlier campaign by Wall's had many arguing that the young model was duped into portraying what she did not realize what the ad would suggest (or, as some held, the viewer was reading too much in it). I only requested such 'defenders' to look at several people, of all shapes, sizes, and genders eating ice-cream - even Magnum - and see how many had the eyes-half-closed expression or the emotion that the ad showed. None ever brought it up again.

As ad-savvy people who follow international campaigns know, Wall's ads have always had a clear intent. For example, one Magnum Cone storyline was described thus on an ad-related website: Man is eating a Magnum Cone when a woman walks by and starts licking it. [And one has to see it for the briefest of moments to understand what's being implied.]. Even a less provocative ad by them, which showed a man rolling paper into a long marijuana joint, did not escape the sexual innuendo: it was called The Sixties Nine

Do I have a problem with the ad? Yes! I think that this ad - and many more that seem to confuse modernity with sexual liberalism - play right into the hands of the fundos, destabilizing all moves towards the more important aspects of liberal or open-minded thought in an already confrontational society. Soon we'll have the right-wingers screaming and demanding of people if this is the kind of immorality they want their children to be brought up with --- a form of emotional blackmail that works and will help them gain sympathy, paving the way for other nefarious activities under their self-apointed position of moral guardianship. From disfiguring billboards (already a fairly common sight as you travel further north) it is but a short hop to disfiguring people— and they will stop at neither.

May I suggest that consumers express their views not merely on private and net-based forums but also to Unilever. Or shall we wait until the next Wall's ad appears with Studded for Extra Pleasure as a slogan?