Thursday, April 24, 2008

Your Ad Goes Here

I have a question for everybody: Which one hair of Iman Ali is telling her story? I really want to know. This question came to my mind after seeing the new Sunsilk campaign, which says that life can't wait and blatantly displays a quote by Iman Ali: 'My Hair Tells My Story.' If all her hair were telling her story then she would have said: 'My Hair Tell My Story.' But, since it’s 'tells,' I would really like to know exactly which one of her hair is telling it. Another thing that this ad has done is that it has strengthened by long-held belief that all the advertising agencies of Pakistan are full of people like my friend, the Alid. (For more information on who he is, please read my previous blog entry at http://habitsandpasttimes.blogspot.com/2008/01/life-and-non-murder-of-my-friend.html). And not just advertising agencies, but also these large and supposedly hip multinational FMCG corporations like Unilever. I know that the ad agency made the mistake but Unilever ultimately approved it so they are the ones who are actually at fault. I can't believe that they have all these rigorous recruitment processes: testing, interviewing, re-interviewing, re-re-interviewing, holding group discussions, psychologically profiling the applicants, so on and on and on, and they still ultimately end up hiring a monkey who can't spell.

I have displayed my distaste for advertisements many times and this seems to surprise many people because I am a graduate with a degree in marketing, and people cannot seem to fathom the fact that I of all the people would despise advertising so much. The truth is that I do; ads really irritate it me on some sort of a very human level. I find them to be irritants, ads invasion into my privacy. When I sit down in front of the television to watch a movie, that is all I want to watch: the movie. Not TVCs interrupting me every fifteen minutes and I certainly don't want to watch my movie enclosed in a broad outline of scrolls and logos. Ads are perhaps the main reason why I have actually stopped watching any kind of television at all. I would rather watch a 'watchable without subtitles' DVD than movies on Star Movies or HBO. But you can't hide from ads. They are everywhere. On billboards, blaring out of radios, painted on the side of bridges, on walls, buildings, trucks, vans (especially those new vans whose sole purpose is to waste gas and display those damn well lit backlit signs), buses, cars, poles, sidewalks, traffic lights, and lamppost. If they had their way, those damn advertisers would slap an ad on damn near anything with enough space on it. I know. I have worked in a media planning/buying agency and one of the most popular activities there would be for us to sit together and brainstorm on new and 'creative' ways of displaying ads to the target audience.

When I had first gotten that job, I was very excited and I told my father that I am going to work in a media planning and buying house. He asked me what that was. And when I explained it all, he said, 'Oh, so you will be working in advertising.' That really infuriated me, for I did not want to work in advertising. I went at great lengths and actually fought with my father and explained to him how media buying and planning is NOT advertising. After a heated discussion and argument that went on for a full hour, my father says to me, 'So, it's basically advertising, right?' From that day on, I made it a point to tell everyone that my line of work was NOT advertising, but placement of the ads. I was adamant and stubborn, and I would argue and fight and never admit that it was the same as advertising. It took me only a few weeks of working there when I realized that it pretty damn much WAS advertising. I hated to think that even though I did not make the ads, I was the one responsible for making people see them. I was the intruder here, doing unto others that which I sure hell did not want them do unto me. I quit my job, I realized what was wrong, still stick to my self-developed maxim: Creativity Should Never be a Nuisance.

This also has a connection with my Irony is Sometimes Perfect clause that I have drawn up. I know a guy who used to work for an online writing company. His job would be to select articles from the web and paraphrase them in his own words so as to avoid plagiarism. He was a very creative guy, perhaps too creative. He got fired for plagiarizing when he paraphrased an article that was already paraphrased and inadvertently changed it back into exactly its original form.

10 comments:

sheandher338 said...

My hair tells my story is not incorrect grammar. Think about it, my hair tell my story is incorrect grammar.

Do you ever say my hair are oily? No.
The correct grammar is, my hair -is- oily.

It's a collective noun, I think that's what its called.

sheandher338 said...

Yes, I'm right. Found proof: http://www.eduqna.com/Words-Wordplay/982-1-words-wordplay-5.html

Collective noun it is :)

Omer Wahaj said...

Hello Kirna Fareeqoo,

I know that that's what they are called: collective nouns. However, what you have pointed out exhibits the same logical fallacy used by Unilever. A collective noun is not always singular. It can act as a plural if required.

Say someone asks you: ‘What's wrong with your hair today?’ You can say: ‘My hair is a mess’, or ‘they are a mess’; neverit is a mess’. This is an example where hair is acting as a plural collective noun. Also, bear in mind that the argument you have presented is only limited to the use of 'is/are' after a collective noun. The laws change when you add a non-continuous present verb. Say you marry a Bedouin and he has a herd of sheep. Will you say: ‘My sheep eats grass,’ or ‘my sheep eat grass?’

My problem with the Sunsilk ad is not just in grammar; Adidas’ ‘Impossible is Nothing’ does not bother me. The Sunsilk campaign is stylistically and logically incorrect. It does not sound right and is an example of gross mass mis-education.

Anonymous said...

Except you need a lesson in english right about now. My hair tells my story is perfectly fine, conventional english usage. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Omer Wahaj said...

Hello Babar,

I appreciate your comment but I am still not convinced. You just simply stated that I was wrong and that you were right without giving me any proof or argument. I am a very logical person and I assure you that I will be convinced you are right if you can explain it to me logically and prove me wrong.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the English language/grammar; I am sure everything I write is riddled with many grammatical mistakes. However, some things just sound or feel right or wrong. This whole debate started when I first saw that ad and commented to a friend of mine about how I thought it was wrong English. She thought it was right. We ended up arguing about it and by the end of it all, she was half-convinced that I was right and I was half-convinced that I was wrong. That’s why I decided to post this topic here for more opinions and facts.

I have also been in contact with some 'English-daans' out there, and they have come up with a new angle for me to think about. They tell me that we are both right. It is right and wrong. The reason that they have given me is that the word ‘hair’ can be treated as two different kinds of noun: a normal noun, and a collective noun. The sentence appears to be correct if hair is treated as a singular collective noun (and they tell me that hair can never be treated as a plural collective noun, to which I half-disagree. Even if ‘hair’ can never be used as a plural collective noun - which I think it can be - its pronoun can surely be). However, if we were to consider the word as a normal noun, then the word ‘hair’ can either be singular or plural (‘hair’ meaning either one strand of hair, or many strands of hair). In this case, having ‘tells’ in front of it would signify that we are talking about just one strand of hair.

E.g:

This [group of] hair belongs to her (singular collective noun)

These [groups of] hair belong to her (plural collective noun)

This [strand of] hair belongs to her (singular noun)

These [strands of] hair belong to her (plural noun)


The Sunsilk ad creates confusion with its ambiguous tagline. If I (god-forbid) worked at Unilever, and I was (god-forbid even more) the brand manager for Sunsilk, I would have fought to have this tagline changed. But I don’t (thank god for that) and I am not (thank god for that even more), and the best I can do is blog and argue about it.

Unknown said...

I guess Mr. Suleman should get a grammar lesson and improve on his sentence skills. "Tells" sounds absolutely wrong to me on this quote by Iman Ali.

Anonymous said...

yes it totally sounds wrong and advertising plain sucks.

Anonymous said...

Someone here needs to read between the lines. I never said that the contrary was wrong. Hair can be used as singular and plural- Anybody with a little education can tell you that. So the tagline still remains, conventionally, correct.

Idly, here are two links most of the people in this discussion, will benefit from following:

http://www.rinkworks.com/words/wordforms.shtml

http://www.educationask.com/words-wordplay/1834-Words-Wordplay.html

So long, nitpickers.

H said...

Do we ever say 'they are a mess' when you talk about hair?

As far as arguing this with grammar rules is concerned, we can be here forever. English is a silly language.

The hair tells.
The hair STRANDS tell.

The examples you've given are of other words, but not all words stick to the general ruling.

Tasneem-Summer Khan said...

HAIR is an irregular collective noun. You would most definitely say 'What's wrong with your hair? It looks like a mess.' Not to me, of course, but that's a different story. The irregularity of the English language aside, why do you despise marketing? Didn't Don Draper make it cool again?