MTN TV commercial, “Na Boy," needs no introduction, thanks to the power of disruption, a strategy in advertising, which is supposedly the catalyst for change that affects every aspect of our lives, companies and brands.



According to Jean- Marie Dru of TBWA-Paris, disruption is “the strategic idea that breaks and overturns convention in the marketplace, and then makes it possible to reach a new vision." Leon Orsmond of Osmosis, an ideas company, based in South Africa, supports Dru’s view by asserting that disruption is about thinking big and bold, selling brave ideas and above all, creating dramatic business results for one’s clients and oneself. Meanwhile the entire process is driven by, strategic planners and creative thinkers, who by- pass the conventional approach in preference for a non- linear advertising methodology.

In the absence of a forum like the Super Bowl, where consumers watch advertisements for fun and talk about them for a long time, some of our advertising agencies are beginning to devise memorable creative ideas. It is a known fact in experimental psychology that if something is discussed after it has been seen it helps to reinforce the memory. Do you now understand the “Na Boy" strategy?

It is not surprising that advertisers in the United States pay as much as $80,000 per second to appear on the Super Bowl, thereby making it the world’s costliest media buy. The Super Bowl, in addition to being TV’s top- rated sports event, is often the biggest TV show of the year. Last year’s game was watched by an estimated audience of 143.6 million. When you have a huge audience, it helps your return-on-investment.

I am of the opinion that empathy naturally translates to good product positioning. Product positioning is a function of how the product is perceived by the target audience. It is therefore important the target audience is understood especially in terms of its attributes, e.g. language, gender, demographics, etc. However, it is believed in some circles that courting controversy is one of many ways in which a marketing organization makes its brand to stand out.

Indeed, Anheuser- Busch, America’s beer marketing giant, had sparked off controversy of its own in last year’s Super Bowl with a commercial that featured a flatulent horse and a crotch- biting dog. Fortunately for it, its bottom line was not affected. Despite the fact that Calvin Klein advertisements use the most indecent images, it is visibly one of the most dominant companies in the consumer market.

Nike Inc., mega- marketer in sports shoes, has a history of making controversial advertisements, and it certainly has succeeded in that. Recently, the Chinese government banned the company’s advertisements, which showed basketball star LeBron James killing a Chinese Dragon and a Kung fu master, two symbols revered in Chinese culture. Nike’s excuse was that it did not set out to deliberately disrespect China’s culture. Its spokeswoman in China, Shelley Peng, said the advertisements were meant to inspire youth to conquer obstacles, depicted by the Kung fu and Dragons. Asia, including China,

actually accounted for about 13 per cent of Nike’s total revenue in 2003. Ironically, the controversial advertisements had won the hearts of teenagers, Nike’s main target in Asia.

The MTV- produced Super Bowl Halftime show last year is still an issue in America. As a matter of fact, Anheuser- Busch was almost going to run a spot in this year’s game for Bud Light showing a fictitious comical prelude to Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction." It will be recalled that Janet used the episode to get a little free publicity for her “Damita jo" album, which came out a month after.

I have to confess that my immediate reaction to the “Na Boy" commercial was that of ambivalence. However, I know that so much offensive responses have been elicited by the commercial. Potentially, the latter can translate to product alienation- imagine what happens if female brand activists of this country decide to mobilize a gender boycott of MTN lines! Not long ago, Toyota learned the hard way as a result of a direct mail advertisement showing a smiling mouth displaying tooth jewelry in its RA V4 utility vehicle. Its consumers considered the advertisement culturally insensitive, while sales, naturally, slipped.

It is noteworthy that the MTN advertisement was not submitted to the Advertising Standards Panel (ASP) before it was exposed. Perhaps, the Panel would have recommended the necessary pre- exposure amendments. As subtly “disruptive" as ‘Na Boy" may look, can we successfully link it with the quality of service MTN dishes out these days? Or is it“hype"?

While Nike’s long history of edgy sales messages positions the company as a corporate rebel, there is no doubt that it has succeeded in endearing itself to youth. MTN’s “Na Boy" could be an ignorant error or a marketing misfire. However, the underlying strategy could be “disruption." On Nike’s Chinese “gaffe," Bruce Newman, professor of marketing at DePaul University in Chicago has this to say: “It could… be a case of knowing that if they can connect with a young audience… there could be a swelling of demand such that they could care less about what the government says."

Considering the controversy generated by “Na Boy," I believe that the media need to be more circumspect in their ultimate drive for revenue. It goes without saying that when the media are funded by advertisements their prime function will be to produce audiences for sale to advertisers. It is also sad that most media executives surrender to the alter of profits at the expense of ethics.

By failing to subject the “Na Boy" commercial to statutory vetting and media clearance, coupled with the hue and cry, which trailed it, MTN has proved to be rebellious. And my question to the “creative disruptors" is: “What has been the commercial’s ROI to MTN?"