the cyber police at BKC he had met with Myntra officials in early January after they received a written complaint from Ekta Naaz, founding director of the Avesta Foundation, in December demanding “that the logo be changed” or they could face legal action. The brand also sparked abuse on social media after Patel addressed the matter on online forums and social media sites.
“In accordance with our meeting, we wish to inform you that we have decided to revise the Myntra logo,” read a letter from the online fashion retailer to the lead inspector, Cyber Police, with a picture of the new logo in its modified colors. DCP (Cyber) Rashmi Karandikar said: “We found the logo to be offensive in nature and company officials have assured us that they will change it, but that it will take a month to run on all platforms.”
While Myntra in their letter to the police said that they would “soon take the necessary steps to revise the logo on the website and the app,” they noted that they could start using the new logo on their packaging and marketing material after exhausting their Inventory of “pre-printed physical material with existing logo throughout India”.
This is another side of intolerance. A brand that is forced to change its logo because the overactive imagination of some people who find it offensive is unacceptable. Logos are a crucial part of building a brand and a successful brand like Myntra would have spent millions of rupees to establish its logo as a familiar symbol in the minds of its customers. All that money, time and effort has now been wasted through no fault of the company.
Naaz’s defenders, Rakesh Rathod and Vijayalaxmi Khopade, in their complaint stated that “the general placement of the color scheme” of the letter “M” in the logo was “obscene in the eyes of any person of normal prudence” and stated that it was. “The deliberate placement of the color scheme” to “represent a woman’s vagina and thus is again highlighted by the color scheme to represent her spread legs in a suggestive way.” The complaint alleged that “such depiction of a woman and her private parts … as the object of lust” “would corrupt the minds of viewers and even excite them” and “this would lead to further victimization of women in our society.”
Nandita Gandhi of the Akshara Center, who has played an active role in the women’s movement for decades, told TOI: “When I heard about the controversy, I looked at the logo again. As activists in the women’s movement, we have looked at the issue. broader objectification of women in pictures, especially in ads, but I couldn’t find it in this rather abstract logo. I also didn’t find any stereotypes, nor was it pornographic in nature. ”
Myntra’s capitulation comes at a time when brands and marketing campaigns have frequently been courting a hate-driven backlash on social media, forcing them to remove ads that risk attacks not just online but even on your doorstep. Case in point: The Tanishq announcement featuring a Muslim family hosting a baby shower for their Hindu daughter-in-law.
Advertising veteran Sumanto Chattopadhyay, president and chief creative officer of 82.5 Communications, Ogilvy Group, explained why companies often succumb to such pressure. “We live in a hyper-connected society where everyone has a voice and brands and advertising are easy targets as it is seen to be about profit. With a large army of people waiting to be offended and in a climate where things don’t fading fast, not an ideal situation for any brand, even if they are innocent and something has been misunderstood. Brands are all about perception and companies cannot ignore the slightest outrage as it can snowball out of control, “he said.
.
