CHENNAI: On February 2, a post appeared on reality show celebrity Poonam Pandey’s Instagram page announcing that the 32-year-old had died of cervical cancer. “Every living form that ever came in contact with her was met with pure love and kindness” said the unattributed post, going on to request privacy during a time of grief.
The following day, Pandey posted a video of herself saying that she was very much alive, unlike hundreds of thousands who had lost their battles with cervical cancer, and spoke about the preventability of the disease and the availability of vaccines. The background score was irritatingly sentimental. The sentiment itself was, to many, infuriating.
The publicity stunt — which may also be called an awareness campaign — was orchestrated by Pandey and two digital media companies, Schbang and Hauterfly. Stunt or campaign, it was deeply insensitive to people currently fighting cancer, their loved ones, and to those who have lost loved ones to the disease. Even illness notwithstanding, that someone can declare themselves dead one day and then pop up the next and say they were kidding is insulting to anyone who has experienced a true brush with their own mortality or another’s.
The stunt was quickly and widely condemned as being in poor taste. Excuses weren’t made. The associated companies justified their actions by stating that Google searches for the disease increased on the day when the public had believed Pandey had died. A mention was also made, perhaps as an appeal for sympathy, of how Pandey’s mother was a cancer survivor. An overall response of disgust from the public remains.
The use of shock is an old tactic, often used in advertising and in any kind of promotion. The decision to employ such a tactic is one with an inherent risk, which is a loss of credibility. If Pandey is sincere in becoming a healthcare advocate, it is unlikely she will participate in a similar campaign again. While it’s true that certain causes — notably, animal rights causes — use shock as a pivotal part of their communication, more thoughtful methods can have a deeper impact. This is not to say that someone out there won’t be saved because they heard about HPV for the first time on Instagram a few days ago. The means remain lazy and sensationalist, no matter the ends.
The public response to this stunt is a good sign, because it indicates unwillingness to be made fools of. Skepticism is a healthy thing in an era in which no institution and no brand can be trusted (and indeed, individuals are also expected to be, or choose to be, brands these days — Poonam Pandey, for one). However, this stunt is hardly a ripple in the larger pond. How are we responding to fake news, governmental propaganda, marketing and advertising and algorithmic manipulation? We aren’t doing so well on those counts. We are constantly being made fools of.
It’s easy to be angry with a celebrity who did something poorly thought-through, but that anger would be more relevantly utilised if it was directed at those doing harms greater than insensitivity. Our attention on them is constantly distracted — evidently. It shouldn’t be.