When a fashion designer is asked to “no-go” a fashion advertisement, he or she is often asked to give a “no” answer.
If a designer refuses, the advertiser has the right to use their own brand name or logo in a new advertisement.
But in many cases, a designer’s decision to not use their brand name is seen as a way to prevent them from being seen as racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, according to an analysis by the Centre for Research on Civic Education (CRED).
The report, which was commissioned by the Delhi-based organisation and the Indian Council of Fashion (ICF), says that in India, the choice to reject an advertisement can have “significant” repercussions on the work being done in the industry.
“When an advertisement is rejected, the brand may feel as though they are in a situation of disadvantage or under-resourced,” says a report by CRED and ICF, which is based on a survey of over 3,000 fashion designers.
“This may be because a designer has been asked to use a brand name for a long time, or because the brand is owned by a member of the family, or it may be that a brand has not been chosen for a period of time and there is no demand for it,” the report states.
The report points to the case of Bijay Bhaskar, who refused an advertisement from Bollywood’s Akshay Kumar and is now facing backlash on social media.
Bhaskari’s brand name was being used for a fashion campaign with the slogan “Make a fashion dream come true”.
A spokesperson for Bhaskars fashion brand, The Akshaya Foundation, told The Times of India, “The brand has always chosen a brand that is unique to it.
However, we are currently looking into this matter and will provide an explanation in the next few days.””
The brand’s decision is in no way racist or sexist,” the spokesperson added.
“We want to reiterate that our team works with diverse groups of people, from all walks of life, so we don’t expect that every single one of our customers will feel the same way as us.
We want to make sure that everyone is treated with respect.”
The CRED report also states that when an ad is rejected by a fashion brand for a specific reason, the “advertiser’s choice of brand name will be attributed to a group that includes a number of individuals.
This will help in protecting the identity of the brand and ensure that no other group is excluded from the advertisement.”
For instance, if a designer was asked to change their name to “Yadav Bhaskaran” or “Prakash Bhaskalan”, they may be expected to “use a brand identity that is part of the same family, in the same area, or in a similar fashion”.
“This may lead to the designer feeling as though the brand does not represent their views and they may feel that their brand is being used in a way that is offensive to them,” the CRED research says.
If a designer chooses to keep their brand’s brand identity, they may not be able to claim to be a part of a “diverse” group and so are left with “no brand name”, the report says.
It adds that when a designer “refuses to use the brand name of another brand, or uses a brand-name that is not part of their family, the advertising will be viewed as biased, as they are making an endorsement of the person who is using their brand and are therefore not representing the diversity of the society.”
The CRES report also points out that the refusal to use “a brand name that is in the family” is not necessarily racist.
“For example, the family of a fashion design designer might be a woman, or even a black man.
It is important to understand that a designer cannot use a colour that is a racial colour.
They have to use it to show that they are not a racist,” the study says.
“But, it is also important to know that a person may be offended if their designer uses a colour like red or green for their brand that does not reflect their culture.
So, the designer should consider whether they can use that colour to show their family,” the research says, adding that the use of a colour is a “choice” and not a “mandate”.”
If a brand does choose to use that brand name, it can be a choice that can be made by the designer,” the statement adds.
“A designer can choose not to use this colour in their advertising, and if they choose to, it will not be considered as a racist decision,” it states.
The study also found that “a designer’s choice not to wear a brand is a choice about whether the brand should be seen as inclusive or exclusionary,” it says.
However “the designer has to take into consideration the circumstances and