HarperCollins Rahul tweet: Should brands be getting into politics?

Last night, preceding, during and after Rahul Gandhi's interview on Times Now, twitter was at its best - or at its worst, depending on your point of view.

There were many critical of Gandhi's performance, with some of the comments being vicious and vile. In the midst of the noise, twitter became a warzone of criticism and counter-criticism. The critics were winning.

In the midst of the din, this tweet popped up on my timeline. "The most hilarious 60 minutes of 2014, so far #rahulspeakstoarnab." This tweet was, perhaps, the most tame and most innocuous of the tweets one was seeing - and yet it caught my eye.

It did so because this tweet came from a company handle. The publisher of the tweet was also a publisher of books, HarperCollins. Why would HarperCollins comment on what was clearly a political event? Immediately on seeing this, I tweeted this out.

More from Brands

This exchange quickly followed:

@calamur @HarperCollinsIN Someone at @HarperCollinsIN should. This is playing with fire.

- Anant Rangaswami (@AnantRangaswami) January 27, 2014

It was deleted, but, as we all know, the damage is done.

Madhavan Narayanan, a senior and respected journalist, didn't find it offensive and believes that brands should be honest in the new age. I agree about the need for brands to be honest - but not on the offensive aspect.

To begin with, there is no need for any brand to get into controversial territory unless the controversy directly affects the brand or the category that the brand is in. More importantly, the brand has no business airing an opinion on a controversy of which they are not involved in - even if the 'brand' has an opinion.

[caption id="attachment_1362671" align="alignleft" width="380"] A screengrab of the tweet before it was deleted[/caption]

HarperCollins, the brand, may have an opinion on the cost of imported paper, on the paucity of bookshops and writers, on censorship of books, on books being banned, and so on. It can also have an opinion on, say, FDI in the publishing sector or customs duties on printing machinery imports. However, to be more precise, it is not the brand that will have the opinion - it will be the senior-most people who have the opinion and air it. This, then, becomes the opinion of the brand.

Once this opinion is aired, those who follow the brand - in this case HarperCollins - read the opinion. As long as HarperCollins restricts the comments to the areas described above, the brand's fans and followers see the updates as informative, educational and even entertaining. There is no downside for Harper.

However, once these opinions cross the boundaries of the direct business of the brand, there are downsides. HarperCollins followers on twitter (nearly 4,000 of them) could be BJP, Congress or AAP followers or fans. They could also be totally apolitical.

If they are political, HarperCollins would quickly be tagged as pro-BJP or anti-Congress immediately after the tweet - and that is so unnecessary. Obviously, diehard Congress supporters would be immediately incensed by the tweet.

That is so unnecessary - to upset followers or fans for a reason completely disconnected from your business. If followers are upset because they are disappointed with the production quality of a book or with a book that is over priced, that's fine. But this is not.

HarperCollins having an opinion on politics and airing it is like a steward at a restaurant telling a frequent and happy guest that he doesn't like the saree that she is wearing.

That would be downright stupid - and the waiter would, and should, be sacked.