There was a time when the biggest fear was making an ad that nobody noticed. Today, brands worry about making one that everybody notices for the wrong reasons.
For brands, the creative process now begins with a different set of questions. Could this be misunderstood? Will it offend? Can we defend it if it does? Every creative decision is weighed against potential backlash, legal scrutiny, cultural sensitivities and the speed at which outrage spreads online. The result is an industry trying to create campaigns that spark conversations without becoming controversies.
Recent months have shown just how quickly public opinion can turn. Verka faced criticism over a Reel perceived as trivialising abduction. Amazon Now drew flak for its Aryabhata campaign, while Dinshaw Ice Cream’s campaign featuring Vinod Kambli also came under scrutiny. Different campaigns, different triggers, but all reminders that advertising is now judged almost as quickly as it is released.
For marketers, the question is no longer just whether an idea will capture attention. It’s whether it can withstand the scrutiny that follows.
From creative bravery to calculated risk
Advertising has never been risk-free. The campaigns that are remembered decades later often challenged conventions, questioned norms or surprised audiences. What has changed is not the existence of risk, but its consequences.
Ladeesh PC, Director and Co-Founder of Estilocus, believes the industry often mistakes fear for brand safety. “Caution has increased, but I’d separate two things that often get bundled together, fear and discipline,” he says. “A lot of brands have become fearful, and that shows up as bland, forgettable communication dressed up as ‘safe’.”
He points to Estilocus’ campaign featuring actor Fahadh Faasil wrapped in a newspaper as an example of taking creative risks without compromising on brand values. “It was a deliberately unconventional visual for menswear, with no polished styling or obvious aspirational cues. It would have been easier to play safer. But it was completely true to what ‘Wear Who You Are’ means. That’s the test we apply. If a bold idea aligns with our philosophy, we push it. If it’s bold only for shock value, we drop it.”
That distinction, between being provocative and being authentic is one echoed across the industry.
Kruthika Ravindran, Director – New Business & Key Accounts, TheSmallBigIdea, says, “The real danger isn’t being bold. It is feeling disconnected from your audience,” she says. “If an idea comes from a genuine brand truth and resonates with people, it’s worth standing by, even if it starts conversations. The goal isn’t to avoid reactions, but to spark the right ones.”
She points to the agency’s ‘Liver Ki Suno’ campaign for Zydus as an example. “Liver health isn’t a category people naturally engage with, so we chose a more conversational, relatable approach to make the message land. It was a creative risk because health communication can easily become sensational, but we stayed true to the brand’s purpose and kept the storytelling authentic.”
Tarun Joshi, Founder & CEO of IGP, says the balance comes from understanding the audience rather than avoiding risk altogether. “Sensitivity doesn’t mean playing it safe. Our campaigns lean into bold, culturally resonant storytelling while remaining rooted in warmth and genuine emotion. Understanding the audience deeply enough is what allows bold storytelling and responsible communication to coexist.”
The rise of committee creativity
If creativity hasn’t disappeared, it has certainly become more scrutinised. Ideas that once moved from creative teams to production now travel through legal departments, corporate communications, PR teams and senior leadership before receiving approval.
“What has changed is the approval process,” says Ravindran. “Earlier, brands asked, ‘Will this work?’ Today they also ask, ‘What if this goes wrong?’”
Masuma Siddique, Founder and Chief Strategist at InkCraft Communications, has noticed a similar evolution. “Risk assessment has moved upstream,” she says. “What often reaches audiences is the most defensible version of the idea rather than the most memorable one.”
Jag Chima, Co-founder of IPLIX Media, doesn’t see this as entirely negative. Greater collaboration between marketing, legal and PR teams, he believes, is producing stronger campaigns. “The campaigns that stand out today aren’t the ones trying to be controversial. They’re culturally relevant, authentic and backed by a clear purpose.”
The challenge, then, isn’t scrutiny itself. It’s ensuring scrutiny doesn’t become a substitute for conviction.
Safe doesn’t always mean effective
Ironically, playing safe can create a different problem. Advertising that avoids offending everyone often struggles to excite anyone.
Disha Shah, Founder and Designer of DiAi Designs, believes many campaigns today are being “refined into irrelevance” before they ever reach audiences.
She points to DiAi’s Unrounds collection launch as an example of choosing conviction over caution. “We shot the campaign on real women with scars, stretch marks, acne and bodies that the industry rarely puts in a jewellery campaign. We were genuinely uncertain about how it would land. The response surprised us. It did exceptionally well and taught us that audiences are far more ready for honest, relatable storytelling than most brands give them credit for. The risk that feels biggest in the boardroom is often the one that resonates most with the people you’re trying to reach.”
Malvika Mehra, Creative Head, Marketing at Dinshaw’s Dairy Foods, believes brands often confuse being bold with simply being provocative. There is a danger that brands begin optimising for not offending anyone instead of creating work that people genuinely remember. The result can be communication that is perfectly safe but also perfectly forgettable.
She says that philosophy guided the brand’s recent campaign featuring Vinod Kambli. “There was some discussion around whether audiences would embrace a campaign centred on an underdog like Mr Vinod Kambli instead of the familiar tropes of the category. We chose to back the idea because it was anchored in a genuine product advantage and reflected the brand’s generous spirit. For us, that’s what responsible creative risk looks like.”
Kaushik Das, Founder and CEO of regional OTT platform AAO NXT, believes entertainment brands feel this pressure even more. “When every campaign is engineered to survive the worst possible screenshot, much of the work ends up safe, similar and forgettable.” His approach is simple. “We’ll take risks on the story, never with the culture.”
Authenticity as the new safety net
Rather than seeing brand safety and creativity as opposing forces, several marketers believe authenticity is becoming the industry’s strongest defence. “Caution has definitely gone up,” says Varun Arora, CEO and Co-Founder of EkoStay. “But the answer to backlash risk is not blandness. It is clarity. At EkoStay, campaigns are judged on whether the creative risk strengthens the idea or merely decorates it.”
Sahil Madan, Co-Founder and CBO of Handpickd, describes the company’s approach as an aggressive filter for authenticity rather than caution. He adds, “When the entire ecosystem was screaming ‘10-minute delivery’, our storytelling boldly questioned that premise by prioritising ‘freshness over speed’. Standing against the convenience tide was a calculated creative risk. But because it drew from a very real household frustration of receiving warehouse-aged produce, it didn’t just protect our reputation; it built deep, defensible community trust.”
Kimmy Babbar, Chief Communications Officer at JCBL Group, believes authenticity is a brand’s strongest safeguard. “If a story truly communicates the truth about your brand, there is no need to fret about the risks involved. When your story is authentic, bold storytelling becomes a strength, not a risk,” she says.
Has influencer marketing become the safer bet?
As traditional advertising comes under greater scrutiny, many brands are leaning more heavily on influencer-led content. But Sudipta Sengupta, Founder and CEO of The Healthy Indian Project, believes that it may offer only an illusion of safety. “Influencers often stretch product claims, blur ethical lines or present sponsored content in ways a brand manager would never approve in a conventional advertisement,” he says. “While the immediate backlash usually lands on the influencer, the damage doesn't stop there. It chips away at the brand’s credibility too.”
In other words, avoiding creative risk in advertising doesn’t necessarily eliminate reputational risk. It may simply shift where that risk appears.
Brand safety and creativity need not exist at opposite ends of the spectrum. But when caution begins to outweigh conviction, advertising risks losing the very quality that makes it memorable.
The challenge isn’t avoiding controversy at all costs. It’s creating work that’s bold enough to be remembered and authentic enough to be defended.
