Home > City
Resources > Advertising
& Marketing > Gerson DA Cunha
|
| |
| |
 |
Gerson DA Cunha
Adman and Activist: Interview with Gerson Da Cunha
 Gerson Da Cunha is as multifaceted
as they come. He started his advertising career with J Walter Thomson
before moving to Lintas. He has been in theatre, advertising,
films, and numerous plays, in which he has played both Siddhartha
and Othello. 1980 saw him taking up an assignment with the United
Nations. He has acted in selected films like Pradip Kishen's
Electric Moon and Ismail Merchant's Cotton
Mary and more recently, Alyque Padamsee's Begum Sumroo.
Then there have been voice-overs for documentaries, ads, and
a recent CD with Vanraj Bhatia. Today, he devotes most of his
time to the city and its causes, playing a role in organisations like
CRY, Bombay First, AGNI, and Oval Cooperage
Residents Association.
On a rainy afternoon, in his apartment overlooking the Oval, we
catch up with Gerson DA Cunha - actor, adman, and activist.
On beginnings as a scribe:
I started as a journalist with PTI - Rueters. I worked for five years
at their office in Flora Fountain. Advertising was an accident. I
was sitting with a friend who was then with J Walter Thomson. Somebody
from the creative side of J Walter Thomson was passing by. He asked
me whether I was writer. I replied "No, I am a journalist." He was
looking out for copywriters for the agency and asked me whether I
would be interested in giving a copy test. By that time I was completely
disillusioned with journalism and gave it try. Got selected and joined
J Walter Thomson as a copywriter. From J Walter Thomson, shifted
to Lintas and stayed there for the rest of my career in advertising.
On journalism:
I found advertising much more honest than journalism. In advertising,
the advertiser knows his job. He uses a certain amount of creativity
with the intention to sell a product and makes no bones about it.
Journalism also can be creative but makes a lot of claims about itself.
It presents itself for what it is definitely not. After five years
in the field I knew the inside story and was glad to get out.
On advertising:
Advertising has the advantage that whatever you do is subject to the
approval of the market. If you do well, you know; if you do not, you
cannot escape from it. The market remains the final adjudicator of
your work.
On films:
I am not comfortable with film. Frankly, it is not something that
I notice. For me it does not offer the excitement that performing
in front of a live audience does. Plus unlike theatre, the actors
are only one of the factors that the director has to deal with and
you have to act according to his vision of the movie. Also, I find
acting in film more difficult. You do not get to play out your role
at a go. Your scenes are shot over time and you have to get into the
same character at every stage.
On the business scene then and now:
It was considered a low thing - to be in advertising. You had to be
an engineer or a doctor or something like that. People would not take
you seriously. "You make this!" or "You spent half the day deciding
whether 'Surf cleans whitest' or 'Surf cleans cleanest'! " Today,
here is this extraordinary emphasis on brand building. The product
does not seem to be important. You could make the whole ad and then
add any product at the end, be it a scooter, a soap or steel.
On UN work:
That was interesting. My work for UNESCO had to do with 'Programme
Communication'. It involved using the techniques of advertising and
marketing to achieve social and humanitarian ends.
On "a physically magnificent city by the sea becoming a decaying
slum-ridden megapolis shambling towards destruction."
Yes, I did say that [about Mumbai] somewhere. Yes, I am disappointed.
Maybe not with the city or its people, but definitely with its governance.
The city is becoming more intolerant, there is a suppression of democracy,
it's almost a provincial backwater. You have theatres being broken
because somebody does not agree with the film. And the most dangerous
result of all this is that the city is seeing an exodus of the wrong
kind. Some of the best talents - qualified people who can matter to
the development of the city, people in the age group of 18 to 30 -
are leaving the city. The city should have a million flowers blooming.
Instead it kind of resembles the purges in China when the entire intellectual
class was completely wiped out. The effects of it are seen even today
in China.
On the outlook:
 The only positive factor is that we are now seeing
some action by the citizens of Bombay. There are various initiatives
taken by the citizens themselves, be it NGOs or local welfare groups.
The idea must be to coordinate with the government departments whenever
possible, to let your voice be heard. There is a mobilisation of like-minded
people. You should remember that it was one vote that brought down
a government. It is such mobilisation by groups like AGNI - Action
for good Governance through Networking in India that gives me
hope.
|
|
|
7:43:55 PM 
