As part of a business group whose history includes several iconic ads, we were keen to engage more deeply on the subject of how advertising influences culture. That’s where Kantar comes in. They’re not just about data and insights—they’re making waves by driving real change in diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their Brand Inclusion Index, the first of its kind in India, and their partnership with the Unstereotype Alliance under UN Women have been huge in making Indian advertising more inclusive for major brands like HUL.

We had the opportunity to speak with Soumya Mohanty, Managing Director of Kantar India, to know how they’re pushing the boundaries of inclusivity and creating a more equitable future for brands, while also addressing the challenges of navigating a generational shift in the Indian cultural context. It’s a conversation full of insights you don’t want to miss—keep reading! 

The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Abhinandan Dheiman: Can you tell us about the impact Kantar is making in collaboration with UN Women under the Unstereotype Alliance? What specific initiatives do you work on for India?

Soumya Mohanty: We partner with Unstereotype Alliance to evangelise the idea of advertising being more inclusive and diverse. In this context, we have introduced the Gender Unstereotype Metric, which we use in all our advertising pre-testing. Some brands use it a lot more and use it to build a more inclusive advertising.

For example, Unilever is a part of this journey, to build more inclusive advertising and we have created a playbook where we have identified guardrails on what advertising should be, but also how we can have more positive representation. And that's something they are scaling up and cascading internally. They’ve also made their agency partners to be a part of it, so all their briefs go with that. That's one overall organisation that I want to talk about. Many other companies have started to use the Gender Unstereotype metric nowadays.

AD: Can you explain the Gender Unstereotype Metric more?

SM: The Gender Unstereotype metric measures inclusion and diversity in advertising. There are two key questions. One of them is around a more progressive portrayal of gender, we call it (GUM). The other is around more progressive portrayals of people, which we call (PUM). So, when we do advertising pre-testing, we create a metric which then measures across ads to see whether they’re inclusive or not.

AD: That brings me to the Brand Inclusion Index. Could you tell our readers a bit about it?

SM: The Brand inclusion index is about inclusivity for brands, not only for advertising. So it transcends advertising, and looks at all areas in the product life cycle. Effectively, it goes across all the pillars of diversity and inclusion that a brand can act upon, both externally for its consumers, and internally for its employees. There are nine key metrics that we use and then we create this single brand inclusion index.

It is the first of its kind in India, and the first time we have done it globally. India is one of the first countries where we rolled it out, this year. During the survey, we met consumers and asked them questions about different categories. A few categories have been covered, and we asked them questions about different brands, and how inclusive those brands are. We have published rankings in each of those categories, and what can be done to enhance positive portrayals and more inclusive strategies. It’s the first year, and initial steps in this direction.

The Index’s evaluation parameters are in a comprehensive range, which includes strategy, diversity and inclusion. So effectively, as I said, it looks at the entire brand's lifecycle from product to advertising to point of sale, which is as far as external consumers are concerned. Then, it looks at the brand strategy: Are we attracting diverse groups of people? Are we an equitable organisation internally for our employees?

Then it looks at accessibility, and it looks at whether we are participating in building a more inclusive society. So effectively it's consumers, employees and society.

AD: What are some of the milestones in your journey of making inclusion a key part of market research and data analytics? What are some challenges you’re still trying to solve?

SM: Inclusion is a relatively new focus. Everybody talks about it, but to put it bluntly, we're a commercial organisation. When we publish something like a Brand Inclusion Index, something around how brands can build a more inclusive culture externally and internally, we would expect people to sort of adopt it. However, commercially it hasn't been very successful.

Many brands are not really keen to understand why they are perceived as inclusive or not. Even on the advertising side, while we have the Unstereotype Metric across all our advertising testing, not every brand uses it. So we don’t even report it everywhere. It won't be substantial until and unless brands themselves feel there is a need to audit what they are doing from the standpoint of diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than just having something good to be just tick-marked. It won't be a genuine thing. That's what I would say is the challenge.

As a research organisation, we publish thought papers and present our findings, globally. For example, we presented at the Unstereotype Alliance Forum, where we showed that while the presence of females in Indian advertising is almost equal to males, the roles are still traditional. So presence is not an issue, but roles are. We also showed that a diverse body type is not something that is very evident. Even if it's the same body type, females are still expected to be fair and, you know, conforming to a certain body shape.

So we can publish stuff, we can talk about it in forums: that's the best we can do. We can provide data. We can say from the Brand Inclusion Index, we know that 85% or 86% of Indians actually want brands to be more inclusive, which is ahead of the global 75%. That's a data point that we are putting out there. Now brands need to act upon it.

AD: We are living through a generational shift and the creation of a culture that demands everyone be welcomed and understood. How difficult is it for traditional brands to reposition themselves for more inclusivity, so they remain relevant to both Millennials and Gen Z without compromising their existing customer base?

SM: We need to understand that Gen Z is not a monolith. Gen Z in metro cities is not the same as Gen Z in Tier-3 cities or rural areas. Let's not club them as one group. But there are certain shared traits they have which brands need to understand. I think one of the biggest shared realities they have is connection to  social media. They’re a digital generation, living much of their life online. It doesn't matter if they're in Prayagraj or they're in Mumbai. So, the ability to share and form opinions based on what they are exposed to was not something that the earlier generations had.

Brands need to truly understand Gen Z. They need to start having a dialogue rather than a monologue. Because social media is a dialogue, fundamentally. Then again, I think increasingly, social media is also starting to become monologues because people are not sharing as much as they are receiving in terms of advertising. This will start putting off Gen Z, because they will be pushed to private groups, they'll start creating more and more restricted access groups, where they have more control. The fundamental thing brands need to do is to listen and then be a part of the conversation.

As for maintaining their existing customer base, I think the existing target group has also moved online. Everybody today wants to have a dialogue rather than be told, this is what the brand is. That's how the content has to be a lot more authentic and should feel real. If you're taking television advertising, and you're just creating content and putting it online, then you are not truly participating in what people want to participate in. 

AD: Is there something you think newer brands – which have a headstart on building an inclusive brand and culture – can learn from some of India’s older brands and advertisers? (It’s totally okay to say no!)

SM: One of the lessons newer brands can  learn is consistency. See, forget about whether you are doing hard-hitting social messaging or not. The fact is that legacy brands were built on a lot of conviction, and they maintained that. A lot of the advertising resonates with us even today, because it was very well crafted and it was consistent and they didn't keep changing. If they didn't get feedback for one day on social media, doesn't mean that they changed it. There was no social media back then!

I mean, look at Cadbury's ads. Look at Maggi. These brands were built on brilliantly consistent advertising. Sometimes you need to not listen to your consumer mindlessly. You need to understand what they're talking about, but you need your own conviction and you need to stand by it as well. That's what I think new brands can learn from the legacy brands. New brands are too much into performance marketing, they're just not focusing as much into brand building which is going to be a challenge at some point in time.

AD: How can traditional Indian businesses ensure that their brands are perceived as inclusive by diverse groups of people? Is there an ‘Indian’ way to do it? Should brand positioning be changed for different groups?

SM: Brands need to have the courage and conviction to take a stand. There is no point jumping on a bandwagon and then apologising. Generally, they put out very strong messages and then just pull it back. So you need to believe in what you're doing—not just treat it like an advertising campaign.

The second thing is you need to do it in a culturally relevant way. You can build progressive codes without necessarily alienating a large group of people, slowly and steadily. I think Dove did that long back, and they have stuck to it. In some way, Lifebuoy tries to do it. A lot of the Unilever brands try to do it. You don't have to do it in a hard-hitting way. Just normalising representation of every type of group rather than making it something very specific. Treat everybody like humans and just normalise it.

Also, I think rural groups are not well represented in most of our advertising, unless you're making something which is only going to be available in rural India. There are certain professions that are not very well represented either. You don't see farmers in regular advertising. Regular advertising still has a very typical code of the man and the woman in certain professions, two children - so I think the way to appear diverse would be to show diversity of professions, diversity of body types, diversity of skin types, all kinds.

A lot of companies have corporate social responsibility funds that they spend. But is there something beyond that, something that can make a real difference? For example, if you are an oral health brand, can you do something about disadvantaged groups in terms of promoting, let's say, dental education among them? I think these are some real things that Indian brands can do.

When you say “Indian way,” what I would say, it is fundamentally an inclusive way. We are fundamentally a very inclusive culture. We know how to live side by side, because we have to adjust, right? We don't need to be taught inclusion, we just need to start becoming more normal about it. Just do it in a softer way. Even small things like “no firecrackers” creates a reaction, which may reduce the noise and make it just more normal. The Indian way is about finding the middle ground.

AD: Let’s talk a bit more about how inclusive Indian advertising really is. Almost one-third of India's population lives in rural areas, which is a large customer base and also culturally varied. How would you like to see brands represent themselves inclusively in these areas?

SM: I would say that it is improving. Our Unstereotype metric has improved, especially post-COVID, but it has dropped a bit recently, even in terms of gender progressive portrayals.

Rural representation is important but even in gender portrayal, we have not even moved beyond the nurturer or caregiver role for women. Even when they’re working, they're coming home to care for the family. So that doesn't fundamentally change. It looks very abnormal that when you're just showing a man washing utensils just because you know, you just have to show it.

I would say urban gender portrayals lack the diversity of professions, especially lower socio-economic classes. It's like our advertising is getting created by people who have never lived that life at all. I think the diversity should start from the brand's own workforce. The people we hire need to be a little more diverse, both in advertising agencies and on the brand side. That diversity will automatically bring a lot more strands of, I would say, inclusion without it looking like it's being force-fitted. But how many people truly in an ad agency would be coming from, you know, one generation removed from farming? Maybe there are. If there are, then it will automatically reflect in the way we create.

We also don't test enough; we don't check enough either, so it's like a lot of the advertising gets made on assumptions. It gets put out there and we believe there are certain trends, we believe that this [or that] works. We need to test our advertising for diversity. Those are the two things to do, I’d say.

AD: What are some common mistakes you’ve noticed among companies when it comes to inclusive advertising and how can these pitfalls be avoided?

SM: First: Please test advertising! That's essential. Second, the pitfall is simply lack of courage and conviction. Often, brands withdraw their campaigns out of fear of anticipated backlash. What testing gives you is the chance of a backlash. It tells you if it's going to be polarising. You make a decision whether you want to go ahead, risk the backlash and stand your ground, or not air it. But if you don't even know there's going to be a backlash, then you are missing some insight into your audience. So be clear on who your audience is, how they're going to react to your advertising. After you have understood that completely, then take a call. Once you've decided to do it, stand by it.

The other thing I would say is that we go very hard. If we at all want to shift, number one, are we doing it because we want to shift some views people have and we want to be the shaper of those opinions. That is why we want to take the lead, like Nike. We want to be the brand known for progressive values. That's why we do it. Now, when you do it because of that, then your brand has to stand for that. Not one piece of advertising, but your whole brand has to stand for that. You take baby steps towards it. Start by not suddenly coming up with something which is going to, you know, make people polarised. Start by showing a little wider representation than you do today. Increase it further, take smaller causes. There are many things you can talk about. When we have to pick up the most controversial or provocative thing to talk about, then we are doing it for virality. We are not serving the purpose of inclusion or diversity.

Take an example of people with disabilities: there's nothing provocative, there is nothing controversial at work. Why are they not more part of our advertising? Just people in a normal household context, like a juice advertisement: not as an object to get empathy, but just normal people, right? That’s not a controversial topic. So do we choose a topic? Are we picking a topic for virality? Or are we picking a topic because we genuinely believe in it? I think that's the sort of pitfall I would want brands to avoid.

In case of a backlash, just own up to it. I would say: This is what we intended to do, maybe. ‘Didn’t land the way it was supposed to land.’ Instead of taking it down. Say that this is what we believe in, and this is why we did it. This isn’t directly related to inclusion, but if you look at the Maggi fiasco that happened quite a while back and then the way Maggi came back, I mean: they took it head-on. You have to be strong about it, you have to believe in your brand.

AD: Say a bit more about how important it is for brands to incorporate DEI practices within their organisations to ensure these values are reflected in their advertising? Also, how does Kantar ensure diversity and inclusion within its own workforce, and what steps are taken to promote an inclusive workplace culture?

SM: I think in one line I would answer, you need to measure and monitor. It's all very good to say that we are doing XYZ. Right? If there is no measurement and monitoring of that XYZ by an independent third party, then it just remains something good on paper. For example, Unilever advertising takes Unstereotype metrics very seriously. It is what has made their advertising become more and more progressive over time. You can still say that an ad is not, like, best on an Unstereotype metric, but I'm still going ahead with it. You at least recognise what could happen. And over time, it automatically becomes a part of the way you think.

For organisations: if you're advertising something and, due to social media's transparency, you’re not inclusive internally, consumers will notice. They understand. Your advertising to your external consumer and who you are internally, has to align. Otherwise, it just looks hypocritical.

From the Kantar standpoint, the research industry itself is quite inclusive in terms of gender for sure. Does it attract a lot of women? I think we have more than 50% of women in our workforce. Even in our most senior leadership, we have about a 50-50 balance. So our industry has shifted a lot more to other types of inclusion. We have employee resource groups  run by young people, which are extremely successful. We have a group for women, young moms. We have a group for ageism. We openly celebrate Pride, showcasing our commitment to inclusivity.

We’re not 100% on everything, but we recognise the need for inclusion because we are in a profession where we listen to consumers. We need a diversity of people and diversity of thoughts. It helps us be better. It's a commercial imperative for us, and that is why we want to build an even more diverse and inclusive organisation.

At Kantar, we have people who go out and do service. That's a very inclusive workforce because the people who do that come from everywhere in India, every kind of city, every kind of town, every socioeconomic group. The average age could be about 28 years or 30 years of the organisation, for 80% to 85% of our workforce. We have realised that young people want a more inclusive workspace.

AD: Do you think DEI is an emerging trend in the market research industry in India? How does Kantar differentiate itself compared to other market research and data analytics firms?

SM: I don't think DEI is a trend. To call it a trend, it’s misleading. I think it's something integral to what brands and advertising should be about. That's why Kantar is in this space. Not to differentiate ourselves from others, but because we genuinely believe in it. Whether it's differentiated or not, it is not relevant. We believe in it.

Image provided by the Kantar team. Interview by Abhinandan Dheiman.