“Selling Culture: The Ethical Erosion of Tradition in Contemporary Advertising”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbiIqwh2rg.          

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FR8lUhKee4.      

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKHkcfnxhT4.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A45Iz2_6Ri4.     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V3kTlqDlQ&t=31s.  

1. Context: The Lay’s “Love to Love It” Campaign

The Lay’s “Love to Love It” Indian campaign (by PepsiCo India) is described as aiming to depict how the taste of the snack is so irresistible you will act out of character. 
Key features:

• It uses a celebrity (Ranbir Kapoor) and playful, humorous setups to appeal to youth. 
• The campaign was explicitly designed to speak to the youth of the country and to be “edgier” than previous ones.
• The branders themselves say the idea is that: “when you see a packet of Lay’s you just want it and will do anything to get it.” 

So this gives us a concrete case.

2. Ethical Considerations

When we evaluate from an ethics viewpoint, several concerns arise in advertising in general — and we can apply them here:

2.1 Truthfulness & Manipulation

Advertising ethics require that ads should not mislead the consumer, should respect dignity, and should avoid exploiting vulnerabilities. 
In the Lay’s case:

• The campaign implicitly suggests that one’s “love” for the product justifies doing things one wouldn’t normally do. On one level that’s benign humour; but on another level, it exploits impulse, indulgence, and maybe peer pressure (“everyone wants it”).
• The messaging is fine for snack consumption, but when ads push the notion that you must act out to possess, it taps into deeper desires (immediacy, gratification) which can be ethically questionable—for instance, reinforcing over‐consumption or impulsivity.
• There is the ethical question: does the humour and indulgence overshadow health or other implications? If the snack is high in salt/fat (as many chips are) there is the indirect ethical dimension of promoting less‐healthy eating habits without adequate context (though that is more on product than ad).
  Thus, while not obviously “unethical” in the sense of lying, the campaign does reflect a dynamic of manipulating desire rather than fostering informed choice.

2.2 Respect for Culture, Norms & Values

Another ethical dimension is how an ad interacts with cultural norms and values. Research indicates that in India, ads should align with tradition and moral values because advertising shapes social and moral values.
In Lay’s campaign:

• The campaign positions behaviour that is “out of character” as fun; for example, hiding the snack, refusing to share, even betraying a friend/observer to get it. That edges into undermining traditional Indian values of sharing, hospitality, family closeness, communal behaviour.
• If the ad depicts relationships (mother‐son, elders‐younger) being casually disrupted by a snack, then it may challenge respect/hierarchy/tradition. Indeed one article says: the film shows Ranbir and his mother in a loving household task scene, but when Lay’s enters, the dynamic changes. 
• The message “you’ll do anything to get it” becomes a valorisation of self‐indulgence over communal value or etiquette. Thus there is a tension: the ad may be disrespectful of older norms of moderation, sharing, family duty.

2.3 Cultural Stereotyping, Tradition Breaking & Exploitation

Ads often draw on culture (images, folk, rituals) to gain authenticity, but at times they co-opt or distort.

• If an ad uses traditional symbols (family, rituals) but then twists them for humour in order to sell, there is a risk of trivialising tradition.
• In this campaign, the use of mother‐son relationship and family setting is twisted into a “battle for Lay’s” scenario. That could be seen as breaking traditional family decorum for comedic effect.
• The question: Is that a harmless modernising of tradition, or is it undermining the respect/tradition? You may reasonably argue the latter: it says “tradition is just backdrop, we can mock it for a joke about chips”.

2.4 Ethical Marketing vs Cultural Change

It’s worth noting that advertising doesn’t just reflect culture, it creates culture. Research indicates that ads shape society’s moral values.
Hence when an ad encourages behaviours that stray from tradition or established social norms, it has ethical implications: does it erode cultural capital? Does it treat culture as a resource to exploit for sale? And when the motive is to “break tradition” to sell, we might say there’s ethical risk.

3. Culture & Tradition Breaking

Let’s explore how culture and tradition are engaged or broken in such ads, particularly in India, and the implications.

3.1 Cultural Norms in India

Cultural norms often emphasise family, respect for elders, hierarchy, hospitality, communal sharing, moderation. Research shows that when ads ignore these norms or subvert them, it can create negative dissonance.
In print ad context, a study noted that Indian TVCs must align with Indian values else they may conflict with them. 
So when an ad uses familiar cultural setup (home, mother, snack) but flips expectations (child hides snack, pits mother vs child over snack) it is both referencing culture and subverting it.

3.2 Tradition Breaking for Humour/Edginess

In marketing to youth, many campaigns adopt the “break the rules” motif: rebellion, humour, edgy behaviour. That appeals to younger consumers who desire newness, difference, identity. In Lay’s case, their own statements emphasise “edgier” appeal. 
However, the downside is that the tradition is shown as something to be mocked or bypassed. If the ad says: “Tradition is fine, but to love Lay’s you’ll break it”, then yes, it is tradition-breaking. Sometimes that can be empowering (youth freedom) but sometimes it can be destructive (loss of cultural continuity).

3.3 Commodification of Culture

Another angle: culture and tradition are used as setting or backdrop for purely commercial ends. The ad doesn’t necessarily uphold the tradition; it uses it to create recognisability and then pivots to product. That can feel like cultural exploitation: tradition becomes tool, not value. The viewer may feel a disconnect: “This looks like home, but the values are twisted”.
Your view (“they are destroying them just to sell the product”) fits this: the tradition is being used and then subverted for sale.

3.4 The Effects

What can happen when tradition is broken in ads?

• Younger generation may internalise that it’s okay to disregard older norms if you “want something bad enough”. Over time this could shift values.
• It can cause cultural alienation among older viewers who find the depiction disrespectful.
• On the positive side, some traditions are outdated or oppressive, so reforms or subversions may be good. The problem is when breaking tradition is done cynically (for sale) rather than thoughtfully.

4. My Analysis & Your Opinion

You said: “they are destroying them just to sell the product.” Based on the campaign, here’s my take:

4.1 I agree, in part

• The campaign indeed emphasises the product’s power to make one act “out of character” and break norms of sharing, respect, order. That is a kind of tradition-breaking.
• The values of self‐indulgence, individual gratification, competitiveness over sharing/family harmony are elevated. So yes, it seems the ad is trading tradition for sales.
• The cultural context (Indian home, mother-son) is used for impact but the family values are circumvented: the snack becomes more important than the mother’s trust, the family ritual.

4.2 But with nuance

• It’s not obvious the campaign is destroying tradition in a grand sense—it’s more playful subversion. The tradition is still present (home, mother) but the script twists it. Some viewers may interpret it as harmless humour.
• Also: “tradition breaking” isn’t always negative: many social changes need tradition to be questioned (e.g., rigid hierarchy, exclusion). So one could argue the ad is merely reflecting that younger generation sees tradition differently.
• The primary aim remains commercial—it’s about appeal. That in itself is not inherently unethical—it becomes problematic when the culture is trafficked for cheap humour, or the message undermines value without reflection.

4.3 Ethical Risk

• Because the consumer behaviour being modelled is “you’ll act badly to get the snack”, there is risk of promoting unshared behaviour or less respect for communal norms.
• It may reinforce materialism: you must have it; you’ll do anything. In a culture with strong social values, this message can erode them.
• If the ad uses familiar cultural cues but only in order to shift them for self‐interest, then indeed it is commodifying culture rather than respecting it.

4.4 Cultural Impact

• For the younger viewer, this kind of ad may normalise the idea that rebellion, subversion of family norms, and impulsive behaviour are desirable if you want something fun/hip. The tradition of family cohesion, sharing, may be presented as old‐fashioned.
• For the product: the snack becomes symbol of modernity and edginess; the tradition becomes symbol of the past or the obstacle. This dynamic may accelerate cultural shift—but whether that shift is good or bad is up for debate.
• The more these kinds of messages proliferate, the more they contribute to the erosion of cultural practices of moderation, familial obedience, communal sharing.

5. Broader Advertising and Culture Discussion

Let’s generalise a little: your set of links presumably include other ads (we don’t have full detail here) but we can discuss the pattern seen across many Indian ads.

5.1 Advertising’s Role in Cultural Change

• Advertising doesn’t just reflect culture—it also constructs it. Some research: “Advertising serves as a mould that shapes the social and moral values of the viewer.”
• In India, cultural values (collectivism, family orientation, tradition) are strong. When ads ignore or subvert these, they risk causing value‐dissonance.
• The pressure to be “modern”, “youthful”, “global” means many ads adopt western or global tropes, sometimes at the cost of local tradition.

5.2 Breaking Tradition in Ads

• Many campaigns intentionally challenge tradition (for example, older roles, gender norms) as a way to appear progressive or edgy. That can be positive (challenging patriarchy). But sometimes it’s superficial—tradition is shown only to be mocked or dropped in favour of “fun”.
• The danger: when tradition is reduced to a punchline, or the message is “tradition is boring, get our product”. That is likely what you are resisting.

5.3 Ethical Framework

From ethics in advertising literature:

• Ads should respect the dignity of the viewer; should avoid harmful stereotypes; should align (or at least not wildly conflict) with cultural values of the target society. 
• When they fail, there are complaints: e.g., ads that trivialise sexual harassment, gender violence, cultural norms, are flagged.
  So your discomfort (“destroying culture to sell”) is mirrored in the scholarship: yes, there is risk.

5.4 Cultural Commodification

• Tradition becomes a resource: visuals of festival, home, family are plucked into ads to “feel local” while the message can undermine those same values.
• This can result in cultural dissonance or backlash (older viewers may feel alienated).
• In some cases the result is loss of meaning: If tradition is just aesthetic, its substance is lost.

5.5 What Should Ethical Advertising Do?

• It should build on culture in ways that respect it—not only use it superficially.
• It should allow the viewer to make an informed choice—not just manipulate impulse.
• It should avoid undermining values without reflection.
• It should promote healthy behaviour and not solely immediate gratification.