Introduction

Good intentions are not always well-received. Unilever, a multinational consumer goods company, launched a brand social responsibility (BSR) program under its product brand Lifebuoy. However, this initiative faced opposition from several groups purporting to speak on behalf of the residents of the East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. This rejection is related to the advertising campaign with the theme ‘Help a Child Reach Five’ in East Nusa Tenggara. This campaign was launched, apart from marking ten years of the Lifebuoy Sharing Healthy program (Mahmudah, 2013), also to raise donations from the Indonesian people to help improve sanitation and clean water facilities in Bitobe village, East Nusa Tenggara (Ulin, 2013), as well as educating the local community about the importance of a healthy lifestyle to prevent diarrhea which often affects people in the village.

The TV advertising campaign was broadcast in two versions on national television broadcasts. The first version, 90-s, shows the contradictions of Bitobe (beautiful nature but barren with limited facilities; friendly people but poor and low awareness of healthy living), causing one in four children in East Nusa Tenggara to die from diarrhea. The second version, 30s, broadcasts an invitation to donate to help improve the lives of the people in Bitobe so that children can reach the age of and celebrate their fifth birthday.

This campaign was protested by various elements of society who claimed to represent East Nusa Tenggara. The campaign discourse that sparked protests and disapproval featured depictions of poverty and unhealthy living behavior, along with assertions that one in four children in East Nusa Tenggara succumbed to diarrhea, and an appeal from Lifebuoy to aid East Nusa Tenggara children celebrate their fifth birthday (Polce/GBA, 2013a). Despite Lifebuoy’s clarification that the poverty statistics are sourced from official data (Polce/GBA, 2013b), a significant amount of oppositional discourse disseminated through news, comments, and petitions on social media and online platforms still persists (Kaskus, 2013; Krado, 2013; Febrida and Gustiawati, 2013a; Wetangterah, 2013), ultimately compelling the company to cease airing the advertisement (Febrida and Gustiawati, 2013b).

This phenomenon raises several questions for further investigation through circulating texts:

Q1. Why are the representations and discourses of poverty in Lifebuoy’s brand social responsibility campaign rejected? What discursive formations make the representations in the campaign problematic?

Q2. How does the media news significantly contribute to the formation of rejection discourses? What statements in the media coverage are pivotal in shaping the rejection discourse?

Q3. How do audience comments play a crucial role in expressing and reflecting the rejection of poverty representations in Lifebuoy’s brand social responsibility campaign? What are the common themes or sentiments expressed in these comments?

Literature review

Brand social responsibility (BSR) and controversial issues

BSR programs have recently become a mainstay strategy for many companies. Adopting a CSR program in the context of branding, BSR refers to the ethical and sustainable practices a brand adopts to positively impact society and the environment (Brunner and Langner, 2017). By implementing these practices, brands can improve their reputation and contribute to the well-being of communities and the preservation of the planet.

According to Wijaya (2011), BSR is an essential aspect of corporate strategy. It involves integrating CSR activities and communication into brand management, aiming to improve reputation, increase willingness to pay, and enhance consumer intention to buy (Brunner and Langner, 2017). This approach acknowledges the escalating societal expectations imposed on corporations to make constructive contributions to society and emphasizes the need for businesses to demonstrate their commitment to ethical conduct. Therefore, a BSR program should be charitable, linkable, responsible, sustainable, investable, communicable, collaborative, and inspirational (Wijaya, 2011). By engaging in practical BSR activities and communication, brands can build a strong image, strengthen relationships with stakeholders, and ultimately enhance stakeholders’ advocacy behaviors (Kitchin, 2003).

BSR promotes socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) that avoids buying products from companies that harm society or actively searching for products that contribute positively to society (Mohr et al., 2001). Atkinson’s research (2012) showed that this type of consumer gains several personal satisfactions, such as authenticity, social embeddedness, empowerment, and self-actualization. Conversely, the public interest is also accommodated, such as a clean environment or rights fulfillment (e.g., for underpaid labor). It is rather “costly” for this type of consumption because consumers have to feel discomfort and are faced with a minimal choice (due to limited options of brands that have social care), but it is still enjoyable.

Several studies have indicated that integrating CSR strategies into branding and marketing can have a favorable impact on corporate image and reputation (Demetriou et al., 2010), brand value (Melo and Galan, 2011), enhancement of companies’ legitimacy (Liston-Heyes and Liu, 2010), improvement in product quality (Montillaud-Joyel and Otto, 2004), positive effects on purchase intentions (Gupta and Pirsch, 2006; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006), brand credibility (Bigné‐Alcañiz et al., 2009), and establishment of connections with consumers (Porter and Kramer, 2002). CSR is no longer viewed as a superficial, opportunistic marketing trend (Polonsky and Jevons, 2009); rather, it has become a central component of a brand (Werther and Chandler, 2005), which can be moderated to reflect brand personality (Madrigal and Boush, 2008).

Meanwhile, Barnes’ research (1991) showed the potential problems of Caused-Related Marketing (CRM) programs, including the dependency of causes on the firm, the possibility of exploiting consumers, and the replacement of philanthropy functions. CRM programs can also reduce the value of nonprofit causes, seen as more commercial than charitable, and the profit side needs to align with the cause’s brand (Wagner and Thompson, 1994). Hence, the program is potentially debilitating to the brand and hinders the achievement of social objectives (Polonsky and Macdonald, 2006). Andreasen and Drumwright (2000) contend that for-profit program partners may prioritize ‘indulgent’ causes or social issues over addressing the needs of the intended beneficiaries. Jahdi and Acikdilli (2009) highlight the marriage of marketing communication and CSR as a “shotgun wedding” (p. 111), which evokes some problems related to the functions of marketing, advertising roles, source credibility, and source attractiveness, as well as the media representation. Wijaya et al. (2022) found that a company’s green campaign, one of social responsibility activities, often ignores transparent disclosure of how the company operates.

Unlike previous studies, this article takes a unique approach by focusing on the formation of rejection discourses towards problematic representations of a BSR campaign in Indonesia.

Media representation and discursive formation

Hall (2013) provides a comprehensive understanding of representation as a system that generates and disseminates meaning through language. This system establishes connections between concepts in our psyche by employing language that allows us to interpret natural entities, individuals, occurrences, and the realm of imagination from fictional entities, individuals, objects, and events. This underscores that representation is not dependent on language material but on how language operates to construct meanings. “Representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of culture; it does involve the use of language, of signs and images which stand for or represent things” (Hall, 2013, p. 1).

In addition, Hall provides further explanation of two representation systems. The first system links objects, individuals, and events with mental representations or concepts in our cognition. Therefore, the meaning relies on these concepts, which we can use to represent something, whether it is something in (fictional) or outside (factual) our minds. Hall (2013) also argues that this system is not constructed solely by individual concepts but through various methods of organizing, categorizing, and classifying concepts and their intricate relationships, commonly referred to as a “conceptual map” (p. 4). Hence, when we conceive a mental image of something, we create a web of meanings regarding various things that lead us to a concept. For instance, when we talk about poverty, we visualize what can be characterized as poor and non-poor, and we establish various networks of metaphorical meanings such as ‘no money,’ ‘unclean,’ ‘backward,’ and so on until we construct the concept of poverty.

These concepts may be different from one another, depending on their conceptual map. Each of us probably knows about the meaning of ‘dirty,’ but not necessarily all of us connect the meaning of ‘dirty’ to the concept of poverty. Therefore, we need to represent the meaning or concept so that other people can understand it, and therefore, we need a shared ‘language.’ ‘Language’ here, according to Hall, is in the broadest sense and is inclusive, not only what is said or written but also sounds, images, movements, body language, and so forth, which function as signs. Therefore, the second system of representation is various ‘languages’ to represent or ‘communicate’ something.

Language is a signifying practice. When we build a concept of poverty from the meaning of ‘dirty,’ ‘no money,’ and ‘backward,’ we are trying to represent or communicate them through a set of signs in the form of images, sounds, words (arguments), or movements related to meaning and relation between meanings. This representation makes other people understand, for example, the concept of poverty in our heads. The process of connecting ‘things,’ concepts, and signs is what Hall refers to as a representation.

However, the representation system can sometimes lead to ambivalent and complex connotations within media practice. This ambivalence is because signification involves forming ‘the meaning of what we want to represent and communicate’ and ‘the meaning of what we want others to grasp from our representation.’ Consequently, an element of ‘dishonesty’ and ‘disinnocence’ (Schiappa, 2008) exists when depicting something; even ‘temptation,’ ‘pressure,’ and ‘suppression’ could manifest through representation, prompting resistance towards and between meanings. This paves the way for violence, imagination, and ‘desire’ to thrive within representational practices.

Representation can be studied from various approaches, including discourse (Hall, 2013), as how language is used in particular contexts to construct and convey meaning. According to Foucault (2010), discourse is a group of statements belonging to a single formation system. Through language, discourse constitutes a subject and involves technologies or strategies and apparatus. In terms of signs and codes of statements, Foucault does not merely see them as linguistic signs but also as graphical representations (including visual, audiovisual, gestures, and other representations that can be expressed) (Kusch, 1989).

Foucault’s representation approach is more comprehensive than the traditional boundaries of semiotics and linguistics. His analysis extends to the entire discursive formation to which a text or practice belongs, shedding light on the production of knowledge and meaning and their intersection with power and the body. This expansive view enriches our understanding of representation (Hall, 2013).

Discursive formation, coined by Foucault, is a broader concept than discourse because discursive formation contains discourses (i.e., statements) and other elements of institutional practices and regulations (Kusch, 1989; Hall, 2013). Identifying discursive formations requires more effort, but they generally contain objects/subjects, modalities (technologies/strategies), concepts, institutions, and parties (apparatus) that form a unity and identity. In short, Foucault focuses on the relationship between knowledge and power and how power operates through apparatus and discourse technology, constituting a subject. Thus, subjectivity is a product of knowledge/power (Hancock, 2018). Power here is not physically oppressive but a form of power that results from the constellation of discursive structures of knowledge and practice accompanied by the formation of rules, values, and standards (Manokha, 2009).

The concept of power is inherent in knowledge and in determining when and under what circumstances knowledge is applicable, and discourse arises from the competition for power/knowledge. This condition implies that truth embedded in knowledge is not fixed but shifts by the fluctuations of power/knowledge contestation, transitioning between different regimes over time. Wenden (2005), for example, explicitly identifies media representation in discourse as a striving for power through representation and advocacy for diverse perspectives, employing various tactics to ensure that the narrative presented on an issue holds significant influence. Consequently, by employing discourse strategies, meaning is shaped and guided in alignment with the vested interests of the groups representing to assert dominance over the truth regarding a particular issue.

Another study by Peter (2024) reveals discursive formations in parliamentary language with concepts and objects that shape sociopolitical domination through language manipulation to influence perceptions and power dynamics. In a different context, Macdonald et al. (2015) conclude that discursive formations in the nuclear issue from 2006 to 2012 shape reality through the configuration of objects, subjects, concepts, and strategies that influence how nuclear proliferation is perceived through strategies such as personalization, normalization versus exceptionalism, and reification. Through discursive formation, Henward (2018) traces how intellectual traditions and discourses (namely history, politics, and the sacred values of European aesthetics and childhood innocence) have shaped contemporary understandings and debates in Early Childhood Education and Care. O’Regan et al. (2022), on the other hand, found that over-tourism, as a discourse formation, determines what can and should be said regarding self-evident ‘truths’ about excessive tourist arrivals, the changes tourists bring to tourist destinations, and the various discourse solutions available to manage or end over-tourism.

Previous studies have yet to delve into the issue of discursive formations in the representation of texts related to voices of rejection of a BSR program broadcast through a media advertising campaign. Understanding the discourse of controversy from the perspective of how discourse operates and shapes the subject of protest is enlightening. It provides insights into the power dynamics of media representation and how knowledge/power couplets contest and bring readers to a critical horizon related to the issue. This article contributes to filling the research gap in the field and provides critical insights as a reference for practitioners and further relevant research.

Methodology

Research design

The methodological approach employed in this research was influenced by Foucault’s (2010) ideas on discursive formation and power/knowledge. The author gathered and examined diverse media texts that incorporated discursive formation, a concept defined by Foucault as an object, style, or pattern with a specific strategy to which is referred by various discursive events (Cousins and Hussain, 1984). Discursive formation, in this context, refers to the identification of subjects (of/in) that serve as the center of discourse, technologies or discourse strategies, and apparatus or parties actively shaping the discourse (Hall, 2013).

These discourse elements were analysed intertextually with other relevant and significant sources to comprehend the context and power/knowledge relations representing the discursive practices. For Foucault, according to Bacchi and Bonham (2014), rather than linguistic practices or language use, discursive practices are how knowledge is produced through multiple and contingent practices in various sites; such an approach bridges the symbolic-material divide and signifies the nature of the ‘real,’ which is always political. Discourse analysis with Foucauldian insights, thus, does not reveal the true meaning of what is said or not said (Khan and MacEachen, 2021). Instead, it looks at statements in terms of what they do, not what they say, because discourses are not objects but rules and procedures that make objects thinkable and governable, in a sense intervening in what can be known, said, or practiced (Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine, 2008).

Materials

The materials that were utilized as the objects and units of analysis were gathered from diverse pertinent archival sources. There are three principal texts that were considered: (1) Lifebuoy’s campaign advertisement text that prompted protests (n = 2), (2) news article texts that highlighted the issues surrounding the protests (n = 17), and (3) audience comments obtained from a variety of sources (such as newsreaders, petition supporters, and social media comments) that pertained to the issue (n = 401).

An additional sub-text that significantly complemented the analysis was derived from a petition submitted by a citizen via the change.org website. While not serving as a primary text, this document garnered hundreds of supporters and compelled Unilever to discontinue the presentation of its advertisements in the media. Other co-texts were also sourced from blog articles, opinions, web articles, and other relevant documents as secondary data sources to comprehend the contexts of the subjects at hand. The data collection and analysis period lasts three months, from May to July 2023.

Analysis

This study relies on intertextual methods to analyse the selected data and materials. Scholars have explored intertextuality to comprehend how texts are impacted by and contribute to broader cultural and intellectual contexts in which the text is situated, relying on knowledge of other texts (de Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981). This indicates that texts are not independent entities, but are rather linked with other texts, traditions, and cultural phenomena.

The intertextual analysis presented in Fig. 1 involves several key steps: (1) the primary text is scrutinized by identifying discursive formations like the subject, technology/strategy, and apparatus, as well as representation elements such as the representative and represented; (2) the primary text is linked with co-texts and sub-texts by identifying relevant issues and meanings; (3) the issue is discussed through a dialogue between text and context, which encompasses socio-cultural, historical/genealogical, and political-economy factors, termed as contextual validity by Saukko (2003); (4) the study concludes by highlighting the lessons learned from the significant findings.

Fig. 1: Intertextual analysis model in this study (source: author’s work).
figure 1

Various text materials were used as the source of study, i.e., Lifebuoy’s health campaign ads that ignited protests, news article texts that presented the controversy of Lifebuoy ads, and audience comments related to the issue. One sub-text was taken from a petition submitted by a citizen through the change.org website. Moreover, other co-texts as secondary data sources were obtained from blog articles, opinions, web articles, social media, and other relevant document sources, mainly to understand the contexts of the issues in question. Intertextuality begins with analysing and linking the texts, discussing them with relevant contexts, and concluding with some reflective and projective propositions.

Full size image

Results

Discursive formation and representative problems of Lifebuoy advertisements

The discourse strategy utilized by Lifebuoy in their BSR campaign, “Help a Child Reach Five,” involves encouraging individuals to contribute to the cause while also acknowledging and thanking the brand for their efforts in bringing attention to poverty in Bitobe village of East Nusa Tenggara. Through a 90-s teaser and 30-s main advertisement, Lifebuoy urges people to support the healthy living movement in the village by making donations to their “Help Child Reach Five” program.

The initial advertisement served as a teaser and had a duration of 90 s. It initiated the narrative by presenting the geographical conditions of the arid Bitobe village, accompanied by a ballad background. The scene depicted the evening sun amidst a hazy sky, leafless trees, dry twigs blowing in the wind, and bare hills. In the subsequent scene, a Bitobe child named Esther, adorned in a primary school uniform, was introduced. The subtitle referred to her as a little doctor, implying that she was a children’s health ambassador at school. Esther conveyed, through voice-over narration complementing the visual narrative, that her village boasts of beautiful nature, cool weather, and friendly people. However, despite these advantages, Bitobe children lack awareness of healthy lifestyles, which makes them more susceptible to illnesses.

The advertisement then depicted the living conditions of families in Bitobe village, comprising a father, mother, and several children who always had a smile on their faces. These families lived in basic houses or slums with inadequate facilities. The pet dogs roamed freely in these dwellings, which were stuffy, poorly lit, poorly organized, and unhygienic. Esther felt sad, particularly when she saw her young sisters unwell. The scene concluded with cut-to-cut images of the Bitobe children displaying unhygienic behavior, such as washing their hands together in a bucket and defecating in an unsystematic manner. It subsequently concluded by showing a group of children carrying jerry cans of water, with the end title stating that one out of four infant mortalities in East Nusa Tenggara is caused by diarrhoea.

The 90-s teaser advertisement featured various discourse subjects, including ‘Bitobe’s natural beauty’, ‘Unhealthy behavior of Bitobe children’, ‘Unhygienic environment’, ‘Family poverty in Bitobe village’, and ‘Infant mortality in East Nusa Tenggara due to diarrhea’. The advertisement discourse employed Esther (a children’s health ambassador), Bitobe children, pet dogs, other family members, and Lifebuoy/Unilever (with its advertising agency as the advertisement maker) as apparatuses. The discourse strategy used a combination of visual arts, visual narration, Voice-Over (VO) narration, and testimonials. The visual aspects, sound, and music were created in a beautiful and soft cinematographic way to generate a sad and exotic form of entertainment. However, underneath its exoticism lies a contradictory representative meaning, such as presenting the aridity of nature or the smiles of Bitobe children in unhealthy and unhygienic environments while describing natural beauty.

In other words, the images that became representative attempted to articulate a ‘new’ language to represent the existing reality. Aridity was interpreted as beauty; misery was interpreted as a smile, and dirtiness was constructed as ‘exoticism’ (of picture). Watching such advertisement scenes was akin to observing exotic animals preserved on the modern museum display case in the middle of the metropolis (Lidchi, 2013). This is reminiscent of how we exhibit traditional tribal items on shelves in our opulent living rooms, boasting to guests about their exoticism and high artistic value—or wearing expensive clothes and accessories made of material from endangered animals that were killed irresponsibly. We regard them as beautiful art objects, unique exotic objects, or essential sources of knowledge, whereas in reality, it is an ecological tragedy and an anthropological irony. The representative reconstructs meaning from the represented, re-contextualizing it for specific interests (as a commodity) so that we, as audiences, experience a sense of ‘meaninglessness’ with the actual reality.

The second advertisement, which lasted 30 s, featured an endorser/host who climbed a parched hill to discover the deplorable condition of Bitobe village. With an apprehensive expression, the endorser meticulously inspected the condition of the houses. This was followed by a visual narration accompanied by music, which transitioned from a static and melancholic tone to a dynamic and jubilant tone towards the end of the narration. A voice-over narration, served as a background to the visuals, briefly reiterated Esther’s story about the lack of awareness of clean living among the children of Bitobe village consequently led to their frequent bouts of illness. The voice-over further emphasized that educating the children on the importance of handwashing with soap could prevent deaths resulting from diarrhea among children under five years of age.

The VO concluded the narrative by extending an invitation for the audience to join Lifebuoy in supporting the children in East Nusa Tenggara commemorate their fifth birthday and beyond. The accompanying visuals transitioned from showcasing the endorser’s inspection to presenting images of clean and contented Bitobe children, accompanied by dynamic music. The scenes depicted children in elementary school uniforms washing their hands with bar soap under running water, children in a queue holding buckets to collect water, close-up shots of smiling faces, and concluded with the endorser raising five fingers while introducing the campaign title: “Help a Child Reach Five.” Subsequently, a visual of a group of children raising five fingers together appeared, along with the end title: Your Support, Our Donation. The audience was then prompted to visit www.lifebuoy.co.id, and the sequence ended with the display of the Lifebuoy Logo.

This advertisement attempted to represent the discourse subjects concerning “the remoteness of Bitobe village” through a visual narration of the endorser who walked through the arid hills to find Bitobe village, “inappropriate environment of Bitobe village” through a visual narration of the host who walked around observing the village houses with his anxious face, “unhygienic behavior is the cause of illness,” “infant mortality due to diarrhea,” “initiative of handwashing with soap,” “help children in East Nusa Tenggara to celebrate their fifth birthday,” “movement of helping a child reach five for East Nusa Tenggara through support and donations”, and “Lifebuoy as a soap which cares about hygiene and health.” Moreover, the discourse strategies were visual narration, VO narration, host endorsement, titling, and branding. In addition to the host endorser, the apparatuses involved were Bitobe Children, Lifebuoy/Unilever, and an advertising agency as the maker.

In this advertisement, the meaning of representative is constructed through images of the host/endorser, Bitobe village, cheerfulness of Bitobe children, hygienic behavior, hand washing with soap, as well as the spirit of ‘five fingers’ are intertwined to form a narrative that represents the reality of Bitobe and Lifebuoy brand as soap for hygiene and health. With a creative strategy of ‘before and after,’ this advertisement shows the reality of the unhealthy and unhygienic life of Bitobe villagers ‘before’ and the reality of the brand through a narration of hygienic and healthy life because of using Lifebuoy soap as the ‘after.’

Although not explicitly stated, the center of this advertising discourse is Lifebuoy, a health and hygiene soap that can improve the life of Bitobe village from dirtiness and unhealthiness. The brand is presented as a ‘hero.’ As in the discourse of heroism in the media, a hero always needs weak victims to confirm his strength, and Lifebuoy chose to ‘use’ Bitobe Village as the victim. With the misfortune of Bitobe village, the heroism of Lifebuoy becomes bold. Bitobe’s misfortune is a vitamin for the brand, which provides energy intake for the survival of the brand.

Overall, the first advertisement tends to represent the discourse of the problem, but the second advertisement represents the discourse of the solution more. The first advertisement represents complaint, but the second advertisement represents hope. The first advertisement represents unhygienic and unhealthiness, but the second represents hygiene and health. The first advertisement represents backwardness and primitivism, but the second advertisement represents advancement and modernism through the messages of ‘heroism’ from the Lifebuoy brand.

It is like the perspective of Western anthropologists in the discourse of orientalism (Said, 2003) that viewed primitive tribes in the eastern hemisphere as research objects, not solely for the sake of science but also for the sake of confirming the status of Western civilization and modernity, creating a binary opposition of self-others, splitting the two classes of civilization or culture into advanced culture and backward culture, modem culture and primitive cultures. Advanced and modern culture has a higher class than backward and primitive cultures. Proving the power of the class, an advanced cultural society with heroic efforts will always try to help a backward cultural society so that the disparity of self-others in the two poles of binary opposition remains protected. Rieder (2008) and Ram (2018) refer to this as the colonial gaze, generally used as a cognitive framework to position colonized groups as inferior, underdeveloped, cognitively impaired, needing advancement, and treating them as subhuman. Such a political lens of anthropology is represented symbolically through both Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign, in which the brand of the multinational company represents self (advanced culture—colonizer), and Bitobe people represent others (backward culture—colonized groups). The exoticism of others has always been a commodity and an object of capitalist artistic taste exploitation for self (Burhan, 2008).

Binary opposition within the body of discourse always gives birth to politics, class, and ideology that represent power, and power always gives birth to anti-power (Foucault, 2010). Not surprisingly, the discourse of Lifebuoy’s social campaign ignited public protests. Some of the protests were the picture of poverty shown in the advertisement (Astuti, 2013; Bere, 2013; Polce/GBA, 2013a) and how under-five children in Bitobe who were thin and often suffered from diarrhea and even died because they could not maintain hygiene (Polce/GBA, 2013a).

The discourse of media news in framing and forming the protests

There are three categories of media investigated. First, local media published or carried the identity of East Nusa Tenggara and Eastern Indonesia, such as Lintas NTT, Nefosnews, and Indonesia Timur. Second, national media published in Jakarta or carrying nationally recognized media corporate identity, such as Kompas, Suara Pembaruan, Berita Satu, Liputan6, Tribune News, and Kapanlagi.com. Third, independent media unaffiliated to a media corporation such as I08Jakarta, lndopos, and politikindonesia.com, and specialized media focusing on particular issues such as MIX (marketing communication magazine), SWA (business magazine) and CSR (corporate social responsibility) magazine. Of the 17 news articles collected, we identified prominent and significant discourse subjects, strategies, reporting styles, and the parties involved in constructing the discourse related to the subjects. From this identification, we found knowledge and meaning constructed through discourse.

In the local media, the discourse subjects were concerned with “exploitation of poverty,” “harassment of East Nusa Tenggara,” “generalization of East Nusa Tenggara condition,” “Unilever’s apology,” and “Unilever to build East Nusa Tenggara.” The headline news tended to be provocative and dran1atic, reflecting that the media attempted to draw attention to arouse the reader’s emotions. News narratives were built with complex news methods involving several resource persons with a larger portion of the protesters. If we investigate the news chronologically, the flow of discourse moves from highly provocative languages at the beginning of the protest when presenting resource persons and issues of the protest to softer languages when the advertisement stopped being broadcast and presenting resource persons and issues supporting Unilever. This mode indicates that public relations worked to reduce the issue. Moreover, the identified discourse apparatuses were the local government represented by the Governor of East Nusa Tenggara, NGOs and youth organizations represented by WALHI (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup [The Indonesian Forum for the Environment]) and Nation Guard of East Nusa Tenggara, Unilever represented by Corporate Communications officer, the petitioner, the media represented by journalists.

The discourse of “exploitation of poverty” was explicitly expressed by Buche, the chairman of the Garda Bangsa [National Guard] of East Nusa Tenggara, who remarked that “this is a case of poverty exploitation for a particular business or interest” (Astuti, 2013). Garda Bangsa, without elaborating on the ‘special interests,’ characterized the Lifebuoy advertisement as a product branding effort that depicted Lifebuoy as a savior of the children of East Nusa Tenggara. If the purported “particular interest” refers to a political interest, it would align with the discourse articulated by petitioner Dany Wetangterah, who stated, “On behalf of the people of East Nusa Tenggara, we request that all attempts to exploit the situation in East Nusa Tenggara for any business and political interests should be ceased” (Polce/GBA, 2013a).

Although the petitioner did not elaborate on the discourse he made regarding the political implications behind the Lifebuoy advertisement, a connection can be drawn to the involvement of the Governor of East Nusa Tenggara in the discourse, whose interpretation of the advertisement was that “(It means that) without Lifebuoy soap, children in East Nusa Tenggara cannot celebrate their fifth birthday. As the Governor, l am offended” (Astuti, 2013). Being in a political position, the Governor’s discourse is not immune to political bias, thus his offense towards the advertisement is unavoidably political. As a figure of authority in an area which poverty broadcasted on a national level, the Governor’s credibility may be politically impacted by the Lifebuoy advertisement.

The discourse surrounding poverty exploitation intersects with the discourse on the “harassment of East Nusa Tenggara” as raised by the petitioners, WALHI, and the media through the construction of narration and interpretation of events by journalists. Heribertus, director of WALHI, has asserted that Lifebuoy’s advertisement constitutes harassment towards the people of East Nusa Tenggara due to its implication that all children in East Nusa Tenggara are at risk of death before their fifth birthday. He has positioned himself as the representative of the people of East Nusa Tenggara, stating, “Is it accurate to suggest that only Lifebuoy can ensure that I celebrate my 33rd birthday as I am today?” (Astuti, 2013).

WALHI has expressed criticism towards the discourse of humanitarian and health tragedy in Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign and raised concerns about the use of age as a determining factor in the discourse. Meanwhile, the petitioner, Dany Wetangterah, has stated that the harassment of East Nusa Tenggara is linked to the generalization made by Lifebuoy’s advertisement regarding the conditions in the region, because not all individuals in East Nusa Tenggara lack understanding and awareness of hygienic practices (Polce/GBA, 2013a).

The counter-discourse above engaged with the pro-discourse of Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign. This included a clarification from Unilever, represented by the senior brand manager of Lifebuoy. The manager stated that “Unilever did not intend to harass the people of East Nusa Tenggara. The advertisement accurately depicted the conditions in Bitobe village, Amfoang Tengah sub-district, Kupang regency. So, this advertisement aims to help preventing future infant mortality in East Nusa Tenggara, because data from the Provincial Health Office of East Nusa Tenggara reports that infant mortality is at 71% of 1000 live births, with diarrhea being the primary cause” (Astuti, 2013).

Unilever attempted to discipline the loose ball of the discourse to back on track of messages from the program by asserting that the reality in the advertisement was not the result of the imaginative construction of the brand. However, it was a factual reality of the actual condition. This fact was also supported by data taken from official government sources, so Lifebuoy’s BSR program legitimately was not accessible from the role of government. Such strategy of normative clarification is a common strategy in the practices of public relations in Indonesia, known as an elite strategy of public relations, that prioritizes clarification with top-down communication and involves the role of government official agencies to legitimate (Suharyanti and Sutawidjaya, 2012).

Another pro-discourse also emerged through the news about the efforts made by Unilever in building East Nusa Tenggara, such as building clean water infrastructure, hand washing facilities in schools, and sanitation in communities performed simultaneously with the strengthening of health cadres and sanitation at the community level (Polce/GBA, 2014). According to the news chronology, this discussion came after Unilever conducted a press conference in Kupang, the capital of East Nusa Tenggara province. The purpose of the conference was to offer an apology for Lifebuoy’s advertisement that was deemed to have exploited the people of East Nusa Tenggara. Additionally, the conference aimed to provide an explanation of the ‘Help a Child Reach Five’ program, which successfully implemented through fundraising from Lifebuoy consumers and the realization of development in Bitobe village (Polce/GBA, 2014).

Unilever’s apology sparked discussions in both local and national media outlets, indicating a reduction of tension resulting from social resistance through the counter-discourse of protest. A normative public relations strategy, involving press conferences and media relations, has proven to be quite effective in mitigating protests and resistance at the local level. In this case, the discourse initially dominated by the protestors shifted back to the BSR campaign’s discourse, with a renewed focus on the development of Bitobe village as a realization of the program.

National media is similar to local media, especially in terms of subject and apparatus of discourse, because the news comes from the same sources. The difference is the technology or strategy of discourse, in which the headlines in the national media tended to use unprovocative dictions, focused more on protest events than the content of emotional protests, and expert analysis of protests about the advertisement from a particular perspective to give a scientific impression.

Other media categories used as the object of this study were independent media and specialized media. Subjects, apparatus, and discourse strategies in independent media tended to be like the local media with provocative headlines such as “Governor of East Nusa Tenggara get angry” or “making people of East Nusa Tenggara angry.” News narration emphasized the disappointment of the governor and the protests of the people of East Nusa Tenggara related to Lifebuoy’s advertisement. Therefore, the representative and the represented also tend to be the same as the local media.

Meanwhile, specialized media tended to discourse “launching the program of ‘Help a Child Reach Five’ of Lifebuoy” and “Lifebuoy’s advertisement ignites Protests in East Nusa Tenggara.” Unilever dominated the discourse apparatus, while the discourse strategy was through the news feature with a descriptive narrative style. The specialized media consistently reduced an event about the brand as a case of strategy related to their specialties. For example, a marketing magazine discoursed Lifebuoy’s program as an attractive marketing strategy through social issues. In contrast, a business magazine and CSR discoursed it as a corporate strategy in building relationships with the community while building a positive image, which impacted business sustainability. Therefore, the news discourse in the specialized media presented more about a corporate communication officer as Unilever’s company representative and Lifebuoy’s product brand.

Discursive formation in audience comments when voicing rejections

Showing only what the text means makes the discourse isolated in the space of the representation of meaning constructed by media through popular culture products (such as advertising, movies, and others) as well as news products, which then dominate the perceptual space of audiences through what text did to the audience (Schiappa, 2008). Accordingly, truth claims and meaning construction are controlled by media, resulting in the alienation of text and audience. To reduce the ‘gap’ between media and audience, media criticism should be balanced by audience criticism by analyzing what the audience means and what the audience did to the text about media representation. This method by Goodnight (1987) is referred to as corrective analysis.

In this study, we analysed what the audience meant and what the audience did to the text through the audience comments in the news reader’s comments column and petition supporter’s comments column through change.org issuing Unilever about Lifebuoy’s advertising of BSR campaign entitled “Help a Child Reach Five”. What the audience means was described by how the audience interpreted the text of Lifebuoy’s advertisement and news related to the advertisement, and what the audience did to the text was represented by the effect of such interpretation in the form of criticism, insults, protests, satire as well as other comments that showed opinions, expression, and aspiration of the audience related to media texts. The results of our investigation indicated five types of comments: counter-discourse, pro-discourse, mixed pros and cons of discourse, pro-out of discourse, and cons-out of discourse.

Of the 98 items of newsreader comments, dominant counter-discourse subjects appeared in comments on news about criticism of the advertisement considered exploiting and harassing the people of East Nusa Tenggara, such as “selling poverty” and “boycotting Unilever.” These subjects competed with pro-discourse subjects appearing in reader comments on almost all the news, such as “thank you, Lifebuoy,” “useful program,” “should be ashamed, not angry,” “take the positive side,” and “fit the actual reality.” The pro-outs of discourse subjects were the pro-discourse subjects accompanied with comments that were not directly related to the advertisement’s content, such as “people of East Nusa Tenggara are happy, politicians are silent” or “useful program, an example for lawmaker candidates and lawmakers.” These subjects competed with cons-out of discourse subjects, which was a contrast with topics containing satire, such as “dirty East Nusa Tenggara, clean producer, corrupt government,” as expressed by news readers who alluded to Unilever’s clarification in the media of Lintas NTT (Polce/GBA, 2013a) as follows.

Pity the people of East Nusa Tenggara. The stigma of poor, stupid, low IQ, dirty, and sickly makes them an easy target for the campaigns of producers who pretend to be clean, self-satisfied, bright, and everything. Dear East Nusa Tenggara people, why were you treated like that? Or were you that way? Our government in East Nusa Tenggara is unaware of humiliation; although humiliated, aid comes in abundantly. One method to corrupt? (PAR, Surabaya).

It can be seen how extra discourse containing criticism and satire on local governments, and politicians were present, overlaying the sub-topics over discourse subject in the battlefield of pros and cons of the discourse of Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign. It shows there is a discourse behind a discourse, a problem behind a problem, and another ‘text’ behind a text present in the form of advertising narration, news, and audience comments. That text and discourses speak faintly but echo across other texts to give birth to a new meaning at the level of metatext and new subjects that play at the level of metadiscourse.

Another interesting finding is that most of the comments on counter-discourse were ignited by the news, which also had a counter-discourse angle and frame. This means that what media means is like what the audience means in the context of the news but dissimilar to the context of advertising discourse. The media’s agenda (especially local media) has contributed significantly to playing and directing the public discourse to have a counter-attitude towards the discourse of Lifebuoy’s advertisement. Why did local media do this? Was it merely due to the consideration of news value? Or market value? Or ‘business’ value? Or political value? If so, it means that there is an agenda behind the agenda of local media in informing counter-discourse of Lifebuoy’s advertisement.

Meanwhile, of the 303 audience comments supporting the petition, the subjects were polarized in the form of counter-discourse, mixed pro-cons of discourse, and cons-out of discourse. The counter-discourse, for example, related to the subject of “exploitation of poverty,” “public deception,” “not representing the needs of the people of East Nusa Tenggara,” “making profit by ruining,” “too extreme, not based on reality,” “multi-fallacious advertisement,” “selling pitifulness, not the quality of the product,” “problem of data validity,” “wrong generalization,” “insincere Lifebuoy” and “harassment of community,” competed with the pro yet counter-discourse subjects such as: “correct objective, incorrect method,” “corresponding to actual conditions, but no worse than other regions,” and “East Nusa Tenggara do need attention, but not for making profits.” Here, we can see that the counter-discourse of Lifebuoy’s advertisement varied, not single, but referred to the same issue as the primary subjects: exploitation and harassment. This issue also turned out to be a dominant issue in the texts of the pros-cons of discourse, that although the audience saw the excellent sides of Lifebuoy’s program, they still regretted the way to represent (the people of) East Nusa Tenggara and do business by exploiting social issues. This is, for example, represented by a comment from one of the petition’s supporters as follows.

The objective of Lifebuoy is to help Bitobe village, and it is perfect; people are not ashamed to accept help from any party. However, there was one misunderstanding about the sentences in the advertisement that made other people of East Nusa Tenggara, and I would not say I liked it because I felt humiliated (a comment of AN, Kupang City, Indonesia in Change.org, 2013).

The word ‘humiliated’ seemed to be a media mantra that had profoundly affected the sentiment of local identity and Puritanism to rise ‘to fight.’ As previously explained, two provocative words frequently used by local media in reporting were ‘exploitation’ and ‘harassment.’ About the similarity between media discourse and personal and social audience discourse, the media had successfully injected agenda in their messages to the audience. In this context, what media text means was linearly correlated with what the audience means about the representation in the discourse of Lifebuoy’s advertisement.

On the other hand, the subjects of counter-discourse and out-of-discourse took part in the circle of competition between the discourse of audience comments from the petition supporter and subtopics such as: “poverty is not due to the government,” “fame through the advertisement,” “the role of local government in censorship,” “politicization of poverty,” “human rights,” “stupid ads,” “need for real work, not advertisement,” “visit East Nusa Tenggara, no beggars, no terrorists,” “Java is worse,” “extravagant government, poor people,” “opening the eyes of local government,” “stop theft in East Nusa Tenggara,” “the state must be responsible,” “CSR burdens consumers,” “CSR replaces government,” “the contestation of ethnicity.” The discourses hitched counter-discourse in Lifebuoy’s advertisement were very colorful, ranging from governance, development, tourism, state, politics, celebrities, and CSR to ethnicity, as presented in the audience comments below.

If observed, people in Java live more miserably than our life in East Nusa Tenggara (a comment of LZX, Salatiga, Indonesia in Change.org, 2013).

It also needs awareness from the government. (They) dress neatly, sitting in a luxury car, but there are still people living below the poverty line. Are you not ashamed? (a comment of MS, in Change.org, 2013).

CSR is an obligation of every company rather than a venue for advertising or burdening consumers by enticing them ‘to help’ when buying a particular product. Pathetic. (a comment of NH, South Jakarta, Indonesia, in Change.org, 2013).

This also opens the eyes of our local leaders to be more careful and use healthy hearts and minds in building East Nusa Tenggara. There are many redundant developments carried out in East Nusa Tenggara due to the lack of responsibility of the employer and the recipient of the work so that the work only produced quantity without clear quality (a comment of EM, Kupang, Indonesia in Change.org, 2013).

This indicates that the space counter-discourse of Lifebuoy’s advertisement through the space of audience comments supporting the petition has given birth to various spectrums of extra text and extra discourse corresponding to each audience’s personal agenda, experience, and discourse. It also reveals some problems that encircle the discourse surrounding the representation of Lifebuoy’s advertisement, which is more than just a problem of exploitation of social issues.

In addition, discourse technologies or strategies were predominantly in the form of comments that corresponded to the available space for supporters of the petition. However, the method in which these comments shaped the discourse varied greatly from brief and concise comments, personal opinions, narratives, suggestions, endorsements, and satirical remarks to fierce and harsh criticism. The apparatuses of discourse concerning the description of the location, identity confession, and typical names of petition supporters can be categorized into people of East Nusa Tenggara residing in the region, individuals from East Nusa Tenggara residing outside the region, and those not associated with East Nusa Tenggara. Consequently, the emergence of diverse discourses, including sub-discourse and extra-discourse, contested within the field of counter-discourse against Lifebuoy’s advertisement through the comments section intended for supporting the petition can be understood. These circumstances facilitate the politics of representation within the audience comments section in reaction to the discourse presented in Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign, specifically their advertisement titled “Help a Child Reach Five.”

Discussion

The presence of poverty discourse in the Lifebuoy social campaign is like presenting a mirror of the irony of downhearted East Nusa Tenggara people: rich but poor, poor but rich. Pride and sadness intertwine and vie with each other to establish the identity as the subject of East Nusa Tenggara. Discourse creates the subject’s position for the spectator-subject, and it is sometimes ‘misleading’ because what is presumed object turns out to be the subject, as illustrated in the case of La Meninas Painting observed by Foucault (Hall, 2013). From his observation, Foucault argues that what is present is equally important as what is absent in the representation. This is related to how a discourse produces a subject position, be it the ‘subject of’ that refers to the topic or regarding what representation it is all about, and ‘subject in’ that refers to “the one whom discourse sets in place, but who, simultaneously, make sense of it” (Hall, 2013, p. 44).

The subject of and subject in that become the central of a discourse can be found not only in what is seen in the ‘painting’ (as a discourse material) that represents a reality but also can be found in what is not seen in that representation; it depends on how us, as the spectator, looking at it. If we see the representation from outside the ‘painting,’ the center is what is present in the ‘painting.’ However, if we can see it from inside the ‘painting,’ what is reflected through the subject perspective in the discourse, therefore the center is the ‘painter’ and the spectator, our self, that is absent within the ‘painting.’ This is what Foucault called a spectator’s subjectivity in the discourse through a mirrored reflection play in ‘painting’ (representation). In the representation of the poverty issue in Lifebuoy advertisements, the subject reflection of poverty, both in visual and verbal discourse, the subject’s position as ‘painter’ (creator) of poverty in the lines of the spectator, where poverty’s gaze towards.

Within his research about seven developmental cases in East Nusa Tenggara, Dale (2013) found that the actual development is a field of power relations of hegemonic capitalists that, instead of dealing with poverty, is precisely becoming the cause of chained poverty in East Nusa Tenggara. Different investments in various areas such as mining, hospitality, tourism, agriculture, plantation, fishery and maritime, shopping centers, and many more are not only seen as the effort to provide employment and taxation as what is propagated by the government. Investments in East Nusa Tenggara are also the political economy process that legalizes exploitation and the take-over of natural resources for the sake of broader authority and more significant profit.

Not only investment, but Dale’s study also revealed that poverty in East Nusa Tenggara has become a magnet to international aid institutions, be it inter-government institutions (bilateral or multilateral projects) and aid from the private sector with NGOs. Refer to the data from BAPPEDA (local institution for development planning), Dale said that in 2013, East Nusa Tenggara had become the target of four programs in bilateral institutions, 15 programs from multilateral institutions, and 20 programs from the private sector (companies) in the total of the budget that is managed by those institutions of no less than 233 billion IDR/year.

The poverty in East Nusa Tenggara has become the commodity that creates political aid and development. Since it is considered natural poverty, therefore aid is constantly given, and development is continually done as the solution. Even though the root of systemic poverty in East Nusa Tenggara is precise because of the economic and political processes that tag along the exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence in many forms, several indicators, according to Dale, can be seen from the conservation projects, investments, tourism, mining, free trade, political dynamic i.e., Pilkada (local election), regional expansion, how government runs, inefficient bureaucracy, APBD (local government financial) management, public services, and the reality of bureaucracy that is corrupted. These are the ‘painters’ and ‘spectators’ of poverty in East Nusa Tenggara.

If it is looked closely at the extra-discourse subjects that appear in public comments, it is also found that many issues reflect the mirror discourse of Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign. The issues are about the luxurious life of East Nusa Tenggara government officials, politicians’ responsibility, natural resources exploitation, and tourism (refer to the audience’s comments). The existing extra-discourses from these issues are the ‘absence subjects’ that are equally important as the ‘presence subject’ to be observed. Dale’s research of the local political economy and ‘the misperception of development’ is one of the discourse chains that allows us to dive deeper into the issues. It is politically a shadow representation of poverty discourse in the BSR campaign rejected by various elements of society in East Nusa Tenggara.

Conclusion and recommendation

Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign has drawn protests and rejection due to its content being less sensitive to ethnic/racial identity politics, regional sentiment, and local political economy. Even though Unilever claims to use official data in conveying brand messages, a deeper understanding of local issues, interests, and egos is needed to formulate socioculturally representative messages. The program initiated only involved limited local partners, so other ‘more competent and appropriate’ local groups and organizations felt marginalized. Likewise, poverty and community backwardness are among the regional government’s responsibilities. Lifebuoy’s BSR campaign and program are considered ‘disgraceful’ and less collaborative and cooperative. Therefore, brands and companies need to be socioculturally, politically, and economically careful in reading the mood, ego, and situation of the local community where the program will be implemented. An objective-normative approach is not enough to realize ‘good intentions’; a more subjective-empathetic approach is also needed.

This study, although uses a textual approach, nevertheless provides insightful views and analysis for brands and companies to ponder before launching similar BSR programs and campaigns. For researchers, this study is an initial reference point for further exploring similar field cases to obtain more empirical and richer data. Critical issues like identity politics, regional sentiment, and local ego must be explored ethnographically and phenomenologically. Also, the issue of political economy interests and communication corruptions in development injustice is no less important to study as a typical case, especially in underdeveloped and developing countries.