The Ombudsman’s Office and the Propaganda Control Office forget that the rights of the citizens are not above the rights of the property. Today, Banco de Costa Rica announced the withdrawal of its Toucan campaign due to a “prevention order” by the above mentioned office.

Tucan, the new brand of banking services of Banco de Costa Rica, freely chose a path in its advertising that has raised a stir in Costa Rican society, which in turn has been outraged in social networks with not a few and heated arguments. Some have seemed to me to be solid, others to be double standards, some exaggerated and others stretched to the point of extremism. In general, it seems to me that it was no big deal. However, within the framework of tolerance and respect, we take note and learn.

It is clear that BCR as an advertiser and House Rapp as its advertising agency made use of their freedom of expression, their creative approach and way of attracting attention. Thus people have made use of their personal freedom of expression, today amplified by social networks and apparently with a passionate adversity.

I don’t need to agree with one or the other to defend that this is precisely the condition of an open, free and independent market. If I like the brand I buy it, if I succeed with a good advertising campaign of a good product or service they buy me. This has always been the case, until the moment when the authorities make use of the immense abundance of laws, regulations and restrictions to nullify this freedom of expression, be it commercial, personal or of the press. Every day I feel more and more certain that the bigger the state is, the less freedom I have.

Criticizing an advertisement or a product is the unquestionable right of any consumer, whatever she wants to say, in whatever tone and manner she wants, knowing that every cause will bring an effect. Taking a risky path, whether controversial or disruptive, conservative or on the edges, is also an unquestionable right of the brand owner, within the framework of the well-interpreted law, ethics and morals in the country, where I still can’t believe that prior censorship exists.

If the advertisement, the product or service does not meet expectations, is not liked or causes rejection, it is the advertiser’s problem and he must prepare himself for the consequences. People can go from the basics: not buying the product, to organizing boycotts or protests in the streets. Normally, if the consumer does not connect with the message, they do not identify. If they feel negative emotional and even rational reactions, they don’t buy the product or service and disassociate themselves from the brand. End of story.

So, what is the problem, why so much fuss, is it that our people are bored and seek to be entertained by any nonsense? Who said that a bank’s advertising has to be formal? And isn’t it true that consumers have the absolute right to choose and prefer to buy or not?

If you did not like or were offended by the Toucan advertisement, avoid it. If you think there are reasons to write about it, to stone, spit or sanction the story and all its possible implications to the fullest extent of the imagination, do it and respectfully exercise your freedom of expression, of opinion, of citizen participation.

In the meantime, I say the same to BCR and at the same time I invite you to defend your property rights. The product is yours, the service has been created by you and today you have already measured the effect caused by the creative avenues taken. Go ahead, change course, do as you see fit, but do not allow your property rights to be curtailed, for you must exercise them freely.

In our understanding of advertising, I would not have taken the path chosen by Toucan. However, I defend their freedom to do so. At the same time, I applaud the boldness and daring, the different and innovative, what adds and generates a social contribution, to the point of making a brand legitimately significant. Also because it makes good business sense.

Here you can learn about the good and most effective approach when choosing to build a truly meaningful brand, from a global study presented by Havas.

Brands with Meaning Achieve Better Results from Casual Movies on Vimeo.

For years we talked about filling the world with Lovemarks and today I think they should be Lifemarks. It seems to me that in the case in question limits were crossed that have hurt a sector of society and in some cases deeply. With a good boldness, enormous attention was achieved, although not the same level of identification.

Having said all this, it is up to the BCR to make its decisions without anyone imposing any measure, for then, is this really a free market? So, why does the Ombudsman’s Office have to be involved in these practices? Don’t they understand that the consumer defends himself/herself with his/her freedom to buy or not?

In a well understood open market, today’s notice for the suspension of the campaign is the result of a pragmatic and philosophical aberration at the same time, and is more typical of regimes of control and oppression than of openness.

From the tucanazo for our freedom.