The Hindu Business Line : What’s surrogate about advertising?

Tobacco and liquor companies can challenge government rules on advertising their products if they find them unjust. If they haven’t been able to do it, it means their advertising is not just illegal but unconscionable too.

Legitimate businesses, yes, but is the advertising?

I recently read that the I&B Ministry had instructed the TV channels not to carry surrogate advertising. This was in addition to the news that cigarette packets would now have to carry “gory” pictures, ostensibly to scare away smokers and thereby save their lungs and their lives.

Let’s take the second point first. The picture of a scorpion on a cigarette packet is probably the most ludicrous attempt at scaring anyone away. It is this propensity of the Government to convert its feeble attempts at regulating the powerful tobacco lobby that never ceases to amaze me. If the smokers do not die of lung cancer after merrily continuing smoking cigarettes from packets that carry the scorpion picture, they will surely die of laughing at these half measures.

That brings us to the first point. Every so often one reads of the “strict” rules that ban tobacco and liquor advertising. And every so often one views advertising of CDs, cassettes, events, mineral water, stores, airlines, awards and any other product with the brand names of major tobacco and liquor companies on television, newspapers, magazines and on hoardings.

Let’s examine the case for and against surrogate advertising from different perspectives.

The advertiser’s perspective is fairly straightforward. If it is legal to manufacture, distribute and sell a product, why should it be illegal to promote the sale of that product?

I don’t think anyone can answer that question convincingly. If it has been established conclusively that cigarette smoking kills, why is it that it is available to anyone, irrespective of his or her age, at every street corner?

And even if surrogate advertising for cigarettes is effectively banned, what about events on satellite TV that are sponsored by tobacco and liquor companies? Tune into the coverage of Formula 1 racing at you will see cars racing around circuits of the world with the names and logos of tobacco and liquor companies emblazoned on every part of the vehicle and the driver. Does this mean that ITC cannot advertise its products in Indian events even though it is a major contributor to the exchequer in terms of excise and duties, while Marlboro, which is smuggled freely onto the streets of India, can subliminally implant itself in the minds of the smoking public that watches this coverage? Assuming that tobacco companies even have a case to advertise, one would at least ask for a level playing field.

What about the advertising agency’s point of view? I frankly don’t think they have one. They will implement strategy for their clients, execute jobs irrespective of whether they are legal or not and try and shore up their bottom line. If this was not the case, you would not have surrogate advertising.

Now let’s think of the consumer. Well, as a consumer, I cannot plead that I should have the right to do what I wish, including the consumption of tobacco in whatever form. That would perforce mean I have the right to commit suicide. And society and statute does not give me that right.

Having got that out of the way, I would have to agree that society in its wisdom and the law in its majesty enjoins certain restrictions on me and my public behaviour, and if I do not agree with such restrictions I have the right to appeal against them to the judiciary or lobby for legislative change. In the meanwhile, I am expected to be a law-abiding citizen.

Sounds very simple and straightforward.

Then why is there surrogate advertising? Does it mean that those indulging in it are not law-abiding citizens? The short answer is “yes!”

Tobacco and liquor companies have the right to knock on the doors of the judiciary and the legislature to seek redress from rules or laws they feel are unfair or wrong. God know they have the money, legal wherewithal and political patronage to do all of these things. If they have not been able to do it, it means that surrogate advertising is not just legally wrong but also unconscionable.

And that is the point I want to make.

Advertisers such as United Breweries went ahead and set up an airline with a brand name, colour and logo style that was the same as a liquor brand they owned.

Advertisers like ITC went ahead and set up a chain of lifestyle stores under the name and style of a cigarette brand they owned.

This was when there were already rules and laws in place that expressly forbade this.

Today we have a large airline that is a legitimate business called Kingfisher. And a large chain of lifestyles stores called Wills. An equally legitimate business. Yet, even Vijay Mallya would not be able to tell you with a straight face that his airline was named Kingfisher at a time when it was legal to do so. Nor would Yogi Deveshwar. And they are both honourable men.

If the Government was serious about enforcing its rules and laws it could have put a stop to these names years ago. It was expedient to allow them to grow into large legitimate businesses and then deem them legitimate. Now one can say that you cannot have a product (other than the liquor brand) called Seagrams 100 Pipers. That merely locks the doors after the horses have fled. How will you decide that a business is legitimate or not? Would Bacardi Blast cassettes and CDs be seen as legitimate. Of course it would be. Would any of these be “right”? Certainly not.

The point to note is that there is nothing surrogate about advertising. There is something surrogate about ethics and values and a sense of right and wrong. And so you have an actress who was hailed as the only “man” in Bollywood endorsing a bravery award named after a cigarette brand. And you have pious corporate social responsibility programmes from a tobacco company that freely endorses surrogate advertising. And you have a Member of Parliament whose intentions could definitely be construed to point at encouraging surrogate advertising. Forget the advertising agencies. They are too small in this game. Advertisers must decide what is right and what is wrong. And the consumer must be the ultimate judge. Do you want to patronise the products and services of companies who are legally correct, or really correct? That’s a choice you have to make. The advertising is purely incidental.

Ramesh Narayan is a communication consultant.