Open Forum
New Delhi, 23 June 2015
Brand Ambassadors
NEW ISSUES IN
ADVERTISING
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Reports on legal action initiated against some brand
ambassadors of the now banned Maggie noodles deserve as much public attention as
the ban itself. Its news value seems to be enormous since they include some top
level movie icons – Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta – whose
commercial pitch is as high as their film fame.
A criminal case was filed in a district court in Muzaffarpur
against the three brand ambassadors along with the manufacturing company. The Bihar court has also ordered registration of an FIR
against them.
Apparently there is a strong opinion in the Department of
Consumer Affairs that brand ambassadors are liable for action if advertisements
in which they feature are found to be misleading. The Additional Secretary in
the Department, is reported to have stated that, “wrong publicity amounts to
wrongful intentions and playing with the health of the kids and young people of
the country”.
This development has opened in India a crucial issue smouldering
in the advertising industry in many countries regarding the social
responsibility of the industry itself and the personal responsibility of the people
involved in publicity roles.
The spokesperson or presenter provides a face and
personality to persuade the customers to identify, remember, and patronize concerned
product or service. The more familiar the face and personality, the more close
is the feeling of the customers to the product/service. This psychological
factor has promoted the brand ambassador system and has immensely expanded a
second career to personalities from entertainment and sports fields.
Only when the product /service miserably fails to provide
the qualities claimed by the brand ambassadors as in the case of Maggie noodles
and certain other baby commodities, the responsibility of the spokespersons
comes into question.
Brand ambassador is a marketing jargon for celebrity
endorser or “spokesperson” or “spokesmodel” employed by an organization or
company in advertisements to boost sales. In the business world, they are chosen
for their popularity and are expected to embody the corporate identity and be
adept in promotional strategies.
The designation “brand ambassador” may be new, but that job
is known in India
also for many decades. History books inform us that merchants in Europe used “barkers” (or town criers) at least 2000
years ago. Middle men were used by businessmen to promote handicrafts and jewellery
in medieval kingdoms in India.
The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006 is an Act that
lays down science- based standards for articles of food and regulates
their manufacture, distribution, sale, and import to ensure availability
of safe and wholesome food for consumers. It has no clause on the role and
responsibility of the brand ambassadors though they lend their face and voice
and vigorously play the role of pushing sales. The promoter, manufacturer,
packer, wholesaler, distributor, seller, and even manager of a food business
outlet are liable for violations including “unfair trade practice”.
Section 24 of the Act prohibits misleading advertisements of
any food. False representation that the
foods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, or grade composition, or
misleading claim of the need for or usefulness of a product, false guarantee of its efficacy that is not
based on adequate or scientific justification are prohibited. But, the
responsibility of product endorsers is not defined.
Proliferation of brand ambassadors is a global phenomenon. China is said to be one of the top three markets
in the world using celebrities in advertisements along with South Korea and Japan. India is fast following this
system. Even government social welfare schemes are presented as ads using celebrities
thereby promoting their commercial behaviour and ambitions more than
popularizing the schemes.
Choice of such ambassadors, utility and commercial viability
of employing them, their role and responsibility are being discussed and even
regulated in many countries.
Chinese government has overhauled the Advertisement Law with
a view to protecting consumer interests seriously affected by food safety scandals
and quality issues. A clause makes celebrities who represent fake products in
deceptive ads criminally responsible for their actions. So far, endorsers had
no such responsibility although brands were relying heavily on them for
marketing their products. The new law also prohibits endorsement by children
under ten years of age.
The new Law, will make the advertiser, agent, distributor,
and spokespersons jointly responsible when an advertisement, capable of
affecting consumer health, is misleading. In other advertisements also, they
will be liable if they knew or ought to have known about the falsehood in the
ad.
In the US,
celebrities who speak for a commodity must be a user and direct beneficiary of
the product. Nearly two decades ago, the
US Federal Trade Commission made it clear that it would hold celebrities
personally responsible for false claims they make. A publication reviewing
relevant legal cases in the US
in 1992 advised that claims about the merits of products should be
substantiated by all parties making those claims. In France, celebrities involved in
deceptive advertisements are liable to punishment.
In most cases brand ambassadors are paid huge sums for their
appearance. Customers may not be aware that this sum is added to the cost of
production and distribution of the products which determine the price and
recovered from consumers and clients.
The Maggie episode has created the much needed awakening
among producers, organizers, and consumers in India to the efficacy of employing
celebrities in advertisements.
A study conducted in Los Angeles
in the US
on TV advertising in 2010 found that ads featuring a celebrity gives no
better results than ads without them. The CEO of Ace Metrix, the authority in
TV advertising effectiveness, is quoted for his finding that “contrary to
popular belief, the investment in a celebrity in TV advertising is very rarely
worthwhile… It is the advertising message that creates the connection with the
viewer in areas such as relevance, information, and attention…”
There seems to be no authentic research conducted in India on the
effect of celebrity endorsement on sales promotion. It seems that ads projecting celebrities are
watched for their performance and not for information to guide purchases. Needless
to mention how Indian audience is crazy after sports and film stars.
It is a strange argument that brand ambassadors are only
“acting” or playing as in a cinema or a stadium and cannot be expected to know
the contents, processes, techniques, etc., of the product they are actively
promoting. True. Their appearance and
speech are just a commercial contract. We have to change this.
It is not unreasonable to expect that celebrities trusted to
have the ability to persuade large number of people should first convince
themselves about the truth in their statements before attempting to convince
others. Such conviction is elementary in discharging one’s social
responsibility.
If celebrities are to be employed, their responsibility
should be legally fixed and should not be left to the vague sense of moral
responsibility or undefined self-regulation neither of which exists. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|