+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Date post: 27-Nov-2014
Category:
Upload: srijith-shivan
View: 291 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
88
Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising Advertising Ethics and viewer’s perception towards Surrogate Advertisements 1
Transcript
Page 1: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Advertising Ethics and viewer’s perception towards Surrogate Advertisements

1

Page 2: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SECTION I

SYNOPSIS…

“It's difficult to digest that an industry which is allowed to sell its products, is banned

from advertising the same products, despite the fact that the commercials carry health

warning, advising the customers to use the product in temperance.”

2

Page 3: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

- Prof. Atul Tandan, Director, Mudra Institute of Communications, in July 2002.

WE live in a complex world where we respond in extreme ways to what we view as

extreme pressures. The ethical debate rages around surrogate mothers. Yet it is difficult

to deny they perform a great service for those who use them.

Closer home, surrogate advertising has been around ever since someone decided that

certain things were probably not good in the interests of the community at large.

Who is anyone to decide whether I can sip my daily quota of what started off as eau de

vie, or the water of life and then rapidly transformed itself into its present day avatar,

Scotch? People have spent years perfecting a heavenly blend of spirits, and imparted to it

the smoky flavour that could come only from the peat of Scotland and the pristine

Highland water. Several others have made methode champenoise into a fine art and have

succeeded in bottling the very soul of France in green bottles that, when uncorked, seem

to scream celebration.

Who has the right to decide if I can deeply inhale the rich aroma and full-bodied flavour

of carefully rolled Virginia tobacco? Every time I nonchalantly put one of those sticks to

my lips I feel I have mounted a wild mustang and I am riding down the lonely mountain

trails of Colorado.

It is legal to manufacture liquor and cigarettes or beedis. It is legal to sell cigarettes at

every roadside stall, even to unsuspecting children. It is illegal to advertise it.

And that is precisely why you have to live with surrogate advertising.

Remember the television commercial where every sip of some mysterious amber liquid

made the front of a beautiful lady's dress go lower and lower? Remember the commercial

where a golf fanatic tried a difficult putt into an overturned glass inside an aircraft?

Remember the `Keep Walking' series of advertising? Well, surprise, surprise. They were

really not for apple juice or business case studies or cocktail stirrers. They were the result

of a market reality where a manufacturer who has the right to sell his products does not

have the right to advertise it.

3

Page 4: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

A surrogate advertisements is one in which a different product is promoted using an

already established brand name. Such advertisements or sponsorships help in contribute

to brand recall. The different product shown in the advertisement is called the

“Surrogate.” It could either resemble the original product or could be a different product

altogether, but using the established brand of the original product.

In India, the trend of surrogate advertisement gathered momentum with the Cable TV

Network Regulation Act, which prohibits tobacco and liquor advertisements on TV

channels.

Due to the ban, liquor companies focused more on promotions for brand building. The

ban on advertising of alcohol beverage products has severely handicapped

communication with consumers.

Companies with liquor brands are not advertising liquor products; instead they have

extended the equity of their brands into other fields. However as the TV was the most

effective medium of advertising, surrogate advertising on TV became popular.

In the mean time, some producers entered new segments under the liquor brand or

advertised these products under liquor brand.

The surrogate advertisements from liquor companies intensified further through

sponsorships of movies, music shows, and other programs and attracting youth.

In late 2001, the broadcasters began airing socially responsible advertisements sponsored

by liquor companies. By early 2002, surrogate advertising of liquor brands had

intensified like never before on satellite TV channels.

Keeping this thing in mind I decided to conduct a research to find out whether really this

surrogate ad helps to recall the original brand. Survey was done comprising of 50

respondents of different age group, different educational level and different class of

society.

4

Page 5: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

This project of mine focuses on advertising ethics and consumer perception towards

surrogate advertising. It also focuses on primary research wherein I have collected 50

samples of what kind of perception does respondents have towards surrogate advertising.

Questionnaire was asked to fill by them, and data analysis was done with the help of

SPSS package, findings have been given in the report.

I hope this project of mine will help for future references.

INTRODUCTION

Product advertising for liquor and cigarette companies is banned in the country since

1995 by Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act. According to Rule 7 (2) of the Act,

no broadcaster is permitted to show advertisement which promotes directly or indirectly

promotion, sale or consumption of cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor or

other intoxicants, infant milk substitution, feeding bottle or infant food. This ban is now

likely to be extended to advertising of extended brands.

5

Page 6: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

In June 2002, the Indian Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry served notices to

leading television broadcasters to ban the telecast of two surrogate ads of liquor brands

McDowell No.1 and Gilbey’s Green Label. The Ministry also put some other brands ---

Smirnoff Vodka, Hayward’s 5000, Royal Challenge Whiskey and kingfisher beer on a

“watch list.” The surrogates used by these advertisements ranged from audiocassettes,

CDs, perfumes to golf accessories and mineral water.

A market survey in 2001 revealed that advertising has a direct influence on the

consumption habits of 431 million people in India and an indirect impact on 275 million

`aspirants' from the lower income group. Considering this and realizing that nearly 50 per

cent of the television owners have access to cable channels, there is no doubt that the

hidden call for alcohol consumption behind the surrogate advertisements is not escaping

the eyes of viewers in the world's fourth highest liquor-consuming country. The very

purpose of banning liquor advertisements is defeated by surrogate advertising.

To put in the place of another: a: to appoint as successor, deputy, or substitute for oneself.

Surrogate marketing is used in two contexts: the first is when a company "farms out" the

entire marketing function and the group providing the service is called a "surrogate

marketing department."

The second is what is happening in India with respect to the ban on tobacco and alcohol

advertising. Companies in banned industries are introducing brand extensions with

products that are legal to advertise with the same brand name as the banned product. One

liquor company introduced apple juice with the same brand name as the liquor. The idea

is the companies can advertise freely the extension - thus keeping their banned-from-the-

media products in the minds of the customers. So the apple juice, for instance, is the

surrogate for the liquor in the ads. The companies also don't care much about the sales of

the surrogate products - for instance, I read that the apple juice isn't even readily available

to buy throughout the company.

6

Page 7: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

This loophole that the tobacco and liquor companies are exploiting is upsetting the

legislature because every apple juice ad that reminds the consumers of the liquor is a slap

in the lawmakers' faces. But, they also don't quite know what to do about it

In general, surrogate marketing is when you promote one product or service in the hopes

of selling another. Why you would want to do that varies. The best reason is that you

aren't able to legally. But other reasons might be because the two products sell better

together - for instance, you may make a product and it requires service - which you don't

provide. You can market a service provider - the surrogate - who will only use your

product.

7

Page 8: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SECTION II

BASICS…

The word advertising originates from a Latin word advertise which means to turn to. The

dictionary meaning of the term is “to give public notice or to announce publicity”.

Advertising as a term is used by many to cover almost any topic in the promotional area

of marketing. Advertising is a marketing vehicle that is designed for the masses.

The American Marketing Association defines advertising as

8

Page 9: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

“any paid form of non personal presentation and promotion of Ideas, goods or services

by an identified sponsor.”

This definition can be divided into 4 parts:

1. Paid form

The advertisement is paid for by an advertiser and as result of this, the advertiser

exercises control over advertisement. He would mostly decide what the advertisement

will say and where it is placed. As he invests money, he would also be interested to know

its results.

2. Non – personal presentation

Advertising is non-personal selling. It is directed towards mass selling by way of mass

communication. It makes use of various media to deliver the message to the customers.

At times, advertising message may try to give the impression of personal appeal but it

cannot be truly personal. Advertising is an inexpensive way to reach the mass market.

The cost of a personal call involves huge money whereas a mass advertising exposure

will cost only a fraction of the investment.

3. Ideas, goods or services

Advertising also sells ideas. Some firms may use advertisements to sell the idea that if an

investor puts his money in a certain plan of public deposits over a given number of years,

an individual with small income can become a rich man. Advertising may also be used to

sell the ideas that they need “your” help

Example

Mumbai Traffic Police advertise asking drivers and pedestrians to cooperate to help the

department to maintain normal traffic flow, free of bottleneck and accidents.

9

Page 10: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

When people think of advertising they imagine an advertisement is for tangible objects.

But these days this perception is held wrong as many advertisements sell services e.g.

Banks, insurance, restaurants etc.

4. Identified sponsor

Advertising tries to influence the recipient of the message. Advertising wants the sponsor

of the message be known. Advertisement without an identified sponsor is a wasteful use

of advertising budget. The advertiser is interested to identify his product with maker and

the maker with the product.

Advertising is a form of communication with the public. The communication is usually

one-sided and in one direction from the advertiser to public. The members of the public

are free to respond to it on their own.

Advertising is an identified communication. The advertiser signs his name to his

advertisement for the purpose of publicizing identity.

Remember, each advertising is a specific communication that must be effective, nor just

for one customer but for many target buyers.

Nothing can be more important to the success of your advertising program than a

thorough understanding of what advertising is and how it operates.

ETHICS IN ADVERTISING…

Inspite of the growing importance of advertising in recent years; as the quantity of false,

misleading and offensive advertising has increased it has resulted in consumers having an

increasing disbelief in advertising, and a growing resentment of it. Misleading, false

advertising also constitutes unfair competition. It could lead to market-place disaster or

even litigation. If this kind of advertising continues, it won't be long before statutory

regulations and procedures are imposed which make even fair truthful, decent advertising

10

Page 11: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

cumbersome if not impossible. This certainly will affect your ability to compete and

grow.

Ethics is a choice between good and bad, between right and wrong. It is governed by a set

of principles of morality at a given time and at a given place. Ethics is related to group

behavior in the ultimate analysis, setting thus the norms for an individual to follow in

consistence with the group norms.

Advertising too, has its ethical values. Advertising communications may be artfully

presented facts but the same are subservient to ethical principles. In order to be

consumer-oriented, an advertisement will have to be truthful and ethical. It should not

mislead the consumers. If it so happens and word does get out, the credibility is lost and

the communication becomes ineffective rather futile.

Advertisements truth should be viewed from the consumer’s point of view, and not in the

narrow legalistic frame in order to find a loophole and to get out after an irresponsible

action.

Many times a clear line of demarcation between truth and lies is difficult to establish. But

the advertisement is as much judged by its impact as by its acceptance by the consumers.

What it promises must be there in the performance of products.

Advertisements should not be indecent and obscene.

Gambling or to encourage gambling is against ethical code.

Endorsement of products by celebrities who are opinion leaders is also sometimes

criticized for spreading falsehood. Especially if the word gets out that the celebrity

has endorsed without actual personal experience, it can have a very detrimental effect

on consumers.

As advertising a social process, it must honour the traditional norms of social behavior,

and should not affront the moral senses of a society.

11

Page 12: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

In order to enforce an ethical code throughout the world ‘Self – Regulation’ is followed.

There are self-regulation bodies throughout the world for e.g. In UK the self – regulation

body is The Advertising Standards Authority, In Ireland The Advertising Standards

Authority for Ireland (ASAI) and in India we have Advertising Standards Council of

India (ASCI). It is a non-profit organization set up by 43 founder members who are

involved with advertising in one way or the other. ASCI’s propose is to adjudicate on

whether an advertisement is offensive and its decision will be binding on its members.

The Advertising Standards Council of India (1985) has adopted a Code for Self-

Regulation in Advertising. It is a commitment to honest advertising and to fair

competition in the market place. It stands for the protection of the legitimate interests of

consumers and all concerned with advertising, - advertisers, media, advertising agencies

and others who help in the creation or placement of advertising. As the Code becomes

increasingly accepted and observed pro-actively, three things will begin to happen.

1. Fewer false, misleading claims

2. Fewer unfair advertisements

3. Increasing respectability

‘Ethics’ is very subjective topic, what is ethical for one person may not be ethical for

another. The same subjectivity also applies to countries. Factors like culture taste habits

etc influences our perception of ethics.

Ethics in advertising is very important in order to protect the consumers. In order to

safeguard this ethics in advertising through out the world self – regulation is followed. In

India as we have seen the self-regulation authority is Advertising Standards Council of

India (ASCI).

Self – regulation bodies complement the legal framework of the country. Unlike the

censor board the self - regulation body cannot first see the ad and then give it clearance to

be aired. In fact the self – regulation body cannot take any concrete action against the

violators of the code, but the self – regulation bodies ask the media to stop airing the

12

Page 13: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

advertisement. In India some of the members of ASCI are from the media. When any ad

is upheld by ASCI, ASCI informs the advertiser as well as the media and the media stops

the ad from being aired.

In India when an ad is upheld, 80% of the advertisers clarify their claims or withdraw

their advertisements. ASCI as an organisation is very reactive i.e. only if there is a

complaint action will be taken. When there is a complaint against a certain ad the

company is informed and the company makes presentations to the general secretary of

ASCI and then he decides whether the ad is upheld or not.

The reason behind this could be:

The typical Indian mentality ‘There are other people who should complaint’ or ‘If I

don’t like something I shouldn’t watch it’.

People aren’t aware that there is an organisation they can report to in case they find

an ad offensive.

13

Page 14: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

ASCl’s MISSION

ASCI have one overarching goal: to maintain and enhance the public confidence in

advertising.

ASCI seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to its Code for Self – Regulation

which requires advertisements to be

Truthful and fair to consumers and competitors.

Within the bounds of generally accepted standards of public decency and propriety.

Not used indiscriminately for the promotion of products, hazardous or harmful to

society or to individuals particularly minors, to a degree unacceptable to society at

large

ASCI propagates its code and a sense of responsibility for its observance amongst

advertisers, advertising agencies, and others connected with the creation of advertising,

and the media.

ASCI encourages the public to complain against advertisements with which they may be

unhappy for any reason and ensures that each complaint receives a prompt and objective

consideration by an impartial Committee (CCC) which takes into account the view point

of the advertiser, and an appropriate decision is communicated to all concerned.

ASCI endeavors to achieve compliance with its decisions through reasoned persuasion

and the power of public opinion.

14

Page 15: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SURROGATE ADVERTISEMENTS…

Surrogate advertising relates to advertising by duplicating the brand image of a product in

order to promote another product of the same brand, the advertising for which is

otherwise banned. In such advertisements, though the companies directly advertise a

different product, they intend to advertise indirectly, a banned product such as liquor or

tobacco. Consumers associate such advertisements with the corresponding banned

product. The products are thus indirectly advertised. This, in turn, would influence the

behavior of their audience. This paper focuses on analyzing the perceptions of the

respondents on 'surrogate advertising', an unethical advertising practice, presently

followed by corporates. It concludes that there exists a significant association between

the aided recall of surrogate advertisements and the brands, with the age of the

respondents. In general, the perceptions that govern the attitude of respondents towards

surrogate advertisements are more on the negative. Irrespective of the positive

perceptions, majority of the people perceive the phenomena of surrogate advertising as

negative for the society immoral and unethical.

A surrogate advertisements is one in which a different product is promoted using an

already established brand name. Such advertisements or sponsorships help in contribute

to brand recall. The different product shown in the advertisement is called the

“Surrogate.” It could either resemble the original product or could be a different product

altogether, but using the established brand of the original product. The sponsoring of

sports/cultural/leisure events and activities also falls under the purview of surrogate

advertising.

In India, the trend of surrogate advertisement gathered momentum with the Cable TV

Network Regulation Act, which prohibits tobacco and liquor advertisements on TV

channels. The liquor industry has intentionally blurred the line between products,

advertising `old wine' in a `new bottle,' only this time with a soft-drink label.

By August 2002, the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements and leading satellite

TV channels including Zee, Sony, STAR and Aaj Tak were issued show cause notices to

15

Page 16: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

explain their rationale behind carrying surrogate liquor advertisements. Answering to the

notices, Zee and STAR stopped telecasting the advertisements, followed soon by Aaj Tak

and Sony.

In addition, the I&B Ministry hired a private monitoring agency to keep a watch on all

the advertisements for violation of the Act.

These developments led to heated debates over the issue of surrogate advertising by

liquor companies being allowed on national media. Though the companies involved came

out strongly against the I&B Ministry’s decision, they seemed to have no other choice,

given the highly regulated nature of the liquor business.

Analyst remarked that there was lot of hypocrisy underlying the government policy. They

said “on the one hand they allow these ‘socially bad’ products to be manufactured and

sold and then they deny the manufacturers the right to propagate knowledge of their

products in order to drive sales. If some thing is bad and cannot be advertised, why allow

it to be sold at all?”

Liquor producers spent heavily on advertising on the electronic media, particularly TV.

Though the broadcasters were bound by the 30 yrs old advertising code, which stated that

“No advertisements shall be permitted which relates to or promotes cigarettes and

tobacco products, liquor, wines and other intoxicants,” the telecast of such product

continued blatantly over the years.

More over the satellite channels garnered about 50% of their revenue from liquor and

cigarettes advertisements. In the peak seasoned it gets almost doubled.

Due to the ban, liquor companies focused more on promotions for brand building. They

started sponsoring events that projected the “glamour” of the brands, like track racing, car

rallies etc. for instance Shaw Wallace Co. one of the leading liquor companies in India,

conducted the Royal Challenge Invitation Golf tournament, which became an annual

16

Page 17: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

event. Some companies also promoted their product through corporate advertising,

distributing free gifts like Caps and T-Shirts with the brand name and using glow-signs

outside the retail outlets.

The ban on advertising of alcohol beverage products has severely handicapped

communication with consumers. The industry is naturally compelled to make the best use

of the channels and media of communications still open to it. Companies with liquor

brands are not advertising liquor products; instead they have extended the equity of their

brands into other fields. Over a period of time these products have become independent

businesses for companies.

However as the TV was the most effective medium of advertising, surrogate advertising

on TV became popular. The liquor producers seemed to have ensured that the ban was

only on the paper.

In the mean time, some producers entered new segments under the liquor brand or

advertised these products under liquor brand. Most of the liquor producers entered into

packaged water segment, such as Kingfisher Mineral water. McDowell used surrogate

advertising by using its mineral water and soda brands, which generated additional

revenues for the company. In the early 2001, SWC started marketing its range of golf

accessories under the liquor brand Royal Challenge. It also announced that India’s

flagship Golfing Event – the Indian open would be sponsored by the company till 2006.

The surrogate advertisements from liquor companies intensified further through

sponsorships of movies, music shows, and other programs and attracting youth. For

instance, Seagram’s Royal Stag was promoted by sponsoring movie related activities and

Indian pop music using the banner Royal stag Mega Movies and Royal stag Mega Music.

In late 2001, the broadcasters began airing socially responsible advertisements sponsored

by liquor companies.

17

Page 18: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

By early 2002, surrogate advertising of liquor brands had intensified like never before on

satellite TV channels. These advertisements attracted criticism from various people.

There were numerous other advertisements selling music cassettes, CDs, water, clothing,

fashion accessories and sports goods --- many of them accused of being sexually

provocative and offensive.

Exhibit-1

18

Page 19: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has clarified that as per its code, the

mere use of a brand name or company name that may also be applied to a product whose

advertising is restricted or prohibited is not reason to find the advertisement objectionable

provided the advertisement is not objectionable and the product is produced and

distributed in reasonable quantities and the objectionable advertisement does not contain

direct or indirect cues for the product that which is not allowed to be advertised.

However the analyst opined that the ban could turn out to be advantages for the domestic

players. In March 2001, as per the commitment to the WTO agreement, MNCs would

have an unrestricted license to sell their products. After the ban, these MNCs would not

have access to the quickest and most effective form of advertising --- the TV.

19

Page 20: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Some analyst argued that the ban would not affect the established domestic players

severely. It would only affect the new launches and new brand building of these

companies. The ban was also expected to improve the margins for these players.

The latest television ad for “AC Black Apple Juice” epitomizes so many things that are

wrong with surrogate advertising in India.

Most of the surrogate advertising is done pretty blatantly with the “harmless” product

being nothing more than a front for advertising the “harmful” brand. So you have various

liquor/cigarette manufacturers resorting to ingenuous ways to peddle their wares like,

Of course there are a very few brands which start off as a surrogate brand, but over a

period of time actually become full-fledged brands in themselves. The “Wills Sport”

clothing line from the manufacturers of “Wills” cigarettes is one of those rare cases.

But on the whole, surrogate advertising is dedicated towards using an insignificant,

“harmless” product to increase/maintain awareness for their primary “harmful” brand.

And that’s not an easy task. For instance, how do you portray the essence of a whiskey or

vodka or a cigarette using a bottle of bottled water or a pack of apple juice?

Similarly "HUM tum or mera Bagpiper". This Bagpiper club soda advertisement,

featuring cine celebrities, is similar to the earlier one for Bagpiper whisky. The

advertisement comes with the same music and punch line as the one for the popular

liquor brand telecast before the ban on liquor advertisements.

Not easy. And guess who/what suffers when faced with this quandary?

1. Consumers - because we have to put up with the lameass, stupid advertising

that’s designed to sell booze/ciggies but pretends to be all about water or apple

juice! It’s like everyone knows what’s going on - the manufacturers know what

the real reason for the ad is, the consumers know what’s really been advertised,

20

Page 21: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

and the government knows that too. So why not either (i) do away with this

wholesale scam and just let them advertise all their stuff, or (ii) ban such

surrogate advertising?

2. Advertising - because ad agencies have to come up with silly ads based on briefs

from clients who are not interested in the surrogate brand, but the primary brand. I

agree some might consider it a worthy challenge to do something like this, but

from what I’ve seen of surrogate advertising in India the output is pretty lame.

Surrogate advertisements are not only misleading, but also false and dishonest in many

cases. With surrogate advertising so widespread, this is the moment to tackle the problem

head-on.

There should be stringent regulatory measures to curb the practice, such as:

1. Making transparent laws banning surrogate advertisements for different products

under a single brand name, by amending the Trade Marks Act, for instance.

2. Providing teeth to the Advertising Standards Council of India to enable it take action

against false and misleading advertisements, and keep a close vigil over clever

evasion of the law.

3. Asking the electronic and print media to adhere to the advertisement codes and not

encourages surrogate advertisements.

4. Calling on the ASCI address complaints received from consumers against surrogate

advertisements and take appropriate actions immediately.

5. Creating a consumer awareness programme to help people understand the negative

impact of surrogate advertisements.

6. Adopting strict laws to penalize those companies featuring surrogate advertisements

without any real existence of the product.

7. Requiring advertising agencies to have full knowledge of the products under the same

brand for which they are promoting advertisements, and taking legal actions against

those agencies which design surrogate advertisements.

21

Page 22: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

If one believes that honesty is the best policy and truth ultimately gains, the best policy

would be to stand up strongly to the dishonest practices of surrogate advertising.

Senior sources at IBF also said that the industry body had sent out show-cause notices to

a couple of channels regarding ads of certain alcohol and tobacco products. Most

channels have reportedly complied with the Government panel’s directive to the extent

that the ads of a liquor company – that purportedly makes apple juice after drinking

which anything can happen (‘kuch bhi ho sakta hain’) – have been taken off air. (Exhibit

2)

22

Page 23: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

... who too was doing the same with her drink. MVO: AC Black apple juice. Kucch bhi ho sakta hai. Kucch

bhi.

A man sitting at a bar nursing his drink. A ravishing lady in black walks in and stations herself

opposite our man.

He takes a sip and looks up at her. The high neck... ... dress she was wearing gives way to a bateau neck line.

He's surprised at the revelation. Once again taking a sip, he

glances at her.

The lady's dress has now become an off shoulder one.

Sipping his drink once more, he looks through the glass... ... to find a shorter, more tantalizing dress on her.

Sipping in anticipation, his eyes fall on his chest... ... to find the shirt unbuttoned. He looks at the lady...

23

Exhibit 2

Page 24: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

LATEST SURROGATE

ADVERTISEMENTS

24

Royal Challengers in IPL 20-20 cricket match

Haywards 5000 soda advertisement

Page 25: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SECTION III

25

Page 26: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

PROBLEM STATEMENT

When the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) withdrew its code to regulate

tobacco, liquor products etc. consumer activists were concerned over the impact of the

move.

The issue has taken a new twist with the Central Government deciding to ban these

product companies from sponsoring sports and cultural events. Liquor or tobacco

advertising in banned in India and hence companies that sell these products have to resort

to advertising their wares using less “harmful” products which carry almost the same

names and looks - surrogate advertising.

26

Page 27: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

With keeping these in mind, the research will be conducted to solve the following

questions:

What does this all have to do with the final consumer?

What image does he carry of these products?

Does he know that the advertisement which is shown is meant for some other

product?

Does he think it is Right/Ethical?

27

Page 28: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SAMPLING PLAN

1. Sampling Method: Conveniently Sampling.

2. Sample Type: Target audience would be comprises of those who are of the age group

of 15 yrs and above. Educated, at least know about what advertising is, have seen the

surrogate advertisement.

3. Sample Size: 50

4. Sample Area: Borivali and Mira Road.

28

Page 29: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

RESEARCH DESIGN

1. Exploratory Research conducted by me included door to door surveys, in the Royal

College Campus and in the Dalmia School for filling up the questionnaires.

2. Instrument Design, in the form of questionnaire and interviews with the

respondents.

LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

1. Limited Sample Size (50)

2. This study is restricted to the geographical limits of Mumbai.

3. Limited period of survey

IMPORTANCE OF STUDY

The study will help to find the people’s perception of surrogate advertisements.

29

Page 30: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Data Analysis

When the respondents were asked how many of them watch the advertisement on

television 96% responded positive towards this. The above graph depicts the same thing.

30

Page 31: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The table below shows the cross tabulation between the person who have seen the

advertisement on television and that to of any cigrates or alcohol.

Seen Advertisement on T.V * Seen Advertisement of Cigrates or Alcohol Cross

tabulation Count

seen advertisement of cigrates or alcohol

Total

YES NO

Seen advertisementon TV

YES 41 7 48

NO 2 2

Total 41 9 50 41 respondents out of 50 said they have seen the advertisement of alcohol and cigrates.

31

Page 32: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Out of the 41 respondent who have seen the ads of cigrates and alcohol 32 of them are

aware of the fact that an advertisement of such product is banned in India.

32

Page 33: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

29 of the respondent said that cigrates and alcohol do require advertisements in this

competitive world. But 20 of them where not agree to this fact.

33

Page 34: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Out of 50 respondent 36 said that they have knowledge what surrogate ads are they form

the 72%. While 13 of them don’t know about the surrogate advertisements.

34

Page 35: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

When the respondent who knows about surrogate ads asked that do they recall the

original brand while looking at it 64% of them recall the product 32% said no and 4%

have not given their view.

Information of surrogate ads * Product recall Cross tabulation Count

Product Recall Total YES NO Information of Surrogate ads

YES 29 7 36

NO 3 9 12 Total 32 16 48 The above cross tabulation shows that the surrogate as helps the organisation to advertise

their product in a different way and make a brand recall at the time of purchase.

35

Page 36: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

36

Page 37: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

ethical

unethical

should be banned

no comments

view towards surrogate ads

Pies show counts

22.92%n=11

35.42%n=17

8.33%n=4

33.33%n=16

On question of ethical issue of surrogate ads 35% said that surrogate ads are unethical

while majority of them constituting 33% refused or where not able to give their opinion

on the issue. 23% said they are required and they are ethical while only 8% where in the

opinion of banning the ad.

Advertisement requirement * view towards surrogate ads Cross tabulation Count

View towards

surrogate ads

Total

ethical unethical should be banned no comments

Advertisement

requirement

YES 8 11 1 8 28

NO 3 6 3 8 20

Total 11 17 4 16 48

37

Page 38: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The cross tabulation between the respondents who said that advertisement is required for

such product and ethical issue of surrogate ads shows that 11 of them said that ads are

required but surrogate ads are unethical to do that, while 8 of them where agree that it is

ethical to do the surrogate advertisement.

38

Page 39: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

When respondent where asked how they find these ads 21 of them said, they are

entertaining while only 10 of them said, they are informative about products.

39

Page 40: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

YES

NO

ad appeal

Pies show counts

40.82%n=20

59.18%n=29

Strong view of 60% came from respondent that the surrogate ads do not induce them to

use the product; only 40% said that they are inspired by the ad to use the product.

40

Page 41: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

For checking how do the respondent recall the original product they where asked whether

the respondent or any of his/her family member consume the product, 27 of them said

Yes, and 22 said No.

Family member consuming such product * product recall Cross tabulation Count

41

Page 42: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Product recall Total

YES NO

Family member

consuming such

product

YES 19 8 27

NO 13 8 21

Total 32 16 48

19 respondent where those whose family member consume such product and due to

which they were able to recall the original brand while looking at the surrogate ads

whereas 13 of them where those whose member doesn’t use the product but then also

they recall the original brand.

Respondent’s profile

42

Page 43: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The above graph shows the age group of the respondent, 30 of them belongs to the age

group of 21 yrs. and above and 20 where below 21 yrs.

Age group of respondent * ad appeal Cross tabulation Count

Ad appeal Total

YES NO

age group of respondent 15-18 2 5 7

18-21 5 8 13

21-24 10 13 23

24 and

Above

3 4 7

Total 20 30 50

43

Page 44: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Family income was asked to checked that the surrogate ads effects the buying habits or

not majority of our respondent who have nothing to do with the surrogate ads and who

usually purchase the product belong to high class of the society with their family income

of 1,00,000/- and above.

44

Page 45: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

26 respondent where post graduate and rest of the 24 where graduates and

undergraduates.

45

Page 46: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

OBSERVATION & FINDINGS

On analyzing the data following conclusions were drawn:

1) Majority of the respondent were agreeing to the fact that advertisement is

requiring for such product in these competitive world.

2) Many of them have knowledge of surrogate ads but they were of the view that

these are unethical ways of brand advertising.

3) The surrogate ads which they see are instead of informative being considered as

entertaining for majority of the respondent.

4) Original Brand recall is high among the respondents.

5) Strong facts that the surrogate ads do not induce the consumer to purchase the

original brand, they just remind the brand existence.

6) 35% of the respondents where those under the age group of 21 yrs., they where

attracted by the surrogate ads and were induce to use or at least try the product.

7) Major of the respondent were also able to recall the original brand either because

these were used by them or any of their family member.

46

Page 47: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SECTION IVCASE STUDY

47

Page 48: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

BANNING LIQUOR ADVERTISEMENTS – AGAIN

In June 2002, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry of India ordered leading

television (TV) broadcasters to ban the telecast of two surrogate ads of liquor brands,

McDowell’s No. 1 and Gilbey’s Green Label. The Ministry also put some other brands –

Smirnoff Vodka, Hayward’s 5000, Royal Challenge Whiskey and Kingfisher beer – on a

‘watch list.’ The surrogates used by these advertisements ranged from audiocassettes,

CDs and perfumes to golf accessories and mineral water.

By August 2002, the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements. Leading satellite TV

channels, including Zee, Sony, STAR and Aaj Tak were issued show-cause notices

asking them to explain their reason for carrying surrogate liquor advertisements. The

channels were asked to adhere strictly to the Cable Television Regulation Act 1995

(Cable TV Act, 1995). As a result, Zee and STAR stopped telecasting the advertisements;

Aaj Tak and Sony soon followed suit. In addition, the I&B Ministry hired a private

monitoring agency to keep a watch on all advertisements for violations of the Act.

These developments led to heated debates over the issue of surrogate advertising by

liquor companies. Though the liquor companies involved protested strongly against the

I&B Ministry’s decision, they had no choice, but to comply with the regulations.

Analysts remarked that the government’s policy was hypocritical. One said, “On the one

hand they allow these ‘socially bad’ products to be manufactured and sold (in order to

garner revenues) and then they deny the manufacturers the right to propagate knowledge

of their products in order to drive sales. If something is bad and cannot be advertised,

why allow it to be sold at all?”

Meanwhile, the government also seemed to be in dilemma. On the one hand, it had to

encourage the sales of liquor and tobacco because they were the highest taxed sectors of

the Indian economy.

On the other hand, there was also the need to take the high moral ground and reduce the

consumption of such products.

48

Page 49: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The Indian liquor industry

The Indian liquor industry can be divided into two broad segments: Indian Made Foreign

Liquor (IMFL) and country-made liquor. IMFL comprises alcoholic beverages that were

developed abroad but are being made in India (whisky, rum, vodka, beer, gin and wine),

while country-made liquor comprises alcoholic beverages made by local breweries.

While many players were present in the IMFL segment, breweries in the unorganized

sector accounted for almost 100% of the country-made liquor segment.

During 1999-00, the Rs 60 billion Indian liquor industry grew at the rate of 10-12%.

While IMFL was consumed by the middle and upper classes of society, country-made

liquor was consumed by the economically backward classes. In India, 40-50% of all

males and 1% of all females consumed alcohol. Almost 62% of the drinkers could be

classified as light drinkers (i.e. social drinkers), 29% percent as moderate drinkers, and

about 9% as hard drinkers. The organized industry was dominated by Shaw Wallace and

United Breweries, which together accounted for around 53% of the total market.

INDIAN LIQUOR INDUSTRY – PLAYER PROFILE

Company Leading Brands

United

Breweries

 Kingfisher (Beer), McDowell’s No. 1 and Bagpiper

(Whiskey)

Shaw

Wallace

 Hayward’s, Antiquity, Royal Challenge, Director’s

Special (Whiskey), White Mischief Vodka, Golconda, Hi-

Five Beer, Lal Toofan Beer

Jagatjit

Industries

 Aristocrat Whiskey, Captain Henry, Bonnie Scot,

Binnie’s Fine

Radico

Khaitan

 8 PM Rare Blend Whiskey, Contessa XXX Rum, Whyte

and Mackay Scotch Whiskey, Contessa Premium Extra

Dry Gin, Contessa Deluxe Doctor’s Brandy, Contessa

Vodka

Source: ICMR

49

Page 50: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The liquor industry was heavily regulated by the government. Companies were not

allowed to expand capacity without prior approval from the concerned state government.

The distribution of liquor was also controlled in many states through auction system, the

open-market system and the government-controlled system. Under the auction system,

the government fixed a floor price for the shops and the bidders had to quote prices. The

license was given to the highest bidder.

States following the open-market system gave companies freedom to choose their

distributor and to determine the price and the discounts. In the government-controlled

system, liquor was distributed by state agencies such as BEVCO (in Kerala) and the

Andhra Pradesh Beverage Corporation (in Andhra Pradesh). There were around 25,000-

27,000 licensed retail sales outlets in the country, in addition to the bars, pubs, hotels and

restaurants serving liquor. There were restrictions on the location of these outlets and

their business hours.

Liquor producers spent heavily on advertising on the electronic media because of the

reach of satellite and cable TV. Though the broadcasters were bound by a 30-year old

advertising code which banned them from airing advertisements that related to or

promoted cigarettes and tobacco products, liquor, wines and other intoxicants, the telecast

of such advertisements continued blatantly over the years. This was because the code was

only a code of conduct, not a legally enforcing code. Doordarshan, the state-owned TV

channel, was the only one that adhered to it.

The broadcasters were also bound by the Cable TV Act, 1995. However, as most of the

channels were uplinked from outside India, the Act did not apply to them. Moreover,

satellite channels did not want to follow this code because they garnered about 50% of

their advertisement revenues from liquor.

In the peak seasons for the sale of liquor, this revenue almost doubled. In the first half of

1998, STAR reported revenues of Rs 127.9 million from liquor advertisements while Zee

reported revenues of Rs 40 million. The regional channels managed to get about Rs 0.70

million in revenues. Since liquor ads generated such high revenues, Doordarshan also

50

Page 51: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

planned to air such ads in 2000. With a reach of 70 million homes, it expected to acquire

a significant share of liquor advertisement revenues. Doordarshan estimated that its

revenues would increase three times from cricket matches alone if it were permitted to air

liquor advertisements.

Even as Doordarshan was considering the above option, the I&B Ministry barred TV

channels from telecasting liquor and cigarette advertisements in September 2000. With

pressure increasing from public interest groups to ban liquor advertisements, the

government had to make amendments to the Cable TV Act 1995. While the Indian

government could not take action on most of the channels for violating the codes, as they

did not uplink from India, the cable operators were punishable under Indian law. The

I&B Ministry also took steps to monitor the advertisements broadcast by these

companies.

Due to the ban, liquor companies focused more on promotions for brand building. They

started sponsoring events that projected the ‘glamour’ of the brands, like track racing, car

rallies etc. for instance Shaw Wallace Co. (SWC), one of the leading liquor companies in

India, conducted the Royal Challenge Invitation Golf tournament, which became an

annual event. Some companies also promoted their products through corporate

advertising, distributing free gifts like caps and T-shirts with the brand name and using

glow-signs outside the retail outlets. However, as the TV was the most effective medium

of advertising, surrogate advertising on TV became more popular.

About surrogate brands

Even after the ban, liquor companies continued to advertise their drinks in the form of

surrogate advertisements. In this type of advertisement, a product other than the banned

one is promoted using an already established brand name. Such advertisements or

sponsorships help in brand building and contribute to brand recall. The product shown in

the advertisement is called the ‘surrogate.’ The surrogate could either resemble the

original product or could be a different product altogether, but using the established brand

of the original product. The sponsoring of sports/cultural/leisure events and activities

51

Page 52: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

using a liquor brand name also falls in the category of surrogate advertising.

In late 2000, a group of broadcasters, who were members of the Indian Broadcasting

Foundation (IBF), submitted their recommendations on surrogate advertising to the I&B

Ministry. Under the recommendation, surrogate advertising would comprise ‘the products

of the liquor companies, which do not have a minimum turnover of Rs 10 million and

where the products are not manufactured in bulk quantity.’

The broadcasters also urged the government to allow them to telecast socially responsible

advertisements sponsored by liquor companies. They requested permission to telecast

such advertisements because the Indian television industry’s revenues had reportedly

decreased by about 7-11% (about Rs 1 billion per annum) after liquor and tobacco ads

were banned.

After more than six months, in mid-2001, the I&B ministry accepted the

recommendations of the broadcasters. However, this decision was not formally

announced because there was same dispute over the issue of hoardings of these ads at

sports events being broadcast on television. The I&B Minister Sushma Swaraj said, “We

have sought the sports ministry’s comments on the issue and are awaiting their response

before announcing the norms. If a company makes a product other than liquor (or

tobacco), which has a turnover of Rs 1 crore (Rs 10 million), then the firm is entitled to

use the same brand for that product.” She announced that a formal decision would be

made after the sports ministry’s comments were received.

In the mean time, some liquor producers entered new segments under the liquor brand or

advertised these products under the liquor brand. Most of liquor producers entered into

the packaged water segment, such as Kingfisher Mineral water. Some companies seemed

to be using the ban to their advantage. McDowell’s mineral water and soda brands served

as surrogates for their liquor brand and also generated additional revenues for the

company. To expand this segment, the company franchised its bottling and sale of

purified drinking water and soda and made them available in more than 75 cities in the

country.

52

Page 53: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

In early 2001, SWC started marketing its range of golf accessories under the liquor brand

Royal Challenge. It also launched a new range of golf accessories, including graphite

shafted golf sets (with lifetime warranty), golf bags, caps, and gloves. SWC also started a

quarterly golf publication that which provided information on the latest happenings on

golf. The company also entered into agreements with the Indian Golf Union and the

International Management Group to promote the game in India. It also announced that

India’s flagship Golfing Event – the Indian Open – would be sponsored by the company

till 2006.

In late 2001, SWC announced its decision to enter the packaged water market, under its

well-known beer brands Hi-Five and Lal Toofan. In 2002, it named it soda water Royal

Challenge Premium Sparkling Water to leverage the company’s flagship liquor brand

Royal Challenge. According to industry watchers, SWC was launching Sparkling Water

to use it as a surrogate for its liquor brand. They were of the view that, following the ban

on advertising, liquor companies were forced to look at innovative ways of building their

brands.

The number and range of surrogate advertisements increased as liquor producers started

sponsoring movies, music shows, and other programs attracting youth. For instance,

Seagram’s Royal Stag was promoted by sponsoring movie-related activities and Indian

pop music under the banners Royal Stag Mega Movies and Royal Stag Mega Music. It

promoted its 100 Pipers brand by sponsoring a series of performances by fusion music

artists under the name 100 Pipers Pure Music. Blenders’ Pride sponsored a series of

performances by troop dancers and artists under the banner of Blenders’ Pride Magical

Nites. Seagram also sponsored events such as the Chivas Regal Polo Championships and

the Chivas Regal Invitational Golf Challenge for corporates.

In late 2001, television broadcasters began airing socially responsible advertisements

sponsored by liquor companies, even though the government had not issued any

notification permitting the airing of socially responsible ads on TV. Star TV and Sony

were among the leading broadcasters telecasting such advertisements included STAR TV

53

Page 54: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

and Sony. The advertisements were telecast during Christmas and New Year’s Eve. One

of these ads by Seagram wished the viewers with ‘Season’s Greetings.’

Another advertisement of Seagram read, “Tonight, when it’s one for the road, it’s got to

be coffee.” It’s not a liquor advertisement at all. It’s just another corporate advertisement

through a social message. It cannot be classified as a liquor advertisement because

Seagram is not a liquor brand. One must see the spirit behind an advertisement to find out

whether it’s promoting liquor or not.

Some of the broadcasters said that because the I&B Ministry was taking a long time

deciding about the use of socially responsible advertisements by liquor companies, they

had started using them without the Ministry’s consent. IBF’s Executive Director, Bhuvan

Lal, reportedly argued that there was nothing wrong with airing such advertisements

because they did not violate the government’s guidelines restricting the telecast of

direct/indirect liquor ads. The government’s guidelines stated that ‘advertisements which

lead to sale, consumption and promotion of liquor should not be allowed.’

Soon, liquor companies that had not entered into any agreements with satellite channels

for airing socially responsible and for surrogate advertisements started processing such

agreements. For instance, Whyte & Mackay began negotiating agreements with various

TV channels, including Star TV. As long as there was no ban, companies were not

interested in showing liquor advertisements in the garb of social messages. But with the

government imposing restrictions, social messages are a route to liquor advertising for

many.

By early 2002, there were many surrogate advertisements of liquor brands on satellite TV

channels. These advertisements attracted a lot of criticism. We see a brown liquid poured

into a glass under a well-known brand name, and we are told the man is drinking apple

juice! The girl who is avidly watching him immediately rewards him with a kiss. In the

same sort of way, water, soda and other harmless liquors stand in for hard liquor and beat

the ban. There were numerous other advertisements selling music cassettes, CDs, water,

54

Page 55: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

clothing, fashion accessories and sports goods – many of them accused of being sexually

provocative and offensive.

The I&B Ministry’s decision to ban such advertisements was thus viewed as a logical and

necessary step by their critics. As the authorities were finding it difficult to track down

the increasing number of violations, especially at the regional level, the Ministry hired a

private monitoring agency. The agency – Time Monitoring (Delhi-based) – was

responsible for scanning all advertisements on all private satellite channels including

regional channels. At the same time, the Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage

Companies (CIABC), in a self-disciplinary move, asked all TV channels to stop

telecasting surrogate liquor advertisements.

The Debate

The banning of surrogate advertisements for liquor brands became a very controversial

and sensitive issue. Liquor producers felt that while the government allowed them to do

business, it did not allow them to do so in a profitable manner. Liquor companies argued

that the ban would severely affect the sales. The said that TV was the most effective

medium of advertising for these products and thus the restriction would hamper brand

building.

However, some analysts were of the opinion that the ban could turn out to be

advantageous for domestic players. According to a WTO agreement signed in March

2001, MNCs had unrestricted license to sell their products. After the ban, these MNCs

would not have access to the quickest and most effective form of advertising – the TV.

Thus MNCs who had recently entered the Indian industry were expected to face

difficulties in building their brands. The ban would also affect the entry decisions of

MNCs that were planning to enter the Indian liquor industry.

Moreover, some analysts argued that the ban would not affect the established domestic

players severely. It would only affect new launches and new brand building activities of

these companies. Players who already had very strong brands (E.g. McDowell No. 1,

55

Page 56: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

KingFisher, Hayward’s and Royal Challenge) would not be affected by the ban. Apart

from reducing foreign competition, the ban was also expected to improve margins for

these players, as these companies had already spent heavily on advertising and other

promotional activities.

AD SPENDS OF LEADING INDIAN LIQUOR COMPANIES

Company Year EndingAd expenses

(in Rs million)As % age of Sales

McDowell  Mar-00  1,089.00  13%

United Breweries  Mar-00  737  28%

Shaw Wallace  Jun-99  565  7%

Radico Khaitan  Dec-99  78.1  8%

Jagatjit Industries  Mar-99  523  13%

Source: www.indiainfoline.com

On an average, liquor companies spent about 10-12% of sales revenue on advertising,

including direct consumer promotions programs; sponsorships; and print and electronic

media advertisements. On TV alone, companies reportedly spent about 3-4% of sales

revenue. This meant that after the ban, companies could save 3-4% sales or gain in

margins. For instance, McDowell’s operating margins ranged between 5-7% and after the

ban, were expected to increase by 50%. The smaller companies in the domestic market

also seemed to have an advantage. Industry watchers felt that since distribution and reach

would become more vital after the ban, smaller companies might be acquired by the

larger ones for their distribution network, if not for their brands.

The restrictions on the liquor industry were viewed by many critics as attempts by the

government to disassociate itself from the social evils associated with alcohol

consumption. However, some critics observed that while the government imposed many

restrictions on the liquor company; it also earned a significant portion of its revenues (Rs

200 billion in 2000 for the whole country) through levies on liquor sales.

56

Page 57: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

The issue of surrogate advertising involved even media companies, as they had to forego

substantial revenues as a result of the ban. According to broadcasters, the government

should put in place a ‘reasonable’ policy, which somehow struck a balance between the

social and monetary aspects of the business of alcohol.

Future

In August 2002, broadcasting industry sources revealed plans to put in place measures for

self-regulation and monitoring, even before the I&B Ministry took concrete steps in this

regard. The broadcasters who were members of the IBF, announced that they would

come up with an advertising code specific to surrogate advertising.

Apart from formulating the advertising code, the committee would monitor the

advertisements that appeared on the TV channels.

Around the same time, apart from the 12 ads banned earlier, the I&B Ministry was in the

process of issuing show-cause notices to AXN and Zee for two advertisements promoting

Aristocrat Apple Juice and Whytehall.

The controversy surrounding debate-surrounding surrogate advertising was undoubtedly

the result of the government’s and liquor industry’s age-old tussle of revenues versus

morality. Ashoke Bijapurkar, President, B-MRP Communications said, “This brings us to

the question being debated: should surrogate advertisements be banned? I feel the real

question to be asked is: should liquor and tobacco advertising be banned?”

Following the ban, most liquor companies again explored alternative promotional

activities. Industry watchers remarked that the ban would affect the channels more than

the liquor companies themselves. The companies might actively resort to sponsorships of

sports events, dance and music programs, and other fun-filled activities. Some of the

major domestic companies were considering the use of the Internet as an effective

marketing medium.

57

Page 58: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

MARKETSHARES OF WINES, SPIRITS & LIQUOR COMPANIES(in %)

COMPANY  1995-96

 1996-97

 1997-98

 1998-99

 1999-00

 2000-01

McDowell & Co.  -  -  -  -  -  12.05

Balaji Distilleries  9.65  11.1  9.16  8.52  8.09  8.41

Shaw Wallace & Co.  11.7  12.2  7.53  6.98  7.35  7.85

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries

 4.21  5.2  5.37  4.2  4.55  5.9

Balaji Industrial Corpn.

 -  -  6.58  5.58  5.56  5.73

Pearl Distillery  -  -  1.2  2.82  3.42  3.6

Herbertsons  5.05  4.01  3.21  3.02  2.97  3.21

South India Corpn. (Agencies)

 -  -  -  2.09  2.28  2.94

Maharashtra Distilleries

 4.67  4.39  4.42  2.94  2.48  2.61

Mohan Meakin  2.96  3.38  3.02  2.38  2.16  2.24

Source: CMIE

58

Page 59: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

SALES OF BEER COMPANIES(in Rs million)

COMPANY  1995-96

 1996-97

 1997-98

 1998-99

 1999-00

 2000-01

United Breweries  1761.6  1833.4  3035.9  2840.3  2632.2  4315.8

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries

 934.2  892.9  851.5  899.3  824.7  912.4

Balaji Hotels & Enterprises

 -  342.1  690.2  588.9  331.5  708.9

Mohan Meakin  406.8  426.8  421.3  568  551.5  674

Skol Breweries  433.9  501.2  699.5  753.4  669.5  598.5

Mysore Breweries  394.3  393.1  408.4  561.2  532.1  532.1

Lilasons Industries  -  -  -  -  501.4  493.9

Charminar Breweries (Erst.)

 9    189.4  395.5  423.8  454.1

Foster’s India  -  -  1.6  1.6  345.8  432.7

Mount Shivalik Breweries

 294.1  293.2  293.2  387.8  405.9  388.1

Aurangabad Breweries

   223.3  327.7  387.5  364  364

Mount Shivalik Inds.  65  65  225.1  328.5  276  355.6

Artos Breweries  -  -  -  276.5  219.5  352.1

Sica Breweries (Erst)  169.4  253.9  304.8  312.1  332.9  332.9

Central Distillery & Breweries

 52.7  105.1  141.5  -  254  314.2

Shaw Wallace & Co.  -  -  -  69.5  292.5  288.1

Som Distilleries & Breweries

 123.5  169.6  244.1  274.1  282.4  282.4

Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries

 191  191  -  190  123.6  250.3

East Coast Breweries & Distilleries

 -  91  124.2  210.4  146.1  247.7

Hindustan Breweries & Distilleries

 326  289.5  380.8  343.3  232.2  241.8

59

Page 60: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

Source:CMIE

MARKETSHARES OF BEER COMPANIES(in %)

COMPANY  1995-96

 1996-97

 1997-98

 1998-99

 1999-00

 2000-01

United Breweries  25.38  24.21  32.16  23.92  21.35  28.84

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries

 13.46  11.79  9.02  7.57  6.69  6.1

Balaji Hotels & Enterprises

   4.52  7.31  4.96  2.69  4.74

Mohan Meakin  5.86  5.64  4.46  4.78  4.47  4.5

Skol Breweries  6.25  6.62  7.41  6.34  5.43  4

Mysore Breweries  5.68  5.19  5.09  4.73  4.32  3.56

Lilasons Industries          4.07  3.3

Charminar Breweries (Erst.)

 0.13    2.01  3.33  3.44  3.03

Foster’S India      0.02  0.01  2.81  2.89

Mount Shivalik Breweries

 4.24  3.87  3.11  3.27  3.29  2.59

Source: CMIE

 

60

Page 61: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

CABLE TV ACT 1995: 2000 AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LIQUOR ADS

The Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2000 came into effect on 8th September 2000. The Union Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Mr. Arun Jaitley, made this announcement.

Liquor & Tobacco Ads:

Liquor & Tobacco advertisements are now banned on all channels transmitted or retransmitted in India. Earlier, only channels uplinked from India had to adhere to this code. As a result, Doordarshan and a handful of other channels that uplinked from India through VSNL were prohibited from accepting Liquor & Tobacco ads. Earlier, these constraints did not apply to leading channels such as Zee TV, Sony TV and STAR because they uplinked from outside the country, even though their primary target audience was in India. Some of these channels received up to 30% of their ad revenues from Liquor & Tobacco advertisements. The government now seeks to provide a level playing field for all channels, including Doordarshan.

Surrogate Advertisements:

In the past, liquor advertisers have often resorted to surrogate advertisements where the brand name of a product normally associated with Liquor is advertised as another product e.g. Kingfisher Mineral Water or a soda that is named after a whisky. Surrogate advertisements can also indirectly advertise or promote a product without actually displaying the product. The I&B ministry has taken a serious view of this and the new amendment prohibits all advertising that ‘directly or indirectly’ promotes the production, sale or consumption of tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol.

Source: www.scatmag.com

61

Page 62: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

ANNEXURE I

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Do you see Advertisements on television?

a) Yes b) No

2. Have you seen any advertisement of cigarettes or alcohol?

a) Yes b) No

3. Do you know that advertisement of such products is banned in India?

a) Yes b) No

4. Do you think that advertisement of such product is required?

a) Yes b) No

5. What would you say about banning of advertisement of these products?

a) Is a right step b) No need of banning such ads c) Product should

be banned d) No comments

6. Do you know about surrogate advertisement?

a) Yes b) No

7. Do you recalled about the original product while looking at the surrogate ads?

a) Yes b) No

8. What do you think that the surrogate ads are

a) Ethical b) Unethical c) Should be banned d) no comments

62

Page 63: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

9. How will you rank the present advertisement?

a) Entertaining b) Boring and Disturbing c) Informative

d) Misguiding e) None of the Above.

10. Does the ad induce you to try the product?

a) Yes b) No

11. Does your any of the family member consume such products?

a) Yes b) No

12. Which age group you belong to?

a) 15-18 b) 18-21 c) 21-24 d) 24 and above.

13. What is your approx. Family Income?

a) Less than 10,000/-

b) 10,000 – 1,00,000/-

c) 1,00,000 – 5,00,000/-

d) 5,00,000 and above.

14. What is your Educational level?

a) Under Graduate.

b) Graduate.

c) Post Graduate.

63

Page 64: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Principles Of Marketing Philip Kotler

Advertising and promotion Belch

Advertising Today Warren Berger

Magazines

Management Magazine ICFAI Publication 22nd July Pg 24

Global Educator IMS Publication August issue

Advertising Mania IMS Publication 4th August Issue

26th August Issue

10th September Issue

HRM Review IMS Publication August Issue

Advertising Express magazine- November 2002, issue 11, and volume-2.

NewsPapers

ET 4th, 11th, 18th, 24th, 31st August

ET 7th, 14th September

Close floodgates on surrogate ads Deccan herald files.Framework convention alliance Ban on surrogate tobacco ads.

Internet

1. www.agencyfaqs.com2. www.jivhathetongue.com

64

Page 65: Advertising Ethics and Viewers Perception Towards Surrogate Advertising

Advertising ethics and consumer perception towards surrogate advertising

3. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2004/04/08/stories/ 2004040800110400.htm

4. http://www.iupindia.org/806/ijmm.asp 5. ICMR research papers6. CMIE research papers7. CII research papers

Places Visited

British council library, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point

IMC, Churchgate.

65


Recommended