Viewers watching the Men’s ICC Cricket World Cup cannot miss the ubiquitous Kamla Pasand and Vimal elaichi (cardamom) ads featuring cricket icons like Virendra Sehwag and Sunil Gavaskar in the former, and film stars Ajay Devgn, Akshay Kumar and Shah Rukh Khan in the latter. Primarily, the companies sell chewing tobacco products under these brands. Since 2018 veteran adman Sandeep Goyal, managing director, Rediffusion, has been crusading against surrogate ads for liquor and chewing tobacco, pushing the ad industry’s regulatory body Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) to act against the erring brands.
HT Image
The campaign by Goyal, who flagged surrogate tobacco ads during the Indian Premier League too, becomes critical given that millions of people are now watching live cricket tournaments streamed free to their mobile phones offering wider reach to these brands.
But the current crop of elaichi ads under Vimal and Kamla Pasand get away on a technicality since the companies are said to be advertising a brand extension rather than a surrogate. Manisha Kapoor, secretary general and CEO of ASCI said there are multiple laws that prohibit advertising of tobacco products such as the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) and The Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act. COTPA, for instance, prohibits advertising of cigarettes or any other tobacco products and does not allow anyone to take part in any ad which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products.
While surrogate advertising is not permitted by the Cable TV Act and the Advertising guidelines released by the CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority), brand extensions are permitted under the law. If the brand being advertised has a legitimate stand-alone business, and it does not cue the category where advertising is restricted, then these will be considered brand extensions and not surrogates. Last updated in 2021, ASCI rules offer a comprehensive framework for distinguishing between legitimate brand extensions and surrogate ads, she said.
ASCI rules forbid celebrities from endorsing products which need any health warning. “Surrogate advertising is not allowed, but there is no restriction as of now on endorsing brand extensions,” Kapoor added.
Sadly, film and cricket stars have brought Kamla Pasand and Vimal huge publicity. Ashish Mishra, CEO, India and South Asia at Interbrand, said companies selling harmful products use celebrities to make them look cool and fashionable to consume.
He said we live in a dichotomous world where we talk increasingly about inclusion and diversity but get divided more easily than ever before, have more information and knowledge but very little personal wisdom to see through the manipulative narratives. “What celebrity endorsers do is merely a reflection of this new dichotomy. They take up causes in their films and interviews but succumb to quick commercial opportunism,” he said.
Lloyd Mathias, angel investor and former marketer at PepsiCo, said celebrities are free to monetize their fame by endorsing products but they must draw a line when it comes to products that they know are harmful to health. They shape consumer opinion and must proactively do the right thing. “It’s truly disappointing to see celebrities and legends like Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle and superstars Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Akshay Kumar endorse obvious surrogates for chewing tobacco,” he said.
Celebrities run the risk of offending an increasingly woke generation that expects its stars and brands to reflect their true values, he cautioned, advocating a complete ban on chewing tobacco surrogates given their proven harmful effects on health. To make sure companies do not use surrogates, regulators should not permit a chewing tobacco brand name to be used for any other category by the same company, he says. “This will ensure that the same brand making a product like mouth fresheners, without the tobacco, does not use celebrities to endorse the surrogate,” he said.
Mishra said the onus to rectify the problem is really on the establishment which allows such businesses to run knowing the outcome of these products fully well. However, a regulatory ban often has a parallel mechanism to bypass it too. He said the longer-term solution may lie in people learning to make the right choices rather than being swayed by duplicity of the brand ambassadors who epitomise health, style and success while endorsing such products.
Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crickit, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Infographics & much more. Explore now!
E-Paper
