By Dr S Saraswathi
Reports on legal action initiated against some brand ambassadors of 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.
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 children 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 patronise 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 organisation 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 popularising 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 its users and direct beneficiaries 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, organisers, and consumers in India to the efficacy of employing celebrities in advertisements.
A study conducted in Los Angeles in the US on television advertising in 2010 found that ads featuring a celebrity give 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. It is 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
