• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Ramesh Narayan

Is surrogate advertising right or wrong? The answer lies somewhere in between.

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.

It is really difficult to express an opinion, leave alone pass judgment on matters that are personal. There is also the question of personal rights and many of them are happily enshrined in Constitutions of progressive nations the world over.

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.

Forget the hype. Forget the imagery we have all grown up with. The Government has the right, invested in it by you, to decide whether you will get transported to the chalky fields of Champagne or the misty heights of Scotland, or for that matter the Wild West. And the Government in its wisdom has decided that advertising for tobacco and liquor is a big no-no.

So does that mean you lose the right to tipple or smoke? Certainly not. The wisdom of the Government extends only to banning the advertising of tobacco or liquor. Not to the manufacture or marketing of these supposedly deadly substances. 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.

I recall a piquant situation just last month when I was a part of a jury judging India's most prestigious advertising awards. In a category for business aids or some such thing, I came across the fantastic advertising work created for Johnnie Walker. The Keep Walking series from Leo Burnett. The problem was that if it was supposed to be advertising business case studies, it was doing a rather poor job of it, because many of the advertisements didn't even mention the product they were supposed to be advertising. If it was meant to advertise whisky, it was doing a great job, but it should have been entered in the `Beverages' category - and then it would have been disqualified because it was illegal to advertise alcoholic beverages.

Frankly, I have no real answer if you ask me whether surrogate advertising is something that should be there or not. Well, it certainly isn't "right" but then, neither is the complex situation that demands it.

And then you have seen it all, with the surrogate political advertising. There have been two TV commercials released by "NGOs", one that appears to debunk the BJP and the other, a rather well thought out effort that seeks to portray the Congress in a poor light. Neither is released by the respective political parties, who have no doubt very righteously denied any hand in their release.

Now here is where I would draw the line. Political parties comprise individuals who are ruling, or who could rule the country very soon. They are the leaders who frame the law. If they feel it fit to make a mockery of it, how can they have the moral right to ever point a finger at surrogate advertising that furthers "crass" commercial interests?

(The author heads Canco Advertising.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
And now, shampoo wars

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line