The Hindu Business Line : A question of ethics?

As we are an integral part of the communication business, I promised myself I would find out from her what is being taught to students these days as `ethics,' and before that I would place before you all a few issues and see what you feel about them.

Let me first place my personal point of view on the table.

I have grown up believing it is very important to be ethical. I have tried to ensure I am ethical. I believe that as society evolves, the meanings of some words begin to subtly change, and in that process, maybe the ethical goalposts have been shifted. In other words, what I feel is ethical or unethical may not be viewed in the same light by other, especially people younger than I am. That would include over 60 per cent of the population, and their point of view would be critical.

Beginning randomly, is it ethical to advertise products related to tobacco? As President of the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), I deplored the move to ban advertising of cigarettes. I argued that I could not understand the logic of a Government that allowed and encouraged the cultivation of tobacco, revelled in collecting huge excise duties levied on the production of cigarettes, allowed the sale of cigarettes at every street corner, and then piously talked about banning the advertising of cigarettes.

I believe there is something unethical about the attitude of the Government in this entire issue.

Is it unethical to indulge in surrogate advertising for cigarettes or liquor? I would think it is. If there is a law, however silly or wrong you might think it is, you must follow it till you can change it. I would not accept any argument to the contrary.

Women's rights activists have often told me that it is unethical for advertising agencies, advertisers and the media to go along with advertising that promotes stereotypes, accepts gender bias and treats women as sex objects. I have a problem with seeing these issues in black and white.

Let's take stereotypes. Why is it that in advertising for detergents and washing liquids, the lady is always shown washing the clothes or the dinner dishes? Well, marketing giants have told me that very often, when alternative campaigns are presented to focus groups as a part of pre-launch market research, the campaign that shows a man in these roles is strongly rejected by the target group.

Personally, I believe what they say. If only because their only objective is to sell detergents. If research suggested it, they wouldn't mind showing a cow washing clothes. I do not think there is any effort to perpetuate stereotypes.

Similarly, the charge that the `Singapore Girl' could be viewed as a sexist symbol is a tough judgement-call to make. Apparently, the account is up for review and there might be a radical shift from the Singapore Girl concept that Ian Batey created and sustained over all these years.

Gender bias of any kind would be unacceptable to me. Sure, there was a time when advertisements talked about the benefits of saving for the son's education and daughter's marriage. Changing times and the realisation that the market has changed has ensured a more balanced approach in these advertisements.

Women as sex objects? There are shades of grey in this issue. Broadly, I would endorse the view that it is unethical to depict women as sex objects. Yet, the views of the younger generation have changed radically in so far as what defines a visual as a sex object, and what doesn't. The views can vary to a large extent.

Would you define as unethical the advertising of a product like Fair & Lovely (or any other product in that genre)? Remember, the product is a simple sun block and there is nothing wrong in producing a sun block cream. Yet, positioning the communication in a manner in which it preys on the complexes, insecurities and mindsets that are existent in our population is a different matter completely. Yet, many people would laugh me out of a room for calling such advertising unethical. And I would respect their right to such views.

What about scam advertisements? Advertisements that are created for the sole objective of winning awards. Many creative gurus have vociferously argued with me that a creative award is about creativity and nothing else. My answer, when I was president of the Advertising Club Bombay, and as president of the AAAI, has been that our awards are for creativity in advertising. Advertising presumes a client, a commercial need, a process involving a brief, presentations, and very importantly, the approval and monetary outlay of a client. Only such creative pieces that go through the rigours of an advertisement could qualify for an award like an Abby or the GoaFest. Anything else could be seen as fine art, or a scam advertisement. The choice is yours.

As an advertising agency owner, I would regard any rate negotiation which does not have the sanction of the client as unethical. My agency's books were open to audit by my clients. They would send their auditors for a couple of years and then, having satisfied themselves, would give up on their own. Many prominent agency heads believe that an audit of their processes and books is unacceptable. They might have a point of their own.

I believe that it is unethical to skirt around accepted rules and guidelines of bodies such as the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). It is the attitude of large advertisers and large advertising agencies which are well aware that they are contravening the rules of the ASCI but still plan a quick and heavy advertising burst and then "accept" the ruling of the ASCI to pull out the advertisement which earns the industry a bad name.

Worse are advertisers like Complan, who, in a very recent instance, continue advertising even after an adverse ruling from ASCI. The injury they are heaping on their profession is incalculable. It is such acts that invite consumer bodies to keep calling for draconian rules like censorship of advertising by a Government body.

At the end of the day, I believe that at that all-important moment of truth, when a consumer decides to purchase one brand or another, she could see ethics in a company as the single most important differentiator in an increasingly `me-too' world of products and services. On the other hand, one should be warned that that converse could also be true.

(Ramesh Narayan is a communications consultant. Comments on this column may be sent to brandline@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Advertising | Scene & Unseen

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
TTK-LIG's hardsell

All for ambience

`E-books are an opportunity'

`Market research firms must offer insights too'

A suitable boy

A question of ethics?

Prasoon Joshi. Rising Indian.

Beyond the box-office