Advertising: Those tall stories, ethics & you

CONSUMER CORNER By Sakuntala Narasimhan Twenty years have passed since the Advertising Standards Council of India was established towards the end of 1985, to set guidelines to ensure fairness, truth and ethical norms in ads. Subsequently a complaints committee was also constituted to receive and look into complaints from the public regarding ads in the media (print, television, hoardings, radio) that violate norms of decency, fairness and truth. Over the years, members of the complaints committee have examined a variety of ads and issued orders to discontinue those considered indecent (portraying women in a derogatory or demeaning manner) or misleading (making exaggerated claims about a product). Activists’ groups like the Consumer Guidance Society of India (Mumbai) have been vigilant against unethical and misleading ads, while groups like the Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) of Ahmedabad have demanded “corrective advertisements” (saying the earlier ads were misleading and apologising for making exaggerated claims) in all the media where the earlier (misleading) ads were published. This was a reasonable demand, considering that buyers take their cues from what the ads say, and need to get the correct picture too if the ads were misleading. One ad that the ASCI examined and disapproved of in 2004 was that for Oxyrich bottled water, which claimed to contain 300 per cent more oxygen and was, therefore, “good for you”. CERC argued that oxygen in the stomach (which is where the water goes) makes no difference, it is oxygen in lungs that matters, and the claim of ‘300 %’ was not proved. The ad was ordered withdrawn. Travelling around the country, I still find ads for Oxyrich painted in large letters by the roadside and beside railway tracks. People still see it and will be influenced by the brand name and its false claims. The ASCI has neither the authority nor the facilities to keep monitoring ads nationwide, unless we the public are aware of the violation of the ASCI order and bring it to the notice of the complaints committee. Another ad that was banned as ‘misleading’ was for a slimming gadget claiming to help in slimming without diet control or brisk exercise (“just place your foot on the gadget, and the battery vibrations will help break down your fat” – a claim that could not be substantiated). The ad continues to appear in print, despite the ASCI ruling prohibiting it. Ads for ‘fairness creams’ are perhaps the best example of how advertisers manage to slip past the guidelines for fairness (pun unintended) and truth. The ads telecast prominently in the middle of popular programmes (live telecasts of cricket matches) reinforced the belief that dark-skinned girls were somehow ‘unattractive’ or inferior, and that using a skin lightening cream would bring her hordes of suitors seeking her hand. This was blatant discrimination on the basis of skin colour, and rightly women’s groups like the All-India Democratic Women’s Alliance, sent letters to the information and broadcasting ministry protesting against the offensive ads. The ads were banned. The truth is that externally nothing can change the colour of the skin which is determined by genes. In fact attempts to meddle with skin colour (melanin) can result in incurable malignant erosions and cancers (I have seen documentary films showing victims with cheeks eaten up by toxic chemicals in the creams). Now, the ads have shifted their focus to avoid the wrath of women – by featuring a male who does not get girl friends because of his dark skin, and becomes popular after using the ‘fairness’ cream (‘The first fairness cream for men’). Whatever the focus, the manufacturer rakes in the profits, despite the ASCI’s rulings. “Proven results – dark spots disappear,” said an ad which claimed to have met “dermatological tests”, but ASCI found the claim unsubstantiated and the ad had to be withdrawn. The ASCI can only initiate action provided someone sends in a complaint. Which means our role as users/buyers, becomes important. The CERC recently suggested that we need a regulatory commission, since the ASCI has no powers to award compensation to consumers for loss or injury caused by false ads. There is a law against “magic remedies” ads offering cures for problems that have no known cures – baldness, for instance, is a genetic characteristic and cannot be ‘‘cured’’ (it may be only arrested, not reversed). Yet a popular homoepath has claimed (with pictures) re-growth of hair on bald patches. After CERC’s complaint to ASCI, the “super speciality homeopath” has agreed to stop such ads. (CERC’s magazine ‘Insight’, devotes its back cover to exposing such tall claims, in every issue.) If an ad seems offensive/unacceptable or too good to be true , send a postcard giving details (clippings, if possible) to the ASCI (Air-Conditioned Market, Tardeo, Mumbai 400034). If most of us took the trouble, there would be fewer citizens being taken for a ride by unscrupulous sellers.