Other Mea­sures to Be Con­sid­ered

Consumer Voice - - Feature -

mag­a­zines, tele­vi­sion, ra­dio, cin­ema and posters. Clause 6 of the Code pro­vides that ad­ver­tise­ment of prod­ucts for which ad­ver­tis­ing has been re­stricted should not cir­cum­vent the re­stric­tion by pur­port­ing to be ad­ver­tise­ments for other prod­ucts, the ad­ver­tis­ing for which is not pro­hib­ited. This clause also lays down the cri­te­ria for de­cid­ing whether an ad­ver­tise­ment is in­di­rect ad­ver­tise­ment. To de­ter­mine if there is an in­di­rect ad­ver­tise­ment of pro­hib­ited prod­ucts, due at­ten­tion shall be given to the fol­low­ing: a) Visual con­tent of the ad­ver­tise­ment must de­pict only the prod­uct be­ing ad­ver­tised and not the pro­hib­ited or re­stricted prod­uct in any form or man­ner. b) The ad­ver­tise­ment must not make any di­rect or in­di­rect ref­er­ence to the pro­hib­ited or re­stricted prod­uct. c) The ad­ver­tise­ment must not cre­ate any nu­ances

or phrases pro­mot­ing pro­hib­ited prod­ucts. d) The ad­ver­tise­ment must not use par­tic­u­lar colours and lay­out or pre­sen­ta­tions as­so­ci­ated with pro­hib­ited or re­stricted prod­ucts. e) The ad­ver­tise­ment must not use sit­u­a­tions typ­i­cal for pro­mo­tion of pro­hib­ited or re­stricted prod­ucts when ad­ver­tis­ing the other prod­ucts. prod­ucts are not vis­i­ble even if such brands support in­ter­na­tional events. ad­ver­tise­ments for dif­fer­ent prod­ucts un­der a sin­gle brand name, for in­stance by amending the Trade Marks Act. from con­sumers against sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tise­ments and take ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tions im­me­di­ately. help peo­ple un­der­stand the neg­a­tive im­pact of sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tise­ments. sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tise­ments with­out any real ex­is­tence of the prod­uct. knowl­edge of the prod­ucts un­der the same brand for which they are pro­mot­ing ad­ver­tise­ments, and take le­gal ac­tions against those agen­cies that de­sign sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tise­ments. spread their net to in­clude new elec­tronic me­dia like the In­ter­net, email and CD-ROMS, print and out­door me­dia, ask­ing them to ad­here to ad­ver­tise­ment codes and not en­cour­age sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tise­ment.

With greater aware­ness, it is ex­pected that con­sumers will think ra­tio­nally and not be swayed by emo­tional and sur­ro­gate ad­ver­tis­ing be­fore mak­ing a pur­chase. As for the ad­ver­tis­ers, they may pay some heed to what Leo Bur­nett had said – “Let’s gear our ad­ver­tis­ing to sell goods, but let’s rec­og­nize also that ad­ver­tis­ing has a broad so­cial re­spon­si­bil­ity.” ‘A pe­ti­tion was filed in 1999 be­fore the High Court of Delhi by the Vol­un­tary Health As­so­ci­a­tion of In­dia, where a ban was sought on the spon­sor­ship of the In­dian cricket team by the Wills brand of cig­a­rettes man­u­fac­tured by ITC. The ap­pear­ance of the Wills logo on the sports ap­parel worn by the crick­eters fa­cil­i­tated the re­peated tele­cast­ing of that logo to mil­lions of view­ers. Dur­ing the pen­dency of this pe­ti­tion, ITC vol­un­tar­ily with­drew its spon­sor­ship of the In­dian cricket team in 2001 cit­ing the rea­son that it did not want to de­rail the gen­uine ef­forts of the gov­ern­ment and that it did not want to take un­due ad­van­tage of its po­si­tion in the In­dian econ­omy.’ – ‘ITC plays Good sport, ex­its spon­sor­ship’, Hindu Business Line,

9 Fe­bru­ary 2001’

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.