Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Project
On
Advertising Ethics and viewer’s perception towards
Surrogate Advertisements
Submitted to
submitted by Aanchal Gupta
Keshav Jha and Pankul Gupta
Deptt. Of Business studies
07/B.B.S /7023/7039
DDU College 5th
semester
In the mean time, some producers entered new segments under the liquor
brand or advertised these products under liquor brand.
The surrogate advertisements from liquor companies intensified further
through sponsorships of movies, music shows, and other programs and
attracting youth.
Questionnaire was asked to fill by them, and data analysis was done with the
help of SPSS package, findings have been given in the report.
Introduction:
Product advertising for liquor and cigarette companies is banned in the
country since 1995 by Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act. According
to Rule 7 (2) of the Act, no broadcaster is permitted to show advertisement
which promotes directly or indirectly promotion, sale or consumption of
cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor or other intoxicants, infant
milk substitution, feeding bottle or infant food. This ban is now likely to be
extended to advertising of extended brands.
In June 2002, the Indian Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry served
notices to leading television broadcasters to ban the telecast of two
surrogate ads of liquor brands McDowell No.1 and Gilbey’s Green Label. The
Ministry also put some other brands ---Smirnoff Vodka, Hayward’s 5000,
Royal Challenge Whiskey and kingfisher beer on a “watch list.” The
surrogates used by these advertisements ranged from audiocassettes, CDs,
perfumes to golf accessories and mineral water.
Surrogate Advertisements:
A surrogate advertisements is one in which a different product is promoted
using an already established brand name. Such advertisements or
sponsorships help in contribute to brand recall. The different product shown
in the advertisement is called the “Surrogate.” It could either resemble the
original product or could be a different product altogether, but using the
established brand of the original product. The sponsoring of
By August 2002, the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements and leading
satellite TV channels including Zee, Sony, STAR and Aaj Tak were issued
show cause notices to explain their rationale behind carrying surrogate liquor
advertisements.
Analyst remarked that there was lot of hypocrisy underlying the government
policy. They said “on the one hand they allow these ‘socially bad’ products to
be manufactured and sold and then they deny the manufacturers the right to
propagate knowledge of their products in order to drive sales. If some thing
is bad and cannot be advertised, why allow it to be sold at all?”
More over the satellite channels garnered about 50% of their revenue from
liquor and cigarettes advertisements. In the peak seasoned it gets almost
doubled.
Due to the ban, liquor companies focused more on promotions for brand
building. They started sponsoring events that projected the “glamour” of the
brands, like track racing, car rallies etc. for instance Shaw Wallace Co. one of
the leading liquor companies in India, conducted the Royal Challenge
Invitation Golf tournament, which became an annual event. Some companies
In the mean time, some producers entered new segments under the liquor
brand or advertised these products under liquor brand. Most of the liquor
producers entered into packaged water segment, such as Kingfisher Mineral
water. McDowell used surrogate advertising by using its mineral water and
soda brands, which generated additional revenues for the company. In the
early 2001, SWC started marketing its range of golf accessories under the
liquor brand Royal Challenge. It also announced that India’s flagship Golfing
Event – the Indian open would be sponsored by the company till 2006.
The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has clarified that as per its
code, the mere use of a brand name or company name that may also be
applied to a product whose advertising is restricted or prohibited is not
reason to find the advertisement objectionable provided the advertisement is
not objectionable and the product is produced and distributed in reasonable
quantities and the objectionable advertisement does not contain direct or
indirect cues for the product that which is not allowed to be advertised.
However the analyst opined that the ban could turn out to be advantages for
the domestic players. In March 2001, as per the commitment to the WTO
agreement, MNCs would have an unrestricted license to sell their products.
After the ban, these MNCs would not have access to the quickest and most
effective form of advertising --- the TV.
The ban was also expected to improve the margins for these players.
The latest television ad for “AC Black Apple Juice” epitomizes so many things
that are wrong with surrogate advertising in India.
Most of the surrogate advertising is done pretty blatantly with the “harmless”
product being nothing more than a front for advertising the “harmful” brand.
So you have various liquor/cigarette manufacturers resorting to ingenuous
ways to peddle their wares like,
Of course there are a very few brands which start off as a surrogate brand,
but over a period of time actually become full-fledged brands in themselves.
The “Wills Sport” clothing line from the manufacturers of “Wills” cigarettes is
one of those rare cases.
But on the whole, surrogate advertising is dedicated towards using an
insignificant, “harmless” product to increase/maintain awareness for their
primary “harmful” brand. And that’s not an easy task. For instance, how do
you portray the essence of a whiskey or vodka or a cigarette using a bottle
of bottled water or a pack of apple juice?
Not easy. And guess who/what suffers when faced with this quandary?
1. Consumers - because we have to put up with the lameass, stupid
advertising that’s designed to sell booze/ciggies but pretends to be all
about water or apple juice! It’s like everyone knows what’s going on -
the manufacturers know what the real reason for the ad is, the
consumers know what’s really been advertised, and the government
knows that too. So why not either (i) do away with this wholesale
scam and just let them advertise all their stuff, or (ii) ban such
surrogate advertising?
Surrogate advertisements are not only misleading, but also false and
dishonest in many cases. With surrogate advertising so widespread, this is
the moment to tackle the problem head-on.
There should be stringent regulatory measures to curb the practice, such as:
iii) Asking the electronic and print media to adhere to the advertisement
codes and not encourages surrogate advertisements.
iv) Calling on the ASCI address complaints received from consumers against
surrogate advertisements and take appropriate actions immediately.
If one believes that honesty is the best policy and truth ultimately gains, the
best policy would be to stand up strongly to the dishonest practices of
surrogate advertising.
Senior sources at IBF also said that the industry body had sent out show-
cause notices to a couple of channels regarding ads of certain alcohol and
tobacco products. Most channels have reportedly complied with the
Government panel’s directive to the extent that the ads of a liquor company
He takes a sip and looks up at her. ... dress she was wearing gives way to a bateau
The high neck... neck line.
Exhibit 2
He's surprised at the revelation. Once The lady's dress has now become an off shoulder
again taking a sip, he glances at her. one.
Sipping his drink once more, he looks ... to find a shorter, more tantalizing dress on her.
through the glass...
Sipping in anticipation, his eyes fall ... to find the shirt unbuttoned. He looks at the
on his chest... lady...
When the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) withdrew its code to
regulate tobacco, liquor products etc. consumer activists were concerned
over the impact of the move.
The issue has taken a new twist with the Central Government deciding to
ban these product companies from sponsoring sports and cultural events.
Liquor or tobacco advertising in banned in India and hence companies that
sell these products have to resort to advertising their wares using less
“harmful” products which carry almost the same names and looks -
surrogate advertising.
With keeping these in mind, the research will be conducted to solve the
following questions:
What does this all have to do with the final consumer?
What image does he carry of these products?
Does he know that the advertisement which is shown is meant for
some other product?
Does he think it is Right/Ethical?
• Sample Size: 50
Research Design:
Importance of Study:
Data Analysis:
120
100
96
80
60
40
20
Percent
0
YES NO
When the respondent where asked how many of them watch the
advertisement on television 96% responded positive towards this. The above
graph depicts the same thing.
NO 2 2
Total 41 9 50
40 9
30 32
20
awareness of banned
10
3
NO
Count
6
0 YES
YES NO
Out of the 41 respondent who have seen the ads of cigrates and alcohol 32
of them are aware of the fact that an advertisement of such product is
banned in India.
30
29
28
26
24
22
20
20
Count
18
YES NO
advertisement requirement
40
36
30
20
13
10
Count
0
Missing YES NO
Out of 50 respondent 36 said that they have knowledge what surrogate ads
are they form the 72%. While 13 of them don’t know about the surrogate
advertisements.
32.0% Missing
4.0%
YES
64.0%
When the respondent who knows about surrogate ads asked that do they
recall the original brand while looking at it 64% of them recall the product
32% said no and 4% have not given their view.
The above cross tabulation shows that the surrogate as helps the
organisation to advertise their product in a different way and make a brand
recall at the time of purchase.
8.33%
n=4 35.42%
n=17
on question of ethical issue of surrogate ads 35% said that surrogate ads are
unethical while majority of them constituting 33% refused or where not able
to give their opinion on the issue. 23% said they are required and they are
ethical while only 8% where in the opinion of banning the ad.
The cross tabulation between the respondents who said that advertisement is
required for such product and ethical issue of surrogate ads shows that 11 of
them said that ads are required but surrogate ads are unethical to do that,
while 8 of them where agree that it is ethical to do the surrogate
advertisement.
20 21
10
10
8 8
Count
0 2
entertaining informative none of the above
boring and disturbin misguiding
When respondent where asked how they find these ads 21 of them said, they
are entertaining while only 10 of them said, they are informative about
products.
ad appeal
YES
NO
59.18%
n=29
28
27
27
26
25
24
23
22
22
Count
21
YES NO
For checking how do the respondent recall the original product they where
asked whether the respondent or any of his/her family member consume the
product, 27 of them said Yes, and 22 said No.
Family member consuming such product * product recall Cross tabulation Count
19 respondent where those whose family member consume such product and
due to which they were able to recall the original brand while looking at the
surrogate ads whereas 13 of them where those whose member doesn’t use
the product but then also they recall the original brand.
23
20
13
10
7 7
Count
0
15-18 18-21 21-24 24 and above
The above graph shows the age group of the respondent, 30 of them
belongs to the age group of 21 yrs. and above and 20 where below 21 yrs.
ad appeal Total
YES NO
age group of respondent 15-18 2 5 7
18-21 5 8 13
21-24 10 13 23
24 and 3 4 7
above
Total 20 30 50
30
29
20
10 11
Count
6
4
0
< 10000 10000-100000 100000-500000 > 500000
Family income was asked to checked that the surrogate ads effects the
buying habits or not majority of our respondent who have nothing to do with
the surrogate ads and who usually purchase the product belong to high class
of the society with their family income of 1,00,000/- and above.
30
26
20
Count
12 12
10
under graduate graduate post graduate
Findings:
2) Many of them have knowledge of surrogate ads but they were of the
view that these are unethical ways of brand advertising.
3) The surrogate ads which they see are instead of informative being
considered as entertaining for majority of the respondent.
5) Strong facts that the surrogate ads do not induce the consumer to
purchase the original brand, they just remind the brand existence.
6) 35% of the respondents where those under the age group of 21 yrs.,
they where attracted by the surrogate ads and were induce to use or
at least try the product.
7) Major of the respondent were also able to recall the original brand
either because these were used by them or any of their family
member.
11. Does your any of the family member consume such products?
a) Yes b) No
1) www.agencyfaqs.com
2) www.jivhathetongue.com