MxMIndia

Tag: ASCI

  • A quick chat with NS Rajan, who was unanimously elected  Chairman, Advertising Standards Council of India last week

    ‘Misconception that regulation and self-regulation compete’

     

     

    At the board meeting of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) held last week, public relations industry veteran NS Rajan was unanimously elected  Chairman. Rajan, Director, August One Partners LLP, was Founder and Managing Director of Ketchum Sampark. Sampark is an agency that Rajan set up with his wife Bela which was later acquired by the Omnicom group. Rajan was Vice Chair of ASCI over the last two years, and was an active participant of the weekly complaints meetings that the Council conducts for complaints redressal. Excerpts from a quick interview over email.

     

    ASCI has reinvented itself over the last few years. What next for the self-regulator?

    ASCI has reinvented itself to keep pace with the nature of the new and emerging advertising ecosystem. Besides upgrading our complaints systems and processes to become more agile and responsive, we have also invested in monitoring technology. As we go ahead, we will strengthen the preventive side of our work to become more robust and mainstream. ASCI Academy through training, outreach, and thought leadership is an important pillar of taking ASCI into the future. I look forward to advancing the agenda of the Council to rapidly increase ASCI’s awareness among consumers so that they engage more readily and in greater numbers, voicing their concerns, anxieties, and questions about what they experience in the form of thousands of ads per day.

     

    Has the ghost of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) usurping ASCI’s status/role vanished?

    It is a common misconception to think that regulation and self-regulation compete. Both these mechanisms are part of the ad regulation ecosystem and, they are complimentary in nature. Self-regulation is the first line of defence that looks at voluntary compliance and education and essentially this is an inexpensive and quick method to resolve issues related to advertising. It comes at no cost to the taxpayer. ASCI has a very robust infrastructure setup to resolve consumer grievances as well as take suo-moto cognisance and action. Across the world, self-regulation and regulation co-exist and work together in complementary ways. When the advertiser refuses to undertake voluntary compliance, ASCI works with regulators to resolve the issue. It is also important to note that the CCPA advertising guidelines and ASCI’s guidelines on misleading ads are very similar. We will continue to work with the government together on this common agenda. It is also pertinent to note that the Consumer Protection Act deals with misleading ads, but the ASCI code also looks at indecent, unfair, and unsafe ads in addition.

     

    How has the prevention offering worked? The pre-approval process that was announced with much fanfare.

    We would like to clarify that there is no pre-approval offering. ASCI has s a voluntary due diligence exercise that advertisers or endorsers can avail of. They can seek advice from ASCI at the pre-production stage. Many brands have used this service both for technical and non-technical claims before major campaigns. We also have some companies signing up for an ongoing subscription and this shows that the culture of preventive responsibility is taken seriously. In time, we expect this to become a more mainstream practice. So far, about 30 ads have undergone a pre-production scrutiny at ASCI.

     

    What’s your view on influencer complaints. Are advertisers and influencers gaming the system?

    Honesty and transparency are the bedrock for any system that wants to be sustainable. As with any category, there will be a set of people who will always try to game the system and undermine it. However, by and large, we have seen a very positive response around the influencer guidelines and increasing awareness about their responsibility when it comes to promotions. We are also keeping a close watch on this category, and 30% of the complaints that we looked at last year have been from influencer advertising. As influencers become more aware of their responsibilities, we see a more long-term honesty-based orientation. Compliance is at 86% in the first year itself. We will continue our efforts to educate advertisers and influencers as to the importance and benefits of honesty in advertising.

     

    The awareness levels of self-regulation appear pretty low. What are ASCI’s plans for outreach across the trade?

    While ASCI’s awareness has seen an increase, it is still lower than desired. Our outreach budgets are low; however, we are happy to note an increase in our interactions with industry, government, domain experts, consumer organisations and other stakeholders. Now, with the soon-to-launch ASCI Academy, we look forward to interacting even more with young industry professionals, students, influencers, endorsers consumers as well as non-industry stakeholders.

     

    Tell us more about the AI-driven engine that ASCI has development for complaints redressal

    ASCI has been upgrading its complaints system ‘TARA’ to offer a seamless experience to both consumers and advertisers in the management and resolution of complaints. TARA will offer features like real-time tracking of complaints, dashboard views, automatic updates etc. In the second phase which we are embarking on now, the system will allow for a rich access to its archival data and cases.

     

  • Pushes for prevention and for helping industry "get it right" under new

    NS Rajan takes charge at ASCI

    By Our Staff

     

    Public relations veteran NS Rajan has been unanimously elected Chairman of the Board of Governors of industry self-regulator Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Rajan was earlier Founder and Managing Director of Ketchum Sampark, an Omnicom Group Company, and is currently Director, August One Partners LLP.

     

    Saugata Gupta, Managing Director & CEO, Marico Limited, was elected Vice-Chairman, while Shashidhar Sinha, Chief Executive Officer at IPG Mediabrands India, was appointed Honorary Treasurer. Subhash Kamath, the outgoing chairman, will now be a part of the Consultative Committee of the board, which, among other activities, mentors the new initiatives of the organisation. Virat Tandon, Group CEO of Lintas India, and Arun Srinivas, Director, GMS India (Meta), were newly inducted onto the board at the same meeting.

     

    Talking about his new role as the ASCI Chairman, Rajan said: “It is indeed a privilege to take up the role of ASCI Chairman. Our thought leadership initiatives, industry reports and ASCI Academy are important pillars of taking ASCI ahead into the future. I am looking forward to advancing the agenda of the Council to rapidly increase ASCI awareness among consumers so that they engage more readily and in greater numbers, voicing their concerns, anxieties, and questions about what they experience in the form of thousands of ads per day. That number, on average, in India is anywhere between 7000-10000 ads per day! I would also focus on ASCI’s efforts more towards prevention, in addition to the robust corrective mechanisms we have built over the decades. This we would do by using the several initiatives already in play – whether advice, guidance, training, or self-regulation.The third pillar would be to keep ahead of the fast-expanding and fractionalising digital domain to ensure that responsible advertising principles are followed equally across all media and consumer engagements by advertising in every form. A lot has been done by ASCI over the last several years, and I am committed to seeing that the momentum generated by all past efforts is kept alive or even pushed forward with greater speed.”

     

    A key initiative announced at the AGM by the Kamath, the outgoing chairman, was the soon-to-be-launched ASCI Academy for training and awareness creation of various stakeholders in the prevention of objectionable ads.

     

    Speaking about his two-term tenure as ASCI Chairman, Kamath said: “The past two years have been truly transformational for ASCI. Our vision of making ASCI more future-ready by taking on the challenges of a digital world and a fast-changing communication landscape, and by adding value to the industry through more agility, responsiveness, services, and thought leadership, has started showing results. I’m sure ASCI will continue to grow from strength to strength in the coming years. It’s been a privilege to serve as its chairman and I thank the board, the CCC members and the wonderful secretariat team for making it possible.”

     

  • If the industry keeps celebrating those breaking the code, no self-regulation will work, writes Sanjeev Kotnala

    Should repeat offenders of ASCI guidelines be debarred from awards & felicitations?

     

     

     

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    Sanjeev KotnalaI have repeatedly written about the thankless self-regulation job ASCI has been doing by discussing, suggesting, recommending, and trying to make brands follow the guidelines. I sincerely believe that self-regulation as the name suggest is an individual and organisational call. No moral and ethical policing works.

     

    If one was to analyse the roaster of defaulting brands every quarter, they are a mixed lot. One could understand the fly-by-night operators and small businesses not really following the guidelines. However, the list of repeat offenders has large brands and companies working with well-known advertising agencies. It is tough to presume that these agencies and the brand team are unaware of the guidelines. Hence, when they fail to follow the guidelines, it is natural to assume that the act was voluntary and intentionally exploiting the loopholes for business. The brands were fully aware of ASCI procedures and prepared for the action.

     

    The answer to the question of who is responsible for this situation is simple. It is the brand owners and the agency leadership. Because they have decided to overlook their team’s work. It is a question of attitude, ethics, and morality. A question of the culture that permeates the teams. A business call is made knowing the pros and cons. And, if the seniors in the team turn a blind eye or do not guide the teams on proper systems and operations, no number of guidelines will help. Until those exploiting loopholes or not following the guidelines is no way a black mark on your resume or employability. Till it is seen as intelligent working, no set of guidelines will work. And if the industry keeps celebrating the seniors working on the brands and companies breaking the guidelines, no guideline will work.

     

    Why can’t brands and their teams repeatedly not following the guidelines be debarred from industry awards, individual felicitations, discussions and addressing, and holding a post in industry bodies? Can people reject a candidate knowing they were part of the team called for not following the guidelines? Can the CMOs and the agency heads ensure that every marketing, branding, and communication person is aware of the guidelines for the category they work on? Can an ASCI guideline certification be a minimum requirement for creative and strategic teams? Would it be too much to do?

     

    For self-regulation, you need self-discipline. It is as simple as that. It is just like you deciding to use a seat belt or not while driving, knowing fully well that by not wearing the seat belt, you are not violating a guideline but a law. And moreover, you are risking yourself and no one else. You do not wear it knowing that the traffic police cannot fully monitor it, and people are not shamed for not wearing the seat belt. You decide not to wear the seat belt despite its availability, and wearing it is as simple as clicking it in. You don’t wear it because you think you can get away with it and nothing will happen to you. The same approach is visible in people and organisations not following the ASCI guidelines. They think they can get away with it and lack something as basic as self-discipline.

     

    Checking if the brand is not violating guidelines should not be a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) but a habit. It should happen naturally. And, if it does happen naturally, indeed, after some time, the teams may not even need to check as their internal working will weed out the wrongs. SOP reeks of checks to see we are within the framework and technically cannot be faulted for not following the guidelines. There is no question of exploiting the loopholes when it is a habit. It is not about technical grounds but more about realism and ethicality of action. As naturally as brushing your teeth.

     

    Guidelines keep evolving. Maybe some have lost their relevance. ASCI is always there to discuss and re-evaluate. Remember, all the guidelines have been developed in consultation with Industry experts and after they have been publicly open for discussion and input. The guidelines are not ASCI- the guidelines are of the industry. And by following them, no one does a favour to ASCI. We help the industry stay within the scope of self-regulation without governmental interference.

     

    Net-net

    So, decide, you want to be the smart one who exploited the guidelines under technical loophole. Or you were morally ethically correct to have followed the guideline. It is typically a business call that must be made individually. And it is finally all about – the culture and attitude promoted in the organisation. Think again about what you teach when you turn a blind eye or knowingly violate the guidelines on technical grounds.

     

    ASCI doing its part

    ASCI has been upfront and transparent in its dealing and communication, but it needs industry support. As per an ASCI report, It processed 52% more ads in 21-22 compared to 20-21. Digital contributed 29% of all complaints, and Education remained the largest violator of the guidelines followed by Healthcare and Personal Care. And 94% of all ads processed needed some modification. Important point- 21% of complaints originated from consumers, and 7%5 were Suo-moto action by ASCI. Both are good signs. Print and digital led with 47% and 48% of the complaints.

    As per ASCI’s sector report 21-22. For example, in the personal care category. There has been a 261% increase in ads, where 69% were informal resolutions not contested, and 31% were upheld. Most ads, 88%, came from digital space, Print contributed 4% and Tv 6% of the contested ads. 371 ads were found violating influencer disclosure guidelines, and 4 ads featuring celebrities were found misleading!

     

  • There is no denying that the brand tried to exploit some loophole and pass the model as a person of expertise, writes Sanjeev Kotnala

    Is Mr Sachin Khurana a headache for self-regulator ASCI?

     

     

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    Sanjeev KotnalaLaw is always a step behind reality. And guidelines and regulations are a few steps behind. The victim suffers, and the perpetrator keeps finding new loopholes to exploit. But, when the perpetrator violating the ASCI guideline is a well-known big pharmaceutical company, we expect them to be totally aware of the guidelines and the loopholes. And when they act like this, it is time to rethink.

     

    Yes, the advertisement by GSK appeared in TOI. The publication’s internal quality cell could/ should have highlighted the issue and refused, but they did not. Karthik (@Beastoftraal) mentioned the objections on Twitter and I complained to ASCI. Hope they do see the problem. Karthik has also pointed out how toothpastes use unfamiliar faces and how celebrities act like people of influence in white coats.

     

    WHITE COAT= DOCTOR or SCIENTIST.

    It is as simple as ABC. The audience relates White Coat to a person of expertise and influence. Mainly as a doctor, pharmacist, scientist or at the least a lab attendant who knows what he or she is doing.

     

    There is no doubt that in this advertisement for Crocin, the brand wants the audience to infer it as someone who knows what he is recommending. But, then, the brand cannot have a doctor suggesting/ recommending Crocin, an OTC (Over Counter Drug) that is available without a prescription.

     

    FIND A WAY OUT.

    Enter the loophole. Feature a model wearing a white coat. And then identify the model with its name. Brilliant- as he is an actual model. No Dr. prefix. So, we have clearly shown that he is not a doctor, but he recommends Crocin. Problem solved.

    But why would a company like GSK, known for its pharmaceutical products, vaccines etc., have any Tom, Dick or Harry recommend the product? It does not make sense.

     

    MANY QUESTIONS.

    Hopefully, ASCI will ask the questions Karthik asks in his tweet.

     

    Why is the model named at all in this ad? Is that the company practice? Does the company do it every time there is a recommendation?

     

    Why add “Mr.” before ‘Sachin Khurana’? Is it to differentiate him from “Dr.”?

     

    Why is “Mr Sachin Khurana” wearing a white coat? Is he a doctor, lab attendant or scientist? Should we trust “Mr.” Sachin Khurana’s words about Crocin just because he’s dressed like a doctor?

     

    NET-NET.

    There is no denying that the brand tried to exploit some loophole and pass the model as a person of expertise. To most OTC drug buyers, Crocin would mean just that, and it is not expected of a large brand and company to do so.

     

    SELF REGULATION.

    ASCI is an industry body doing its best within its limitations. It has well-formatted guidelines.  It is ultimately the responsibility of the brand managers, creative agencies, and media partners to self-regulate. There are enough big companies and brands who instead of setting example do not follow the guidelines. It cannot happen if the industry representatives do not share the responsibility. Following ASCI guidelines will actually strengthen the industry.  Suppose self-regulation fails and is not followed in spirit. In that case, the industry should be put under government regulations, at least for the medical field. And the errant brands must be penalised for their discretion.

     

  • Creates a Two-tier Grievance Redressal Mechanism

    Indian EdTech Consortium issues clarification

    By Our Staff

     

    Indian Edtech Consortium (IEC) which has been formed under the aegis of IAMAI has issued a clarification around mis-selling and misleading advertisements by edtech companies. To ensure the protection of consumers’ interests, IEC has created a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism. “So far, 100% of the complaints received by the IEC until June 2022 have been resolved completely while the complaints received in July are going through active screening for faster resolutions,” notes a communique.

     

    Said Dr Aruna Sharma, Ex-Secretary, Government of India & Expert Member, IGRB while adding to the development: “EdTech is well recognised in New Education Policy for not just lifelong learning but also for better and repeat learning. IEC as an SRO has also commissioned an Independent Grievance Redressal Board (IGRB) that constitutes Retd. Supreme Court Judge, industry veterans and leaders to adhere to the internal Code of Conduct. This vigilance will enable the dynamic Edtech sector to address the rising challenges, and propel a stronger ecosystem in the coming times. These steps will ensure confidence among users by having a strong grievance redressal ecosystem.”

     

    Adds the communique: “The recent Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) data which shows that 33% of complaints are filed against the Education sector, at large. However, it also confirms that only 6% of the total complaints received are against the Edtech companies while the remaining 94% are filed against the traditional education system. This, in turn, makes the total count sub 2% for the edtech sector.”

     

    Added Mayank Kumar, Chair at IEC and also the Co-founder and MD at UpGrad: “As industry leaders, we take the responsibility very seriously as we understand both the long-term impact and implications, our actions could create on the lives of millions. Edtech as a strong community has been far more prompt than our traditional counterpart in managing consumer complaints and grievances.”

     

  • Digital medium sees overall 62% increase in objectionable ads

    ASCI tables Annual Complaints Report 2021-22

    By Our Staff

     

    The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) released its annual complaints report for the period April 2021 – March 20222, during which it processed 5,532 advertisements across mediums including print, digital, and television. With a sharp focus on the digital domain, ASCI saw an overall compliance rate of 94%.

     

    In 2021-22, ASCI processed 62% more ads compared to the previous year, and 25% more complaints. While television and print ads remained in focus, ASCI broadened its ambit by “proactively” monitoring advertising in the digital landscape. Nearly 48% of the ads processed belonged to the digital medium. With the influencer guidelines coming into force last year, complaints against influencers constituted 29% of the total grievances. Complaints regarding misleading claims in ads featuring celebrities saw a 41% increase out of which a staggering 92% were found to be violating ASCI’s guidelines, notes a communique.

     

    ASCI continued its proactive surveillance and 75% of ads processed were picked up suo motu. This included the AI-based monitoring that ASCI has set up for digital tracking. Complaints from consumers constituted 21% of complaints, followed by intra-industry at 2% and CSO/ Government complaints at 2%. Of the 5,532 total ads processed, 39% were not contested by the advertiser, 55% of them were found to be objectionable after investigation, and complaints against 4% of ads were dismissed as not violating the ASCI code. 94% of ads that ASCI processed needed changes so as not to violate the ASCI code.

     

    Given its focus on digital monitoring, emerging categories included the relatively new categories of virtual digital assets and online real money gaming, contributing significantly to objectionable ads at 8% each. Education (33%), Healthcare (16%), and Personal Care (11%) were the Top 3 violative categories.

     

    Subhash Kamath
    Subhash Kamath

    Talking about the annual report, Subhash Kamath, Chairman, ASCI said: “2021-22 was the year we followed through on our promise of increasingly monitoring the digital media given the way it has been dominating the advertising landscape. We invested heavily in technology and that has worked quite well. We also upgraded our complaints system which has made it very easy for consumers to register their complaints and for advertisers to respond to it. Going ahead, we will continue to be at the forefront in understanding how best to regulate and monitor the digital frontier, even as we keep streamlining our processes to become more responsive, and more proactive.”

     

    Manisha Kapoor
    Manisha Kapoor

    Sharing her thoughts about the annual report, Manisha Kapoor, CEO & Secretary General, ASCI, said: “The ASCI team, the Consumer Complaints Council, the Honorable ex-high court judges on our review panel, and our domain experts have debated the nuances of advertising and scientific evidence of thousands of ads to ensure that the process and outcomes are fair to both consumers as well as advertisers. Simultaneously, the constant update to our code ensures that we constantly offer guidance and transparency to consumers and advertisers on newer and emerging formats and categories. This helps in keeping self-regulation at the frontier of advertising developments.”

     

  • … it will be a sad day for industry if the government starts regulating advertising, writes Sanjeev Kotnala

    If self-regulation fails…

     

     

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    Sanjeev KotnalaGood news. ASCI acted fast. It is debatable who acted first to ban/ withdraw the controversial Layer’r Shot ad. Was it the government or the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)? I am glad someone did. However, the story has died fast. Everyone is okay after the ad is withdrawn and a vague apology tendered. One does not know the mandatory approvals, who approved, and why there is no further action?

     

    Meanwhile, the government got into the act. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) released new guidelines against misleading advertisements. It says surrogate advertising is now banned- was it allowed earlier? The celebrity must disclose association and do due diligence before endorsing – was that not the case?

     

    Meanwhile, ASCI released new guidelines on Harmful Gender-Stereotype in advertising. It aims to encourage advertisers to create progressive gender depictions. It is okay if the ground realities are different and do not reflect this expected holier-than-thou depiction in advertisements.

     

    This reminds me of Sunny Deol’s famous dialogue; Guideline pe Guideline pe guideline- nahi milte hai toh misleading advertisements se chutti.

     

    Minister Calls ASCI act

    I read the overdramatic comment of the Union Minister for Women and Child Development, Mrs Smriti Irani and I smiled. She said, “If women were valued enough, we wouldn’t need guidelines”. I believe she would know the reality.

    However, she made a relevant observation on ASCI members and their engagement. Of the 800 ASCI members, just three members (officebearers) were at the guideline event. That’s how integral ASCI is to the industry. That is how concerned, involved, and serious the industry is towards self-regulation?

     

    Intent does not Count

    The guidelines on Harmful Gender-Stereotype in advertising call for not including gender stereotypes likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offence. For ASCI, it is a strong step towards a more responsible and progressive narrative. Well, I am not so sure. We know how guidelines are exploited, played with, and not adhered to by advertisers.

    The truth is that most creative and client teams do not know the guidelines and don’t understand them. Brands simply don’t give a damn to ASCI, given that it only seeks a polite enquiry and request to withdraw the offending advertisement.

     

    Things have changed a bit 

    ASCI has streamlined the processes. There are quick processes to address the problem. But withdrawing the ad with no public apology shows ASCI has no bite. In most cases, the advertisement achieves its objective before ASCI request a withdrawal.  However, the ASCI service #GetItRight, get the creative pre-checked at the production stage, returns a 404 error!

     

    Different strokes

    Surprisingly, large brands and big advertisers regularly feature in the quarterly reports of offending work. ASCI guidelines have no say on advertorials, political and Government advertisements.

     

    Will ASCI guidelines restrict creativity?

    In today’s world of rapid information exchange, heightened point-of-views and hardened social voices help nudge the brands in the right direction. But storytellers must have creative licenses.

    Is ASCI not asking too much for brands to reinforce unrealistic and undesirable gender ideals or expectations. For example, expecting a woman to return from work may not be shown as solely responsible for doing household duties while others around her are at leisure. Remember Airtel.

     

    Should advertising worry about social reform?

    When the guidelines become constraining, they will be questioned.

    Should advertising stop reflecting the social and cultural realities?

    Will it not make them irrelevant, ineffective, and tough to relate to?

    Should advertising aim to nudge people towards the right desired way of life?

    Or should the ground realities change before advertising reflects it?

    Are we not giving advertising too much credit for possibly impacting human behaviour?

    Are guidelines not trying to dictate what should be controlled by the market forces?

     

    Net-net

    Advertising is becoming a tough maze with all the guidelines. There is too much of what not to do. Maybe creative teams see it as a decent challenge. But this forced wokeness is wrong.

    The brands should be free to tell the story how they want and ensure that no misinformation or false promise is being made. And that it does not hurt religious, regional, language or gender groups or objectify any gender.  And if there are guidelines there should be a robust way to implement them by Sham, Daam, Dand or Bhed. (Logic, cost, Penalty and differentiation/doubt).

     

    Let us understand, that ASCI cannot do much till the corporates, the marketing and the brand owners take the initiative. Self-regulation is all about knowing and doing things consciously as per the guidelines. Till the time ASCI does not have real teeth to penalise and persuade brands for breach of guidelines, they may just remain guidelines.

     

    Not against self-regulation

    I am not against self-regulation; it is crucial. As an industry we all owe to the society the right way of promotion. If the industry continues to fail at self-regulation. In that case, someone like government will have to regulate it, which will be a sad day for the industry.

    I am all for effective self-regulation, where there is one expectation from every stakeholder, and the regulating authority has the right to take action. Where every team member on the client and the agency side understands and appreciated the need for the guidelines, maybe then they will follow it better. Maybe I am asking for too much.

     

     

  • The study released by Smriti Irani Minister of Women and Child Development

    ASCI releases guidelines on gender stereotypes

    By Our Staff

     

    The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has followed up the launch of its GenderNext report in October 2021, a study by ASCI and Futurebrands, with the release of guidelines that guard against harmful gender stereotypes. The guidelines were released at an event held in Delhi presided over by Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani.

     

    While the guidelines focus on women, they also provide pointers for depiction of other genders.

     

    The guidelines, encourage advertisers and creators to deploy the SEA (Self-esteemed – Empowered – Allied) framework that guides stakeholders in imagining as well as evaluating portrayals of gender in their advertising by building empathy and aiding evaluation, as well as the 3S framework, which provides a checklist to guard against tropes and implicit stereotypes that creep into advertising.

     

    These frameworks can prove to be extremely useful for marketing and advertising professionals to improve their advertising ROIs.

     

    Speaking at the launch of the guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes, Irani said: “While there are women who are happy with the incremental change that has been made in the advertising industry, women of my generation are a bit more impatient. It is time not only for the men but also for the women in the advertising industry to step up. This is a very important move, and I believe that there is a long journey to be undertaken to turn the thinking but it’s required now. Work in this area must move with more and more speed and organisations like ASCI should lead this, the action beginning with its member base.”

     

    Added Subhash Kamath, Chairman, ASCI: “The new guidelines were created after extensive consultation with many partners- both from industry, as well as civil society organisations, including the Unstereotype Alliance and UNICEF. These guidelines are a big step forward in strengthening ASCI’s agenda to shape a more responsible and progressive narrative. We are grateful to the government and Shrimati Smriti Irani for supporting these guidelines, and to the many partners who have been with us on this journey.”

     

    ASCI’s Guidelines on Harmful Gender Stereotypes in advertising:

    Note:

    1. ASCI will consider an ad’s likely impact when taken as a whole and in context.

    2. ASCI will consider stereotypes from the perspective of the group of individuals being stereotyped.

    3. The use of humour or banter is not likely to overcome the underlying issue of such harmful stereotypes.

    4. The guidelines do not intend to prevent ads from featuring:

    5. glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles;

    6. one gender only, including in advertisements for products developed for and aimed at a particular gender;

    7. gender stereotypes as a means to challenge their harmful effects.

     

    Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offence.

    1. While advertisements may feature people undertaking gender-stereotypical roles e.g., a woman cleaning the house or a man going to an office, or displaying gender-stereotypical characteristics, for e.g., a man being assertive or a woman being sensitive to others’ needs, they must not suggest that stereotypical roles or characteristics are:

    :: always uniquely associated with a particular gender;

    :: the only options available to a particular gender; or

    :: never carried out or displayed by another gender(s).

    1.1 Advertisements that are aimed at / depict children may target and feature a specific gender but should not convey that a particular children’s product, pursuit, behaviour, or activity, including choice of play or career, is inappropriate for one or another gender(s). For example, ads suggesting that a boy’s stereotypical personality should be “daring” or that a girl’s stereotypical personality should be “caring”, or someone chiding a boy playing with dolls or girls from jumping around because it is not the typical activity associated with the gender, are likely to be problematic.

     

    2. While advertisements may feature glamorous and attractive people, they must not suggest that an individual’s happiness or emotional wellbeing depends on conforming to these idealised gender-stereotypical body shapes or physical features.

     

    3. Advertisements should not mock people for not conforming to gender stereotypes, their sexual orientation or gender identity, including in a context that is intended to be humorous, hyperbolic or exaggerated. For example, an ad may not belittle a man for carrying out stereotypically female roles or tasks or make fun of a same-sex relationship.

     

    4. Advertisements should not reinforce unrealistic and undesirable gender ideals or expectations. For example, an advertisement must not depict a man with his feet up and family members creating a mess around a home, while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess, or a woman overly grateful for the man helping her in everyday chores. Similarly, a woman returning from work may not be shown as solely responsible for doing household duties while others around her are at leisure.

     

    5. An advertisement may not suggest that a person fails to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g., a man’s inability to change nappies; or a woman’s inability to park a car.  In categories that usually target a particular gender, care must be taken to not depict condescension towards any other gender or show them as incapable of understanding the product or unable to make decisions. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these stereotypes as a means to challenge them.

     

    6. Where an advertisement features a person with a physique or physical characteristics that do not match an ideal stereotype associated with their gender, the advertisement should not imply that their physique or physical characteristics are a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic, social or professional lives. For example, an ad may not suggest that a man who is short, a woman who is dark, or any individual who is overweight has difficulty finding a job or a partner due to this aspect of their physique.

     

    7.. Advertisements should not indulge in the sexual objectification of characters of any gender or depict people in a sexualised and objectified way for the purposes of titillating viewers. This would include the use of language or visual treatments in contexts wholly irrelevant to the product.  For example, an online takeaway service featuring an image of a woman wearing lingerie lying back in a provocative pose behind various fast-food items would be considered problematic.  Even though the image may not be sexually explicit, by using a suggestive image of a woman that bears no relevance to the advertised product, the ad would be considered objectifying women by presenting them as sexual objects, and therefore is a gender stereotype that is likely to cause harm.

     

    8. No gender should be encouraged to exert domination or authority over the other(s) by means of overt or implied threats, actual force or through the use of demeaning language or tone. Advertisements cannot provoke or trivialise violence (physical or emotional), unlawful or anti-social behaviour based on gender. Additionally, advertisements should not encourage or normalise voyeurism, eve-teasing, stalking, emotional or physical harassment or any similar offences. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these depictions as a means to challenge them.

     

  • Updates code to include issues of gender identity, sexual orientation

    ASCI bats for greater inclusion in advertising

    By Our Staff

     

    The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has updated its code to add greater inclusivity in advertising depictions. Notes a communique: “The ASCI code already required ads to not deride anyone on the basis of race, caste, creed, gender or nationality. However, new areas of possible discrimination or derision have now been included such as gender identity and sexual orientation, body shape, age, and physical and mental conditions. Advertisements that mock or deride anyone on these bases will now be considered in violation of the ASCI Code.”

     

    Adds the communique: “This clause is now updated as part of Chapter 3 pertaining to advertisements that cause harm, which reads as follows:

    3.1. No advertisement shall be permitted which:

    (b) Derides any individual or groups on the basis of race, caste, color, religion, gender, body shape, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental conditions or nationality.”

     

    Speaking about the changes, Manisha Kapoor, CEO & Secretary General, ASCI, said: “We have seen consumers call out ads that mock or deride people, or portray them in unfavourable ways. And it is only right that advertising becomes more inclusive and sensitive to this.  It is not acceptable for example, to associate characteristics such as sluggishness with a certain body shape. Similarly, to deride someone with a physical or mental ailment, or their gender identity would now violate the ASCI code. With this change, ASCI hopes to ensure that advertising becomes more inclusive and sensitised to all sections of our country, and does not perpetuate certain portrayals that have no place in a progressive society.”

     

  • Either ASCI gets a mandate to take tough measures, or remove the loopholes or let an outside body with enough powers step in, writes Vikas Mehta

    The curious case of self-regulation

     

     

    By Vikas Mehta

     

    Vikas MehtaThe Budweiser ad aired on the IPL last week is symptomatic of the hypocrisy that is so evident in the industry. On the face of it, there is a blanket ban on alcohol and gutkha products. Yet, both the categories find enough loopholes to beat the ban. Both get away with surrogate advertising. ‘We are not about guthka but about silver coated elaichi.’ ‘ We are not about alcohol but about playing cards or water.’ And to add insult to the injury, stars like Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan, who at the drop of a hat shout about nationalism and patriotism, find nothing morally wrong in promoting such products. When they are criticised and trolled, they profess ignorance about such surrogate advertising, apologise, make some grand gestures about cancelling contract or donating the earnings to a social cause and life continues as before. The ads continue unashamedly.

     

    But the Budweiser ad tops it all. It does not even pretend to be a surrogate. It shows what definitely looks like a beer bottle. It talks about being brewed over nights. And then to make sure there is no confusion that the product is a beer, it talks about brewed over 21 nights for a smoother taste. How brazen can one get? It’s almost like teasing the regulatory bodies. And what will they do?

     

    ASCI will wait for someone to complain. Then issue a showcause notice. If the advertiser does not respond within a few weeks, it will write to the advertiser that the ad violates its code of conduct and they should desist from airing the ad. In the meanwhile, IPL would have not only finished but the advertiser would have anyways stopped airing the ads. Come to think of it, Budweiser has already stopped the ads. It was a neat ambush. All are happy. The advertiser has got exposure in IPL. ASCI will have done everything by the book and can claim that they stopped the ad.

     

    But soon enough this will become inspiration for another advertiser and the whole story will be repeated. This self-regulation is a joke. We need fines, bans. Some tough measures. But what can one expect from a body whose rules do not allow it to rule on government or political ads. Mind you, these are the largest source of revenue for press media. But ASCI constitution does not allow it to question political ads or government ads. So, how can we expect anything tough from ASCI? The self-regulation is a hypocrisy so that no law-enforcing body need interfere. The industry continues to make merry. This charade, hypocrisy has to be stopped. Either ASCI gets a mandate to take tough measures, or remove the loopholes or let an outside body with enough powers step in.

     

    The silver lining this week was the first decent Jio ad I have seen. And it was for Jiomart. A very homely and not over-the-top, Ranveer showcases the simple features of Jiomart along with Deepika. Everyday sasta, no minimum order. The two ads make two simple points. One, is the power of storytelling. Single-minded benefit in each ad makes it episodic and entertaining. Two, how star power can be harnessed in an effective way. Ranveer, has a screen persona which is outlandish and over the top. But as a husband one can expect him to be a normal, doting husband. And that’s exactly how he comes across.

    For me, the ad of the week was Cred. There have been lot of stories and tales about Ravi Shastri and his extracurricular habits. Cred used these brilliantly to build a narrative about Shastri. What I particularly like was that they could convince Shastri to portray his oft-debated, but never openly discussed persona in the ad. It was hugely entertaining and did the job for the brand also very well.

    https://youtu.be/vLHpfulLcUE

    So, as we have the four surprise play-off teams in competition, we have had some surprising ads this week. Which were your Top 4 ads of IPL 2022? Compare your notes with me. Next week.

     

     

    Vikas Mehta is a senior marketing and business strategist and educator. This is the second IPL season where he has been reviewing for MxMIndia. His views here are personal.

  • About 14 ads found to be in potential violation of the ASCI code in first week of cricket extravaganza

    ASCI takes cognisance of gaming ad violations in IPL

    By Our Staff

     

    The Indian Premier League (IPL), the latest edition of which kicked off on March 26, has witnessed high-decibel advertising from the online real-money gaming industry. Unfortunately, many of the commercials do not pass scrutiny when it comes to the guidelines prescribed by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

     

    In the first week of the IPL alone, March 26 to April 3, ASCI screened 35 ads from the category and identified 14 as being in potential violation of its code. ASCI is keeping a tab on TV as well as OTT ads.  In addition, in March alone, 285 social media ads of online real-money gaming companies were identified as being in violation of the ASCI code.

     

    ASCI noted that in some instances dubious claims such as ‘India’s biggest 1st prize’ were being made, and in many cases the disclaimer informing consumers of the risks was flashed very quickly rather than at a normal speaking pace. In some cases, the advertisements had celebrities acting while the disclaimer was being spoken, distracting consumers from important information about risks. Some advertisements had disclaimers that were smaller than what has been prescribed.

     

    These attempts at glossing over the disclaimers required to be carried in the prescribed manner, informing about the risks of financial loss or game addiction, can severely compromise consumer interest. ASCI has urged gaming industry bodies to take up this issue with their members.

     

    ASCI guidelines on real-money gaming came into effect on December 15, 2020. The guidelines require advertisements to not be aimed at minors, not present gaming as a source of livelihood or link it to success. In addition, the guidelines require all advertisements to carry a prominent disclaimer regarding the risk of financial loss and the addictive nature of such games. These guidelines were backed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which issued an advisory asking that advertisements adhere to the guidelines.

     

    Manisha Kapoor
    Manisha Kapoor

    Said Manisha Kapoor, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) & Secretary General (SG), ASCI: “ASCI is concerned to note that, despite clear guidelines, some online real-money gaming firms are attempting a shortcut. For an industry that is under significant regulatory scrutiny, such acts by some companies paint the entire industry as irresponsible. IPL, being a massive platform, requires responsible behaviour from all parties – including gaming firms, broadcasters, celebrities and ad creators. We hope that all parties play their roles to ensure that consumers are not exposed to misleading advertising.”

     

  • Sinha is also actively involved in various industry bodies such as the ASCI

    Shashi Sinha appointed as new BARC India Chairman

    By Our Staff

     

    Shashi Sinha, Chief Executive Officer at IPG Mediabrands India, has been unanimously elected as new Chairman of Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC India) by the Board following its meeting held on March 25, 2022.

     

    Sinha, who also represents the Advertising Agencies Association of India as its Board member, has played a key role in the formation of BARC. He takes over from Punit Goenka, MD & CEO, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., who served as Chairman for the last three years.

     

    Sinha is also actively involved in various industry bodies such as the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI, Past Chairman of Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), Past President of The Ad Club, Current Chairman of Media Research Users Council (MRUC) and till very recently, before becoming a Board member, was the first Chairman of the Technical Committee of BARC India. He is also a member of the Facebook India Client Council.

     

    Speaking on the appointment, Sinha said: “I am excited to be given this opportunity as the Chairman of BARC at a time when the industry is undergoing many changes and the measurement body continues to grow. Over the last decade, BARC has evolved to become a robust currency and developed into a strong base for decision making for all stakeholders. I look forward to continue working with the team at BARC and I am confident that together we will be able to add and bring in more value to the broadcast ecosystem.”

     

    Added outgoing chairman Punit Goenka: “It has been a privilege to lead and serve BARC India as the Chairman, for two terms. The organisation has indeed grown and progressed substantially since its inception. I would like to welcome Shashi as he takes the helm of an industry-critical operation in a fast-changing landscape. I am sure that BARC India will soar to newer heights under his guidance. I also wish Nakul and the team at BARC all the very best”.

     

    Said Nakul Chopra, CEO, BARC India: “We would like to thank Mr Goenka, who has also been the Founder Chairman of BARC India, playing an instrumental role in setting up this measurement system. His strategic guidance and contribution made to BARC India, as its Chairman for two tenures, has added immense value,” adding:  “It gives us great pleasure to welcome Mr Sinha as our new Chairman. He is recognised for his deep understanding of the media industry, especially the broadcast sector and has been an integral part of BARC’s journey as well as India’s M&E industry. It was under his leadership that the BARC Tech Comm played a significant role in the formation of the world’s largest television measurement system. We look forward to working closely with him.”