Ban on liquor Ads

Banning Liquor Advertisements - Again In June 2002, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry of India ordered leading television (TV) broadcasters to ban the telecast of two surrogate ads1 of liquor brands, McDowell's 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 and perfumes to golf accessories and mineral water. By August 2002, the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements. Leading satellite TV channels, including Zee, Sony, STAR and Aaj Tak were issued show-cause notices asking them to explain their reason for carrying surrogate liquor advertisements. The channels were asked to adhere strictly to the Cable Television Regulation Act 1995 (Cable TV Act, 1995).2 As a result, Zee and STAR stopped telecasting the advertisements; Aaj Tak and Sony soon followed suit. In addition, the I&B Ministry hired a private monitoring agency to keep a watch on all advertisements for violations of the Act. Meanwhile, the government also seemed to be in dilemma. On the one hand, it had to encourage the sales of liquor and tobacco because they were the highest taxed sectors of the Indian economy. On the other hand, there was also the need to take the high moral ground and reduce the consumption of such products. I &B Ministry says no more surrogate ads; broadcasters seek clarifications news 17 April 2008 New Delhi: Time has run out for surrogate advertising in India, typically adopted by liquor and cigarette companies. The Information and Broadcasting (I&B) minister, Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, has given a verbal assurance to cabinet colleague, Union health minister A Ramadoss, that the ban on surrogate ads would soon cover all forms of media. Additionally, the I&B ministry is also mulling stricter measures for surveillance on advertising to identify such ads. The union health minister had, via a letter in February, advised the information and broadcasting ministry on how companies circumvent the ban on advertising liquor by using surrogate methods. He had requested I&B minister Dasmunsi to ensure appropriate action against "indirect advertisements of wine, alcohol, liquor and any tobacco products,'' in the interest of public health. The Times of India claims to have in its possession, the letter that Ramadoss wrote to Dasmunsi, which enumerates the violating brands as Bagpiper, McDowells, Johnny Walker, Haywards, Derby, Royal Challenge and Kingfisher. These brands run surrogate advertising campaigns for sodas, cassettes, CDs, golf accessories and mineral water, with these 'brand-extended' products bearing the exact name and logo that is visible in the original liquor product advertisements. These measures are at the forefront of a campaign against tobacco and alcohol advertising, spearheaded by Ramadoss, as he claims that this form of advertising targets the youth, and puts their health in jeopardy. In India, according to reports, alcohol as a health problem is taking on larger proportions than tobacco, which has been subject to years of social stigma. The ban on smoking in public places seems to have been effective, at least visibly, with fewer people seen smoking than before. However, according to a recent study by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), the age of children adopting alcohol consumption has fallen to 19, from 27 a few years ago, and projects it to fall further to 15 within the next few years. The Union health minster predicts that with the I&B surrogate advertising ban in place, and with awareness campaigns on the ill effects of alcohol being run in parallel, consumption of alcohol will show a declining trend. For media planners and the advertising industry, the ban on surrogate advertising may cost broadcasters around Rs200 crore annually, and another Rs50 crore if print advertising is taken into account. Broadcasters from the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) met with with I&B minister Dasmunsi, to seek clarity on the issue. The delegation included Jawahar Goel, managing director Dish TV, and president of the IBF, Joy Chakraborthy, president, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, Paritosh Joshi, president, advertising sales and distribution, Star India, and Preet Dhupar, director, finance and operations, BBC World. The delegation tried to dissuade the ministry from implementing the ban, on account of the substantial loss of revenues broadcasters would have to face. However, discussions centered around the criteria that would classify a brand as a surrogate, or as a brand extension, the certifications that would be applicable to ads (as the Central Board of Film Certification is no longer empowered to clear the ads), and whom to consider as the regulating authority. The delegation also told the minister that these regulations so far are not applicable to the same ad campaings, if they were run in the print media. According to Jawahar Goel, president of the IBF, the advise to partner channels was given after consulting with legal experts, as the IBF does not have ''the expertise to judge whether the brand is a genuine extension of the business, or a surrogate.'' The I&B ministry will now reportedly discuss these issues with the health ministry, and then reply to the IBF's queries in about a week. For the interim, the IBF has advised partner channels continue airing advertisements, which have been approved by the Central Board of Film Certification, the approving authority for television commercials as per a 2006 regulation. A number of brands that would have their advertising pulled off the air by the ban associate themselves with sports such as golf and cricket in India. For example, DLF's IPL Bangalore franchise flies the colors of the UB Group's premium whiskey brand Royal Challenge. Other surrogate advertisers includes Kingfisher Mineral Water (main product being beer), McDowell's No 1 Soda (main product whiskey), and Bacardi Blast (main product rum). Industry sources indicate that the ad spend of the average liquor brand across media platforms tallies in the range of Rs45 crore. These developments led to heated debates over the issue of surrogate advertising by liquor companies. Though the liquor companies involved protested strongly against the I&B Ministry's decision, they had no choice, but to comply with the regulations. Analysts remarked that the government's policy was hypocritical. One said, "On the one hand they allow these 'socially bad' products to be manufactured and sold (in order to garner revenues) and then they deny the manufacturers the right to propagate knowledge of their products in order to drive sales. If something is bad and cannot be advertised, why allow it to be sold at all?" KOLKATA: The Punjab and Haryana high court has served notices to liquor companies and the Union ministry of information and broadcasting on a writ petition filed before it seeking to restrain liquor companies from promoting their products, directly and indirectly, in violation of the ministry’s notification. Notices have been issued by the court to the ministry, the Central Board of Film Certification, Jagatjit Industries, United Breweries, SAB Miller India, Bacardi Martini India, Seagram India and Diageo India. All have been directed to file their replies by October 3, 2007. The writ petition seeks a restraining order on promoting the sale and consumption of wine, liquor and other alcoholic products through surrogate advertising in television and print, claiming that this was being done in violation of rules and notifications dated August 9, 2006, of the I&B ministry. According to this notification, advertising a product which uses the same brand name used by a liquor product must not contain any nuances or phrases used by the liquor product and must not use particular colours, layout and presentation associated with the liquor product. Also, all such advertisements need to be previewed and certified by the Central Board of Film Certification prior to telecast. The court has been moved alleging that advertising rules are being flouted openly by liquor companies across the board and that the government has failed to act against violations of its own rules and regulations. The petition has brought to light instances of surrogate advertising, including Kingfisher Airlines, Bacardi Blast, Smirnoff Cafe and Chivas Regal Polo, which are in violation of the government notification. The petition also argues that it is necessary for manufacturers to choose which product or service they want to sell under a particular brand name and the same cannot be interchangeable for any liquor product.

"Loved reading this piece by Manish Singh?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group