Should Celebrity Ambassadors Be More Mindful Of Which Products They Endorse?

Viewers of the recently concluded Paris 2024 Olympics on television got to see as much of yesteryears superstar Amitabh Bachchan as of the games they are fond of, thus validating and vindicating yet again what advertisement guru David Ogilvy observed long ago tongue in cheek — the danger of celebrity advertising is that people remember the celebrities and forget the brands they endorse. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is to blame for doing its bit in exacerbating celebrity fatigue. Its heart of course was at the right place — warning the gullible against the machinations of online fraudsters while doing digital banking as well as to be well informed. But can’t it do it more imaginatively as it does intermittently and infrequently by featuring a few fun-loving girls who explain in a bantering style the dangers of sharing one’s OTP or password with others howsoever close they may be?

A satisfied customer is the best brand ambassador which is why Lintas long ago used Lalitaji, a dyed-in-the-wool homemaker, as the Surf model. That model of advertising caught on briefly but the ad agencies seem to be harking back to celebrities albeit of yesteryears. It can feature the firsthand accounts of those who were duped by the fraudsters thereby not only alerting the viewers more effectively as they empathise and sympathise more with the doleful tales of victims but also incidentally paying a reasonable modelling fee to such victims instead of paying mind-boggling celebrity endorsement fees. The RBI also can send such online alert messages each time a person has an interface with digital banking. Banks while sending OTPs vide SMS and emails can be asked to add a cautionary message in detail alongside the OTP number. People have a short attention span for commercial breaks. In fact, at the hint of the impending break, they reach out for the remote to surf channels but the same people would pay heed to cautionary messages addressed directly to them.

This article is not about RBI alone. It is more about the promiscuity of the so-called brand ambassadors especially the drift towards the tendency of appointing brand ambassadors at large who blithely endorse any brand that comes their way, whether they are experts in the chosen field or not. Ambassador-at-large is an ambassador with special duties not appointed to a particular country. In the commercial world s/he can be described as the one whose loyalties are not with a particular brand but to all the brands in general, which in fact impelled Ogilvy to make the impish remark cited at the beginning of the article against celebrity advertising. It is not enough to foist an ethical duty on a celebrity not to simultaneously endorse rival brands but also restrain them legally from endorsing say not more than three or four brands simultaneously. The advertisers must not leave the choice of model to the agencies. TVS scooty for example caters more to women. It has not occurred to it that Amitabh Bachchan would be the last person to use it. A woman celebrity or better still a woman who happens to be a satisfied customer would be a better fit. She would also settle for a lot more modest fee.

The consumer law in India against blithe and misleading endorsements by celebrities is weak. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) now provides for penalties for misleading advertisements made by endorsers. As per Section 21 of the CPA the Central Authority under the Act may order discontinuation/modification of a misleading/false advertisement which is prejudicial to the interest of the consumer or in contravention with the consumer rights. The Central Authority may also impose a penalty on the endorser of the false or misleading advertisement which may extend to Rs 10 lakh and up to Rs 50 lakh. The Central Authority may further prohibit the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service for a period which may extend to one year and up to three years for every subsequent contravention. However, the only defence available to the endorsers to help them evade sanctions under the CPA is to prove that they exercised due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement regarding the product or service being endorsed by them. This is the escape route for every celebrity, should push come to shove. The monetary penalties are laughably low vis-à-vis the huge endorsement fees they reportedly charge. In fact, post this amendment, the celebrities have hiked their fees to build in the penalty if they are pulled up.

Parenthetically, the fear of being hauled up for disparagement is at the root of the fear of embracing arguably the best advertising model — comparative advertising. An auto company on strong grounds for example can juxtapose its car with the comparable model of its main rival and the points scored won’t be merely brownie. But it should be armed with facts and figures lest it is taken to the court by the rival done in by the claims made in the comparative advertisement chart.

If sentimentality and blind belief is dangerous in the realm of religion, cloying and supposed faith of people in celebrities is equally a dangerous presumption. Demi gods are not only charlatan babas and sadhus but also celebrities who stalk our television screens with tiresome regularity. Bachchan is not only a brand ambassador but also a sage counsel purveying cautionary messages whether it is for polio drops or for RBI. His Kaun Banega Crorepati for which he is now reportedly charging Rs 5 crore per episode is the ultimate in the dumbed down versions of general knowledge quick programmes. Verily, kitsch is king on our television screens. That is a very sad denouement. The advertisement self-regulatory body cum watchdog, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), winks at the shenanigans.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues

Published on: Friday, August 16, 2024, 06:00 AM IST