They flit across television screen lasting less than thirty seconds, but apparently manage to offend more sensibilites than an average film does in a span of three hours.
Admen blame double standards for the increasing number of TV ads being banned
MUMBAI: They flit across television screen lasting less than thirty seconds, but apparently manage to offend more sensibilites than an average film does in a span of three hours.
In just the last few months, advertisements for a range of brands like Amul, Ponds, Videocon, SBI, Alpenliebe and Bajaj Pulsar have received flak from various quarters for various reasons. But with more and more television commercials being ordered off air for ‘censorship’ reasons is making advertisers crying foul.
Says Sumanto Chattopadhyay of O&M, whose ad for Videocon was pulled off because the man shown accepting a bribe looks like a cop. “The guy in my ad is not even wearing a police uniform. There are just too many people and organisations ready to take offense at the drop of a hat, and we have to bear the brunt.”
While you can still understand why an advertisent for Amul Macho was banned on the charge of being ‘sexually explicit’, another advertisement for SBI which showed a chicken was targeted by PETA on the grounds of being ‘harsh to animals’. Adman Prahlad Kakkar shakes his head in disbelief, “PETA says that the chicken as an animal is being misused in the ad. All the ad shows is the chicken in a cage and then on top of the roof.”
However, unlike films which are scrutinised before their release, there still isn’t a system in place to do the same for advertisements.
In fact, it is only when the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) receives a complaint against a particular ad, that it is evaluated and screened.
Explains Allan Collaco, Secretary General, ASCI, “The council’s code specifies that all advertising should be truthful, honest, decent, legal, safe for consumers - particularly minors - and fair to competition. Anything that goes against this rule will be questioned.”
But on the flip side, people may also be taking undue advantage of the rules and coming up with often ridiculous objections. Recently, a human rights group protested a Ponds ad on domestic violence against women for ‘not taking up the issue of violence against men’.
Opines ad guru Piyush Pandey, “There is no benchmark to define a truly offensive ad, so anything and everything is open to flak.”
Piyush also alleges double standards when it comes to televison versus films. “There is a rule which says we can’t show dangerous stunts despite a disclaimer, but it’s fine to do so in a movie.”
Alan Collaco’s rejoinder to this allegation should probably explains why the acrimonious divide between tv and films may never be bridged: “People perceive films as imaginary. The stunts in films are a small part of a 2.5 hour film. In a 15-20 second commercial, the impact is direct and forceful — hence the norms are stricter.” Now really.
u_divya@dnaindia.net
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}