Surrogate Advertising, Comparative Advertising
Surrogate Advertising
When a lot of the brand image of one product is used to promote another product of the same brand, this is called “surrogate advertising.” Surrogate products like playing cards, soda water bottles, apple juice, etc., that are often used to promote alcohol and tobacco brands usually don’t exist or, if they do, are made as “limited editions,” which means they are made in very small numbers.
Surrogate advertising is thought to have started in the UK, where housewives protested “Siql” ads because they thought they were turning their husbands away from them. To get around this, liquor companies started advertising safe products like fruit juices and sodas under the same brand name as popular liquors.
In India, tobacco and alcohol ads are not allowed on TV or radio right now. Print ads for cigarettes are only allowed if they say, “Smoking cigarettes is bad for your health,” as required by law. India’s government changed the Cable TV Act to stop ads that directly or indirectly promoted, sold, or used cigarettes, other tobacco products like gutkha and pan masala, liquors like wine, alcohol, and other drugs that make you feel drunk, and breast milk replacement products like feeding bottles or baby food.
This led to more fake ads for alcohol and different products related to smoking. Most of the time, surrogate ads do more to help people remember a brand than to get them to buy it. They help keep big brands of tobacco and alcohol in people’s minds.
Sand Piper Malt Beverage:
ASCI also upheld a suo motu complaint against United Breweries for an advertisement for Sand Piper Malt Beverage created by Triton Communications. This was obviously surrogate advertising for a liquor brand.
Tobacco Products:
When the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) withdrew its code to regulate tobacco products, consumer activists were concerned over the impact of the move.
However, experts believe that the ban won’t work, firstly – because it is not clear how surrogate advertising will be checked and secondly because the agencies, which can implement these measures, including NGOs, lack enough teeth.
The ASCI, even while admitting the sensitivity of the issue, feels the government has overreacted. A couple of years ago, when the strong tobacco lobby opposed the Council guidelines, it had hastily withdrawn them inviting activists’ ire. They felt that the ASCI virtually surrendered to the whims of the industry by abdicating its responsibility and allowing manufacturers to resort to unfair advertisement techniques, sans any checks. According to them, India has failed to initiate a comprehensive tobacco- control strategy in keeping with the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.
Tobacco Institute of India (TII), the representative body of tobacco farmers, exporters, cigarette manufactures and ancillary industries, contended that it would stick to its own code. A watchdog body, comprising experts from all fields, was to overview its observance. Curiously, the code bore resemblance to the ASCI code. The industry showed scant respect for it and it was violated often, an ASCI member reveals. Contrary to the provisions, a cigarette manufacturer featured a leading film star in its campaign with a slogan ‘Red & White smokers are one of its kind’.
Opinions are divided regarding the Government’s latest ban move. The fine of mere Rs.100 is just not enough, some say, whereas advertising agencies have taken a stance that it’s unfair to ban advertising, since the product itself is not banned. “If the product will continue to be produced and marketed, there is no point in restricting its advertising,” they generally feel.
Also, as stated above, there are no means to check surrogate advertising. Tobacco major, ITC has come up with Gold Flake ‘expression greeting cards’. Wills has registered its sportswear as a new business entity.
TII states that tobacco, being a legal product, freedom of commercial expression should be permitted and that the consumption of tobacco products should be an informed personal choice for adults only.
“Tobacco Product” means leaf tobacco or any product containing tobacco which is sold in India and includes bidis, chewing tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, chutta, gutka, khaini, snuff, pan- masala with tobacco, zarda, kiwam, gadaku, hand rolled tobacco, hookah tobacco, so on and so forth.
Some Quick facts:
Cigarettes cause about 6.35 lakh deaths in India every year.
About 33 per cent of cancer cases are attributed to tobacco consumption.
However, cigarettes alone account for roughly 10% of excise collections.
Tobacco trade is a major contributor to the national exchequer.
So obviously, there is clear conflict between health and economic interests of the country.
Before the ban on advertising and on smoking in .public places? various approaches have been adopted to address these concerns, ranging from legislation of varying degrees of severity to voluntary codes and self-regulation, but they have seldom worked. Activist point out that the recent advertisement- monitoring panel formed to implement the ban on transmission of tobacco advertisements on TV channels, including private ones, was ineffective in fulfilling the task.
As stated above, TII wants to stick to its self-voluntary code and going by that, keeping a tab on tobacco advertising is not going to be easy.
Comparative Advertising
Comparative advertising, also called “advertising war,” is an ad for a product or service that mentions a competitor by name in order to show why that competitor isn’t as good as the product or service naming it. It is a type of advertising that is sometimes called “knocking copy” because it compares the advertised brand to one or more competing brands in a way that is clear to the audience.
This is not the same as a parody ad, in which a fake product is advertised to make fun of the ad, nor is it the same as using a made-up brand name to compare a product without naming a real competitor. (“The Encyclopedia Galactica tastes better and is less filling than Wikipedia.”)
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined comparative advertising as “advertising that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration, or other distinctive information.” In the case Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v. Energizer Australia Pty Ltd, this definition was used. In the same way, the Law Council of Australia recently said that “comparative advertising” means “advertisements that mention a competitor’s trademark in a way that doesn’t imply that the advertiser owns the mark.”
Comparative ads could be positive or negative, and they could compare the two brands in a direct or indirect way. Their goal is to “link or separate the two competing brands.” Different countries’ laws on comparative advertising are based on different ideas.
Comparative advertising has been used more and more over the years. There are different types of comparative advertising, such as comparing a single attribute dimension, comparing an attribute that is unique to the target but not the referent, and comparing attributes that are unique to both brands. Comparative advertising is effective because of its believability, which is how much a consumer can trust the information in the ads, its level of involvement, and its ease of evaluation, which comes from spoon-feeding the consumer with information that doesn’t require extra effort to remember.
Comparative advertising is often negative, as early criticism from the advertising industry shows. Advertising’s reputation and credibility are hurt when reasons like taking part in comparative advertising are given. Studies have shown that negative information can be stored better, giving advertisements the effect they’re supposed to have and, more importantly, a strong memory. On the other hand, this kind of negativity can be directly transferred to the brand and the consumer’s impression of the brand. Several studies over the years have shown that people don’t like comparative advertising.