Maggi row rattles advertisement world

Reports on legal action initiated against some brand ambassadors of the now banned Maggie noodles deserve as much public attention as the ban itself. Its news value seems to be enormous since they include some top level movie icons – Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta – whose commercial pitch is as high as their film fame. A criminal case was filed in a district court in Muzaffarpur against the three brand ambassadors along with the manufacturing company. The Bihar court has also ordered registration of an FIR against them.

Apparently there is a strong opinion in the Department of Consumer Affairs that brand ambassadors are liable for action if advertisements in which they feature are found to be misleading. The Additional Secretary in the Department, is reported to have stated that, “wrong publicity amounts to wrongful intentions and playing with the health of the kids and young people of the country”. This has opened in India a crucial issue smouldering in the advertising industry in many countries on the social responsibility of the industry itself and the personal responsibility of the people involved in publicity roles.

The spokesperson or presenter provides a face and personality to persuade the customers to identify, remember, and patronize concerned product or service. The more familiar the face and personality, the more close is the feeling of the customers to the product/service. This psychological factor has promoted the brand ambassador system and has immensely expanded a second career to personalities from entertainment and sports fields.

Only when the product /service miserably fails to provide the qualities claimed by the brand ambassadors as in the case of Maggie noodles and certain other baby commodities, the responsibility of the spokespersons comes into question. The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006 is an Act that lays down science- based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, distribution, sale, and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for consumers.

However, it has no clause on the role and responsibility of the brand ambassadors though they lend their face and voice and vigorously play the role of pushing sales. The promoter, manufacturer, packer, wholesaler, distributor, seller, and even manager of a food business outlet are liable for violations including “unfair trade practice”. Section 24 of the Act prohibits misleading advertisements of any food.

In the US, celebrities who speak for a commodity must be a user and direct beneficiary of the product. The Maggie episode has created the much needed awakening among producers, organizers, and consumers in India to the efficacy of employing celebrities in advertisements. It seems that ads projecting celebrities are watched for their performance and not for information to guide purchases. Needless to mention how Indian audience is crazy after sports and film stars.

It is a strange argument that brand ambassadors are only “acting” or playing as in a cinema or a stadium and cannot be expected to know the contents, processes, techniques, etc., of the product they are actively promoting. True. Their appearance and speech are just a commercial contract. We have to change this.

It is not unreasonable to expect that celebrities trusted to have the ability to persuade a large number of people should first convince themselves about the truth in their statements before attempting to convince others. Such conviction is elementary in discharging one’s social responsibility. If celebrities are to be employed, their responsibility should be legally fixed and should not be left to the vague sense of moral responsibility or undefined self-regulation neither of which exists.

By Dr S Saraswathi