ADVERTISING PROJECT — Document Transcript

 1. “Advertising Ethics and viewer‟s perception towards Surrogate Advertisements”
N.L.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 1
 2. Table of content: Executive
Summary.............................................................................................................2
Introduction:.........................................................................................................................3
Problem Statement:........................................................................................................... .12
Research Objective:...........................................................................................................13
Sampling Plan:............................................................................................................... ....14
Research Design:...............................................................................................................14
Data Analysis:............................................................................................................... .....15
Findings:............................................................................................................................25
QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................................................................26
Bibliography:.....................................................................................................................28
Executive Summary Product advertising for liquor and cigarette companies is banned in the
country since 1995 by Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act. This ban is now likely to
be extended to advertising of extended brands. The very purpose of banning liquor
advertisements is defeated by surrogate advertising. N.L.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2
 3. A surrogate advertisements is one in which a different product is promoted using an already
established brand name. Such advertisements or sponsorships help in contribute to brand
recall. The different product shown in the advertisement is called the “Surrogate.” It could
either resemble the original product or could be a different product altogether, but using the
established brand of the original product. In India, the trend of surrogate advertisement
gathered momentum with the Cable TV Network Regulation Act, which prohibits tobacco and
liquor advertisements on TV channels. Due to the ban, liquor companies focused more on
promotions for brand building. The ban on advertising of alcohol beverage products has
severely handicapped communication with consumers. Companies with liquor brands are not
advertising liquor products; instead they have extended the equity of their brands into other
fields. However as the TV was the most effective medium of advertising, surrogate
advertising on TV became popular. In the mean time, some producers entered new segments
under the liquor brand or advertised these products under liquor brand. The surrogate
advertisements from liquor companies intensified further through sponsorships of movies,
music shows, and other programs and attracting youth. In late 2001, the broadcasters began
airing socially responsible advertisements sponsored by liquor companies. By early 2002,
surrogate advertising of liquor brands had intensified like never before on satellite TV
channels. Keeping this thing in mind I decided to conduct a research to find out whether really
this surrogate ad helps to recall the original brand. Survey was done comprising of 50
respondents of different age group, different educational level and different class of society.
Questionnaire was asked to fill by them, and data analysis was done with the help of SPSS
package, findings have been given in the report. Introduction: Product advertising for liquor
and cigarette companies is banned in the country since 1995 by Cable Television Network
(Regulation) Act. According to Rule 7 (2) of the Act, no broadcaster is permitted to show
advertisement which promotes directly or indirectly promotion, sale or consumption of
cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor or other intoxicants, infant milk
substitution, feeding bottle or infant food. This ban is now likely to be extended to advertising
of extended brands. N.L.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND
RESEARCH 3
 4. In June 2002, the Indian Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry served notices to
leading television broadcasters to ban the telecast of two surrogate ads of liquor brands
McDowell 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, perfumes
to golf accessories and mineral water. A market survey in 2001 revealed that advertising has a
direct influence on the consumption habits of 431 million people in India and an indirect
impact on 275 million `aspirants' from the lower income group. Considering this and realizing
that nearly 50 per cent of the television owners have access to cable channels, there is no
doubt that the hidden call for alcohol consumption behind the surrogate advertisements is not

In late 2001. followed soon by Aaj Tak and Sony. which prohibits tobacco and liquor advertisements on TV channels. More over the satellite channels garnered about 50% of their revenue from liquor and cigarettes advertisements. like track racing. Seagram‟s Royal Stag was promoted by sponsoring movie related activities and Indian pop music using the banner Royal stag Mega Movies and Royal stag Mega Music. advertising `old wine' in a `new bottle. given the highly regulated nature of the liquor business. It also announced that India‟s flagship Golfing Event – the Indian open would be sponsored by the company till 2006.' only this time with a soft-drink label. Such advertisements or sponsorships help in contribute to brand recall. They said “on the one hand they allow these „socially bad‟ products to be manufactured and sold and then they deny the manufacturers the right to propagate knowledge of their products in order to drive sales. Analyst remarked that there was lot of hypocrisy underlying the government policy. In the mean time. conducted the Royal Challenge Invitation Golf tournament. liquor companies focused more on promotions for brand building. the trend of surrogate advertisement gathered momentum with the Cable TV Network Regulation Act. They started sponsoring events that projected the “glamour” of the brands. Over a period of time these products have become independent businesses for companies. the I&B Ministry hired a private monitoring agency to keep a watch on all the advertisements for violation of the Act. The ban on advertising of alcohol beverage products has severely handicapped communication with consumers. for instance Shaw Wallace Co. why allow it to be sold at all?” Liquor producers spent heavily on advertising on the electronic media. but using the established brand of the original product. surrogate advertising of liquor brands had intensified like never before on satellite TV channels. particularly TV.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 5  6. These advertisements attracted criticism from various people. escaping the eyes of viewers in the world's fourth highest liquor-consuming country. Companies with liquor brands are not advertising liquor products. which generated additional revenues for the company. Zee and STAR stopped telecasting the advertisements. STAR and Aaj Tak were issued show cause notices to explain their rationale behind carrying surrogate liquor advertisements. such as Kingfisher Mineral water. McDowell used surrogate advertising by using its mineral water and soda brands. distributing free gifts like Caps and T-Shirts with the brand name and using glow-signs outside the retail outlets.” It could either resemble the original product or could be a different product altogether. In the early 2001. Answering to the notices.” the telecast of such product continued blatantly over the years. instead they have extended the equity of their brands into other fields. the broadcasters began airing socially responsible advertisements sponsored by liquor companies. liquor brand Royal Challenge. In India. In addition. By August 2002. If some thing is bad and cannot be advertised. SWC started marketing its range of golf accessories under the N. and other programs and attracting youth. By early 2002. Due to the ban. The different product shown in the advertisement is called the “Surrogate. Though the companies involved came out strongly against the I&B Ministry‟s decision. In the peak seasoned it gets almost doubled. Some companies also promoted their product through corporate advertising. which stated that “No advertisements shall be permitted which relates to or promotes cigarettes and tobacco products. There were numerous other . they seemed to have no other choice. The surrogate advertisements from liquor companies intensified further through sponsorships of movies. some producers entered new segments under the liquor brand or advertised these products under liquor brand. car rallies etc. The liquor industry has intentionally blurred the line between products. surrogate advertising on TV became popular. These developments led to heated debates over the issue of surrogate advertising by liquor companies being allowed on national media. liquor. N. one of the leading liquor companies in India. For instance.L. which became an annual event. the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements and leading satellite TV channels including Zee. music shows.L. The sponsoring of sports/cultural/leisure events and activities also falls under the purview of surrogate advertising. The liquor producers seemed to have ensured that the ban was only on the paper. Surrogate Advertisements: A surrogate advertisements is one in which a different product is promoted using an already established brand name. Most of the liquor producers entered into packaged water segment. However as the TV was the most effective medium of advertising. wines and other intoxicants.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 4  5. The industry is naturally compelled to make the best use of the channels and media of communications still open to it. Sony. Though the broadcasters were bound by the 30 yrs old advertising code. The very purpose of banning liquor advertisements is defeated by surrogate advertising.

these MNCs would not have access to the quickest and most effective form of advertising --. (Exhibit-1) Exhibit-1 N. iv) Calling on the ASCI address complaints received from consumers against surrogate advertisements and take appropriate actions immediately.many of them accused of being sexually provocative and offensive. The ban was also expected to improve the margins for these players. such as: N. However the analyst opined that the ban could turn out to be advantages for the domestic players. featuring cine celebrities. I agree some might consider it a worthy challenge to do something like this. And guess who/what suffers when faced with this quandary? 1. Most of the surrogate advertising is done pretty blatantly with the “harmless” product being nothing more than a front for advertising the “harmful” brand.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 8  9. advertisements selling music cassettes.L. surrogate advertising is dedicated towards using an insignificant. fashion accessories and sports goods --. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has clarified that as per its code.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 6  7. but over a period of time actually become full-fledged brands in themselves. the mere use of a brand name or company name that may also be applied to a product whose advertising is restricted or prohibited is not reason to find the advertisement objectionable provided the advertisement is not objectionable and the product is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities and the objectionable advertisement does not contain direct or indirect cues for the product that which is not allowed to be advertised. and keep a close vigil over clever evasion of the law. Not easy. but also false and dishonest in many cases. i) Making transparent laws banning surrogate advertisements for different products under a single brand name. v) Creating a consumer awareness programme to help people understand the negative impact of surrogate advertisements. Of course there are a very few brands which start off as a surrogate brand.the TV. for instance.the manufacturers know what the real reason for the ad is. So why not either (i) do away with this wholesale scam and just let them advertise all their stuff. This Bagpiper club soda advertisement. So you have various liquor/cigarette manufacturers resorting to ingenuous ways to peddle their wares like. iii) Asking the electronic and print media to adhere to the advertisement codes and not encourages surrogate advertisements. vii) Requiring advertising agencies to have full knowledge of the products under the same brand for which they are promoting advertisements. the best policy would be to stand up strongly to the dishonest practices of surrogate advertising. vi) Adopting strict laws to penalize those companies featuring surrogate advertisements without any real existence of the product. this is the moment to tackle the problem head-on. It would only affect the new launches and new brand building of these companies. or (ii) ban such surrogate advertising? 2. but the primary brand. If one believes that honesty is the best policy and truth ultimately gains. N. ii) Providing teeth to the Advertising Standards Council of India to enable it take action against false and misleading advertisements.cause notices to a couple of channels regarding ads of certain alcohol and tobacco products. is similar to the earlier one for Bagpiper whisky. MNCs would have an unrestricted license to sell their products.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 7  8.because ad agencies have to come up with silly ads based on briefs from clients who are not interested in the surrogate brand. water.L. After the ban. CDs. Consumers . The latest television ad for “AC Black Apple Juice” epitomizes so many things that are wrong with surrogate advertising in India. but from what I‟ve seen of surrogate advertising in India the output is pretty lame. how do you portray the essence of a whiskey or vodka or a cigarette using a bottle of bottled water or a pack of apple juice? Similarly "HUM tum or mera Bagpiper". The “Wills Sport” clothing line from the manufacturers of “Wills” cigarettes is one of those rare cases. Some analyst argued that the ban would not affect the established domestic players severely. The advertisement comes with the same music and punch line as the one for the popular liquor brand telecast before the ban on liquor advertisements. But on the whole. by amending the Trade Marks Act. Senior sources at IBF also said that the industry body had sent out show. the consumers know what‟s really been advertised. Most channels have .because we have to put up with the lameass. And that‟s not an easy task. and the government knows that too. Advertising . Surrogate advertisements are not only misleading. For instance. There should be stringent regulatory measures to curb the practice. clothing. and taking legal actions against those agencies which design surrogate advertisements. With surrogate advertising so widespread. stupid advertising that‟s designed to sell booze/ciggies but pretends to be all about water or apple juice! It‟s like everyone knows what‟s going on .L. In March 2001. as per the commitment to the WTO agreement. “harmless” product to increase/maintain awareness for their primary “harmful” brand.

50 40 9 30 32 20 awareness of banned 10 3 NO Count 6 0 YES YES NO seen advertisement of cigrates or alcohol Out of the 41 respondent who have seen the ads of cigrates and alcohol 32 of them are aware of the fact that an advertisement of such product is banned in India.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 10  11. • Sample Type: Target audience would be comprises of those who are of the age group of 15 yrs and above..L. at least know about what advertising is.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 12  13..L.. in the Royal College Campus and in the Dalmia School for filling up the questionnaires. 30 29 28 26 24 22 20 20 Count 18 YES NO advertisement requirement 29 of the respondent said that cigrates and alcohol do require advertisements in this competitive world. The issue has taken a new twist with the Central Government deciding to ban these product companies from sponsoring sports and cultural events. • Limited period of survey Importance of Study: The study will help to find the people‟s perception of surrogate advertisements. Once The lady's dress has now become an off shoulder again taking a sip.L. who too was doing the same with her drink. herself opposite our man. . He takes a sip and looks up at her.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 15  16. reportedly complied with the Government panel‟s directive to the extent that the ads of a liquor company – that purportedly makes apple juice after drinking which anything can happen („kuch bhi ho sakta hain‟) – have been taken off air. consumer activists were concerned over the impact of the move.. to find the shirt unbuttoned. through the glass. to find a shorter.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 11  12. N. Research Design: • Exploratory Research conducted by me included door to door surveys.L. But 20 of them where not agree to this fact.L. . more tantalizing dress on her.. his eyes fall . The above graph depicts the same thing. 40 36 30 20 13 10 Count 0 Missing YES NO information of surrogate ads Out of 50 respondent 36 said that they have knowledge what surrogate ads are they form the 72%. N.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 13  14. have seen the surrogate advertisement. Kucch bhi. he glances at her.V * Seen Advertisement of Cigrates or Alcohol Cross tabulation Count seen advertisement of Total cigrates or alcohol YES NO seen advertisement YES 41 7 48 on TV NO 2 2 Total 41 9 50 41 respondents out of 50 said they have seen the advertisement of alcohol and cigrates. Limitations of Project • Limited Sample Size (50) • This study is restricted to the geographical limits of Mumbai. While ... Sipping in anticipation.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 16  17. dress she was wearing gives way to a bateau The high neck.. Educated.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 9  10. (Exhibit 2) N. N. Exhibit 2 A man sitting at a bar nursing his A ravishing lady in black walks in and stations drink.L. Seen Advertisement on T. liquor products etc. He's surprised at the revelation. Sipping his drink once more.L. • Instrument Design...v When the respondent where asked how many of them watch the advertisement on television 96% responded positive towards this.. MVO: AC Black apple juice. neck line. the research will be conducted to solve the following questions:  What does this all have to do with the final consumer?  What image does he carry of these products?  Does he know that the advertisement which is shown is meant for some other product?  Does he think it is Right/Ethical? N. N. N.. He looks at the on his chest.. Problem Statement: When the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) withdrew its code to regulate tobacco. one. in the form of questionnaire and interviews with the respondents.. Kucch bhi ho sakta hai. N.. lady. Research Objective: With keeping these in mind. he looks .L. • Sample Size: 50 • Sample Area: Borivali and Mira Road.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 14  15.L.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 17  18. The table shows the cross tabulation between the person who have seen the advertisement on television and that to of any cigrates or alcohol.. Liquor or tobacco advertising in banned in India and hence companies that sell these products have to resort to advertising their wares using less “harmful” products which carry almost the same names and looks .surrogate advertising. N. Data Analysis: 120 100 96 80 60 40 20 Percent 0 YES NO seen advertisement on t. Sampling Plan: • Sampling Method: Conveniently Sampling.

L. Family member consuming such product * product recall Cross tabulation Count Product recall Total YES NO Family member YES 19 8 27 consuming such product NO 13 8 21 Total 32 16 48 19 respondent where those whose family member consume such product and due to which they were able to recall the original brand while looking at the surrogate ads whereas 13 of them where those whose member doesn‟t use the product but then also they recall the original brand. 2) Many of them have knowledge of surrogate ads but they were of the view that these are unethical ways of brand advertising. 23% said they are required and they are ethical while only 8% where in the opinion of banning the ad.33% n=4 35.00. N. 30 of them belongs to the age group of 21 yrs. 13 of them don‟t know about the surrogate advertisements. N. N.L.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 20  21. NO 32. ad appeal YES NO Pies show counts 40. N. Respondent‟s profile: 30 23 20 13 10 7 7 Count 0 15-18 18-21 21-24 24 and above age group of respondent The above graph shows the age group of the respondent.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 24  25.L. they are informative about products. Findings: On analyzing the data following conclusions were drawn: 1) Majority of the respondent were agreeing to the fact that advertisement is requiring for such product in these competitive world.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 22  23.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 19  20.and above. Advertisement requirement * view towards surrogate ads Cross tabulation Count View towards Total surrogate ads ethical unethical should be banned no comments Advertisement YES 8 11 1 8 28 requirement NO 3 6 3 8 20 Total 11 17 4 16 48 The cross tabulation between the respondents who said that advertisement is required for such product and ethical issue of surrogate ads shows that 11 of them said that ads are required but surrogate ads are unethical to do that.33% n=16 no comments Pies show counts 8.0% When the respondent who knows about surrogate ads asked that do they recall the original brand while looking at it 64% of them recall the product 32% said no and 4% have not given their view. they just remind the brand existence.0% YES 64. while 8 of them where agree that it is ethical to do the surrogate advertisement. 27 of them said Yes.82% n=20 59. 30 20 21 10 10 8 8 Count 0 2 entertaining inf ormative none of the above boring and disturbin misguiding view towards present ads When respondent where asked how they find these ads 21 of them said.L. 28 27 27 26 25 24 23 22 22 Count 21 YES NO family member consuming such product For checking how do the respondent recall the original product they where asked whether the respondent or any of his/her family member consume the product.42% n=17 on question of ethical issue of surrogate ads 35% said that surrogate ads are unethical while majority of them constituting 33% refused or where not able to give their opinion on the issue.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 21  22.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 23  24. 3) The surrogate ads which they see are instead of informative being considered as entertaining for majority of the respondent. and 22 said No. Age group of respondent * ad appeal Cross tabulation Count ad appeal Total YES NO age group of respondent 15-18 2 5 7 18-21 5 8 13 21-24 10 13 23 24 and 3 4 7 above Total 20 30 50 N. and above and 20 where below 21 yrs. view towards surrogate ads ethical 22. Information of surrogate ads * Product recall Cross tabulation Count Product Recall Total YES NO Information of YES 29 7 36 surrogate ads NO 3 9 12 Total 32 16 48 The above cross tabulation shows that the surrogate as helps the organisation to advertise their product in a different way and make a brand recall at the time of purchase. N. 30 26 20 Count 12 12 10 under graduate graduate post graduate education level of respondent 26 respondent where post graduate and rest of the 24 where graduates and undergraduates.0% Missing 4. 5) Strong facts that the surrogate ads do not induce the consumer to purchase the original brand.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 18  19. .000/. N.18% n=29 Strong view of 60% came from respondent that the surrogate ads do not induce them to use the product.L.92% n=11 unethical should be banned 33. 4) Original Brand recall is high among the respondents. they are entertaining while only 10 of them said. 40 30 29 20 10 11 Count 6 4 0 < 10000 10000-100000 100000-500000 > 500000 family income per month Family income was asked to checked that the surrogate ads effects the buying habits or not majority of our respondent who have nothing to do with the surrogate ads and who usually purchase the product belong to high class of the society with their family income of 1.L.L. only 40% said that they are inspired by the ad to use the product.

they where attracted by the surrogate ads and were induce to use or at least try the product. N. 13.agencyfaqs.L. 6) 35% of the respondents where those under the age group of 21 yrs.000/. N.com 3) Close floodgates on surrogate ads.000/. 4) The Hindu business line.00. Do you know about surrogate advertisement? a) Yes b) No 7. Do you think that advertisement of such product is required? a) Yes b) No 5. Do you see Advertisements on television? a) Yes b) No 2. issue 11. b) Graduate.November 2002.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 25  26. 10.L. 5) Indbazaar India consumer guide.000/. 6) Framework convention alliance. Family Income? a) Less than 10. What would you say about banning of advertisement of these products? a) Is a right step b) No need of banning such ads c) Product should be banned d) No comments 6.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 26  27.Which age group you belong to? a) 15-18 b) 18-21 c) 21-24 d) 24 and above.000 and above. QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How will you rank the present advertisement? a) Entertaining b) Boring and Disturbing c) Informative d) Misguiding e) None of the Above.c) 1. 12..Ban on surrogate tobacco ads. 1) www. and volume-2.com 2) www. Do you recalled about the original product while looking at the surrogate ads? a) Yes b) No 8. 7) Advertising Express magazine. N.00.L.00.Deccan herald files.00. Bibliography: Various website and articles including the following were referred for project.jivhathetongue. 14.000 – 5.What is your approx.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 27  28.What is your Educational level? a) Under Graduate. Have you seen any advertisement of cigarettes or alcohol? a) Yes b) No 3.000 – 1. Do you know that advertisement of such products is banned in India? a) Yes b) No 4.DALMIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH 28 . 7) Major of the respondent were also able to recall the original brand either because these were used by them or any of their family member.Does the ad induce you to try the product? a) Yes b) No 11. c) Post Graduate.d) 5. Does your any of the family member consume such products? a) Yes b) No N.b) 10. What do you think that the surrogate ads are a) Ethical b) Unethical c) Should be banned d) no comments 9.L.