Fair?

BIG CLAIMS IN ADS

BANNED ABROAD COOL HERE?

Kashika Saxena

AKellogg's 'Special K' advertisement has been banned in the UK for misleading customers about the calorific value of a bowl of cereal. The cereal, which is said to aid women in losing weight by a calorie-controlled diet, had apparently not included the milk calories and was hence giving women the wrong idea about the number of calories they were consuming.
WHY NOT BAN IN INDIA?
Kellogg's Special K is sold in India too, with its TV ad showing a lissome Lara Dutta slimming down with the cereal and keeping her husband intrigued about the 'new' her. However, the Advertising Standards Council (ASCI) of India says that the reason it hasn't been banned here is because it might not be the exact same advertisement. Alan Collaco, secretary general of the ASCI, says, "For an ad to be banned, there has to either be a complaint from a consumer or from a competitor, or there is a suo moto complaint generated by us. Many times, the exact ad which is banned outside is not shown in India. But almost a year ago, there was one ad for Kellogg's which talked about losing weight, and there was a complaint against it that was not upheld because the company had given proof in substantiation of their claim. That Kellogg's ad talked about losing weight, but it also talked about a healthy lifestyle. It was a total package, which would result in weight loss. It's not right to assume that we have lesser standards for ads here."
There is a process in the ASCI, called NAMS (National Advertising Monitoring Service), which monitors ads, and a suo moto complaint is made against any ad that is likely to go against their code, after which the advertisers are given a chance to present their arguments.
OTHERS WHO MADE SIMILAR
CLAIMS
Last September, the USA's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) imposed a consumer refund payout of $25 million on Reebok for making "false claims" about its line of toning shoes. This May, Skechers was told to dole out a whopping $40 million to consumers in the USA who were duped by claims that a specific range of its sneakers could slim you down "without setting a foot in the gym".
The Reebok ad banned in the US was banned in India as well. Collaco says, "There was a TV commercial in January 2011 and the CCC (Consumer Complaint Council of ASCI) concluded that the claims that "wearing Reetone shoes helps you get a better butt and better legs with every step and are proven to tone your hamstrings 28% more" were not substantiated. The ads were misleading and the complaint was upheld."
But the banning of an ad has no impact on the product, as they are allowed to sell minus the exaggerated claims. "It may be a good shoe, but it may not be a shoe that tones your hamstrings," explains Collaco.
COSMETICS ADS BANNED FOR
USING PHOTOSHOP
Another reason for banning an ad, says Collaco, could be use of too much photoshop. Many cosmetics companies have repeatedly fallen foul of advertising standards abroad, and several of their ads showing flawless beauties have faced the axe. Unrealistic beauty? AL'Oreal anti-ageing
cream ad featuring Rachel Weisz, a Lancome ad with Julia Roberts, a Maybelline ad featuring Christy Turlington, and an Olay anti-ageing ad with Twiggy, were banned in the UK because of too much airbrushing, which resulted in the misleading representation of these women. British MP Jo Swinson, who is a regular campaigner against "overly perfected and unrealistic images" of women in advertising, was the one to have complained against the said adverts for L'Oral-owned brands Lancme and Maybelline in 2011. Swinson's complaint, it was reported at the time, said that the images of Julia and Christy had been digitally manipulated and were "not representative of the results the product could achieve". L'Oral UK had admitted that the photos had been digitally retouched. However, the cosmetics giant argued that Christy's picture "accurately illustrated" the achievable results, that changes after digital post-production techniques on Julia's photo were not "directly relevant", and that the ad was an "aspirational picture".
Collaco explains, "Suppose I have a fairness cream and I show a person in a normal complexion, and then you use the cream for three weeks and then you show her fairer, and you photoshop the 'post' part, and you don't photoshop the 'pre' part – it means you are misleading the consumer about the result. If you're using photoshop, you have to do both pre and post. The rule is, photoshop should not mislead about the benefits of the product." Where would that put the adverts for all our fairness creams in that case, we wonder?