Indiantelevision.com Team

(20 March 2008 6:30 pm)

NEW DELHI: Advertisers and representatives of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) are expected to meet Information and Broadcasting minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi early next week to sort tickly issues relating to what the government dubs "surrogate advertising" and the industry calls "brand extension."

A meeting, which was to be held yesterday, had to be postponed because the minister who also holds the Parliamentary Affairs Ministry portfolio was pre-occupied with the weekly meeting of the Union Cabinet.

IBF president Jawahar Goel told indiantelevision.com that the ministry had conveyed its willingness for a meeting immediately after the Holi and Easter weekend.

The issue arose with the issuance of a notification on 25 February removing the proviso in the Cable TV Networks (Regulations) Rules 1994 permitting advertisements of shared brands. The proviso had been inserted in 2006 with the qualification that advertising of such brands would be permitted as long as they did not directly advertise liquor or tobacco products.

Earlier last week, Goel had told indiantelevision.com that it would be legally wrong for the government to forcibly stop telecast of those advertisements relating to brand extension which had been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

In fact, the IBF had held a meeting earlier this month to discuss the reported move to do away with the jurisdiction of the CBFC over clearing of advertisements.

The issue arose after Union health minister Ambumani Ramadoss said that these brands were only indirectly promoting liquor and tobacco products.

With the amendment, the notification says “no advertisement shall be permitted which promotes directly or indirectly production, sale or consumption of cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor or other intoxicants.”

The August 2006 amendment allowed advertisements of products which shared a brand name or logo with any tobacco or liquor product with several caveats. No reference — direct or indirect — could be made to the prohibited products in any form and the “story board” or visual could depict only the product being advertised. The proviso had also mandated against use of particular colours, layout, presentations or situations associated with the prohibited products.

Earlier this week, Dasmunsi had said in the Lok Sabha that "failure to comply will entail action as per the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder."

In his letter late last month, Dr Ramadoss had asked the I&B ministry to take appropriate action to ensure that such "indirect advertisements of wine, alcohol, liquor and any tobacco products are stopped forthwith in the interest of public health."

He had named brands like Bagpiper, McDowells, Johnny Walker, Haywards, Derby, Royal Challenge and Kingfisher which he said had been advertising for liquor in the guise of ads of sodas, CDs, and mineral water.

He had said, "Considering the ill effects of cigarette, alcohol and other intoxicants, the government has banned advertisements of these products in the media. As a reaction, the liquor and tobacco majors have sought other ways of advertising their products. They have introduced various other products with the same brand name and carry out heavy advertising so that consumers do not forget their liquor brands.

"The liquor industry has become a prominent player in the game of surrogate advertising. These advertisements violate the statutory provisions and defeat the very purpose of the ban which has been imposed."