Is surrogate marketing ethical?

In the year2000, the ministry of Information and broadcasting barred the TV channels from telecasting liquor and cigarettes advertisements. Well a job well begun is half done, but a job half done is a job half undone. The Ministry did enough to bar the telecast of advertisements of alcohol and liquor brands but not enough to control their presence in the minds of the consumers. The devil was shrewd, even more than the ministry ever perceived it to be and it returned in the disguise of a saint. They surrogated their very means of reaching the masses, they resorted to Surrogate Advertising. Surrogate advertising is advertising which embeds a brand or product message inside an advertisement which is ostensibly for another brand or product is often looked upon as a menial mode of putting the message across and for those lying idle a question to debate upon- whether it is ethical or not? Taking the ball from here we analyze both the black and the white side of it, the rough and the smooth. So first what needs to be clarified is whether there was any need to ban the commercials of liquor and tobacco. Compared to countries in the western part of the planet the lifestyle of India is completely varying, In India often a social stigma is attached towards consumption of alcohol, which is not in the western countries and that is too a larger extent related to the lifestyle that we live in. The economic variation in our country is so vast that it fails to bring people on the same platform of thinking and perception. When people belonging to the upper socio economic classification of India consumer liquor that’s because they like to (keeping exceptions apart), when people belonging to the lower socio economic class of India consume liquor its in most cases because they “need” to give themselves that feeling of pleasure and relaxation post consumption and it is this feeling that gives way to uncontrolled consumption which directly affects their consciousness and presence of mind and they tend to vomit out every frustration of their life in manners of beating their wives or some other common stories that we have often come across. Definitely the scenario Is witnessed in the houses of riches and the educated as well but there is a considerable difference in the frequency between the two. This was point number one, that government wanted to arrest this social evil from expanding its wings, but then why did it have to ban the commercials, rather if it was so stringent on such things then why not ban the industry itself. Surprisingly, as per the results of the Indian Advertising Survey, the number of people who get directly influenced by TV Advertisements is a whooping431 million and there are other237 million who get indirectly influenced by these commercials. The commercials that are aired often show a young flamboyant individual who when consumes alcohol attracts girls all around him and there is success rolling all along his away. By banning these commercials the government wanted to ensure that youths and other people do not resort to consumption just by being influenced by these ads, they had to make sure that if at all any one consumes it precisely because of their own interest. Well in that interest I do feel curbing the telecast of these ads was social. The next question is whether surrogate advertising is ethical or not. I suppose as long as there is nothing unsocial an industry has full rights to promote its brands in whatever way they feel like. These business offer the maximum revenue to the Indian Government and it is this money which is used in the upliftment of India, there are no questions rose on why we are using the income from these unsocial components for the development of our country. There are a lot of arguments that float around that if they really have to promote the brand then why not in any other name, well with due respect to all of them I believe It would be wise to give them at least this much liberty to take control of their brand names. I agree that yes it does increase brand recall of something that is considered “socially unright” but it still does not influence people to start consumption as otherwise an advertisement would do.

I think the debate should be....... Is liquor or cigarette should be banned or not? 

If govt. allows companies to manufacture such things, why not their marketing should be allowed? & considered ethical?

Surrogate marketing is a work around the seeming hypocrisy of the govt which says I do not want to close down your business but I will pretend that you are not there so long as you do not advertise directly. Whose ethics are we taking about, the marketers, the media, the regulators, social activists or customers.

 

I believe any product manufacturer should be given equal opportunity to market its product. Otherwise its estates responsibility to stop production of such unsocial products.

I think if u have surrogate ads banning the real ads is just a eye wash. The corporate houses are no more targeted by the parliament and legal authorities and still they do what they want to do. And the Govt is happy thinking they are doing a great service by banning the tobacco and alcohol ads. Everyone is happy but the purpose is not served. 

Surrogate advertising is a form of advertising which is used to promote banned products, like cigarettes and alcohol, in the disguise of another product. This type of advertising uses a product of a fairly close category, as: club soda, mineral water in case of alcohol, or products of a completely different category (for example, music CD's or playing cards) to hammer the brand name into the heads of consumers. The banned product (alcohol or cigarettes) may not be projected directly to consumers but rather masked under another product under the same brand name, so that whenever there is mention of that brand, people start associating it with its main product (the alcohol or cigarette). In India there is a large number of companies doing surrogate advertising, from Bacardi Blast music CD's, Bagpiper Club Soda to Officers Choice playing cards

I think it is ethical what is wrong in that if any company have good reputation and selling the item with this concept then i don't think it is wrong and who we are to decide it is ethical or unethical. After certain age people when grow up or become major then he should be allowed to what should be consume and what should not be. if it is not then why there any law for minor and major, and if people have not grown up then it is his own personal problem, he had also equal chance to grow and now he is doing something wrong with him then it is problem of Government?

 

 

Talking about ethics, that way the company making cigarette is unethical at the first place leave aside surrogate marketing.