If the purpose of advertising is to provide information for consumers to exercise considered choices in the consumption of products and services, then clearly no form of advertising should be banned.

Besides, in democratic societies, which recognize freedom of expression, and legitimately allow the manufacturing, marketing and selling of products and services it would only be logical to expect that the supplier of such products and services would be permitted to use every means of communicating about the products and services offered, to their desired target audiences.

It's difficult to digest that an industry which is allowed to sell its products, is banned from advertising the same products, despite the fact that the commercials carry health warning, advising the customer to use the product in temperance. Recently,
Several states within India have legally banned the manufacturing, sales and distribution of 'gutka'- presumably a tobacco based product. In such a situation,
the corresponding banning of advertising for brands that promote the gutka product would have some legitimacy and purpose.

With specific reference to alcohol products, international research has periodically demonstrated that advertising - whether surrogate or otherwise - does not in any way lead to increase in consumption. In fact, in India too, several of the advertised brands have failed to establish adequate market share and consumption volumes. Alternatively, one frequently reads about the deaths of the socio-economically disadvantaged target groups due to consumption of unbranded alcohol products available through unscrupulous local traders.

The question then arises that if advertising doesn't increase consumption, why do producers and marketers advertise? Clearly, the purpose is to gain market share by encouraging consumers to switch to their brand and create brand loyalty, which they do at the expense of their competitors who end up selling less. They do not necessarily try to increase the total market for the product.

Brand extensions are a legitimate marketing activity and provide the company with alternative modes for building brand recognition and brand loyalty. The ban on advertising of liquor and tobacco products has inspired liquor companies to seriously look at non-liquor products as a logical brand extension and a genuine business proposition. For instance Shaw Wallace markets the range of its golf accessories under the Royal Challenge brand name. ITC markets sporting goods and apparels under the Wills brand name.

Some of the arguments against alcohol/ tobacco and surrogate advertisements on television are that they glamorize the product by portraying the product being enjoyed in the most appealing settings and by the most attractive people. Of course they often do but so do the advertisements for cars, sprays, bikes, instant coffees.

The ban will also put the domestic industry players at a disadvantage to their international counter parts who enjoy free access to communicate on television
Channels uplinked from outside India and seen in the country by a very wide cross section of the population.

The existence of a surrogate assumes the presence of an original.

Awareness that an advertised brand represents surrogate communication acknowledges that the consumer is aware of the original brand and the product it represents. Only then, can we judge the alternative product communication as being surrogate. If awareness for the original already exists, why then the unnecessary debate about surrogate advertising?

Clearly, therefore, the appropriate response to managing the ethical issues involved in surrogate advertising can only emerge from self-regulation by the industry that deals with products and services, which may appear to impact social behaviour in unacceptable ways.

Source : Prof Atul tandan, Specialist Advertising, MICANEWS 2003