|
|
|
|
| Sunday, 10 July 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |
 |
|
News Business Features
Editorial
|
Consumer Ombudsman By National Consumer Watch Advertising on television (Continued from last week) Consumer Watch reverts to the question of advertising on TV as it is of topical interest. Not only does TV advertising have a powerful impact, particularly on young minds, but perhaps even on the minds of adults because of its visual impact. A few days ago a reader writing to one of the newspapers say "some of the advertisements are vulgar, lack decency, and are loathsome to view. This is undoubtedly a downright condemnation. No doubt, any parent with children in the habit of watching TV will be moved to such severe condemnation and this is understandable. The reader will note some of the advertisements the above writer has referred to in his letter to the Editor. There he says "to mention a few", a girl wriggling waiting to use the toilet just to advertise some piping! The connection between a human need and good plumbing is hard to see. Could not the advertiser have thought of some thing more appropriate? And why a girl? Would a man or a boy having the same pressing need have less of an impact on what the advertiser sought to convey? Another instance given by the above writer is a visual of a boy getting on top of a girl on a billiard table to popularise a brand of perfume. He says there are many more disgusting advertisements on soaps, creams etc, while the 'classic one' is that of feeling the stomach of a mother to be. Any viewer will agree these advertisements lack sensitivity and good taste. Several questions arise for consideration 1. Why is advertising of such poor taste? 2. Who permits or approves such advertisements to be telecast? 3. Is there any institutional mechanism for advertisements before they go on public display? 4. Should there be a Regulatory Authority or an Institution to which complaints can be made in the public interest? Before attempting to find answers to the above, Consumer Watch would like to refer to a Reuter report from London. The advertisement showed workers on TV singing with their mouths full of food. This commercial was for Kentucky Fried Chicken. It soon turned out to be Britain's most complained of advertisements with some 1,671 members of the public contacting the Advertising Standards Authority. The substance of the complaint by the public was that the Ad encouraged bad manners in children by making it appear funny to sing or speak while eating. Some 41 of those who complained said their children had in fact aped the Ad. This shows the imitative tendency of children and how easily bad manners can and will be aped by them. What effect our advertisements referred to earlier will have on our children, perhaps only a psychologist could say. The second matter arising from the above Reuter report from London is that 1,671 members of the public had in fact taken the trouble to complain. We wonder how many of our parents have so far complained about any of the "vulgar and loathsome" advertisements regularly displayed on local TV screens. We are a society perhaps given to talk among ourselves at social gatherings and concerned parents may well have referred to these advertisements in the course of an evening chat but how many would have taken the trouble to write to the newspapers or complain to the Chairman or Head of the TV transmitting station. The moral of it is that as an Editorial comment in a newspaper observed a few days ago in another context 'maybe it is time that consumers activated themselves in their own interest, and forced the authorities to implement reforms'. The third matter arising from the Reuter report is that in England there is an institution called the Advertising Standards Authority. Consumer Watch is not aware of such an institution here. To revert to the four matters referred to earlier the first matter posed was why advertising is in such poor taste. The answer is manifest. According to the views of the head of one of our TV stations, we in Sri Lanka have State Television (such as Rupvahini and ITN) and there are also the private TV channels such as ETV and MTV, but there are no socially oriented channels. Independent or private channels must find their own resources. This means that to be self sustaining they have to run profitably. Considering the cost of establishing or opening a channel (estimated at Rs. 1000 million) the profit motive predominates, and hence quality is sacrificed. This no doubt is the unvarnished truth as disclosed by an authoritative source. Let us concede however that even in the ethos of sterile commercialism there can be redeeming features. A splendid example that comes to mind is the feature on water conservation where a child going to school with his father, sees a road-side water tap kept open and water going waste. The child leaves his father, goes to the tap and closes it. Not a word is spoken. Is this not a powerful message done in perfectly good taste? In contrast Consumer Watch is aware of a well-known Doctor who devised a no cost mosquito controlling device where by cutting open a mega aerated water plastic bottle at the top and inverting the top into the opening and pouring some water and keeping it out in the open for a few days, it is soon observed that mosquito larva are found in the water, but the young cannot fly into the open and are eventually destroyed-at no cost on mosquito repellents. This medical man tried his best to get very high State Agencies to popularise this method of mosquito control but failed. Not even the WHO was interested. He had then gone to a TV Channel to give publicity to his simple device. The response was negative. The reason was that they were advertising mosquito coils from which the station was getting a substantial income, and was therefore not interested in popularising a no cost control device! This profit motive is no doubt the reason for all the vulgar and objectionable advertisements that the writer to the newspaper editor was complaining about. The second matter is, who permits objectionable advertisements. Our inquiries reveal that there is no Censor Board for TV, unlike for films, though there are serious shortcomings in the area of films. It would appear however that some Stations (perhaps even all) have some control or regulator mechanism that processes advertisements to shut out what is really objectionable in the public interest. This mechanism must be revamped and guidelines drawn if the vulgar advertisements are to be shut out, even though there may be a loss of income. This should be done meaningfully in the public interest-particularly in the interest of safeguarding deleterious influence in young minds. This also answers the third question raised above. The fourth refers to a Regulatory Authority. In other areas one sees the Press Complaints Commission, the Censor Board for films and drama, an Ombudsman for Administration for Finance, for Insurance and now other areas are also considering establishing the offices of Ombudsman. The authorities should consider some institutional mechanism of this type to avoid the ill-effects of vulgar and objectionable TV advertisements.It is here that Consumer Watch comes into mobilise public opinion, for if society is dormant and not assertive of its rights, society will get the product and the services it serves. The editorial exhortation quoted above deserves to be quoted again - 'it is time that the consumers activated themselves in their own interest and forced the authorities to implement reform'. This is good advice for all consumers. Those who watch TV Programmes are its "consumers". It is a message for all of us. Do write in to us. We are at 143A, Vajira Road, Colombo 5.
|
|
|
| News
| Business |
Features |
Editorial | Security | Produced by Lake House |
