One might dismiss HG Wells’ oft-repeated observation that “advertising is legalised lying” as hyperbole but many a time it is this free use of hyperbole in advertising that makes the average consumer hold back from clicking the “skip ad” button or from rushing to finish a chore when they invade the screen.
The point is, hyperbole and exaggeration is fine as long as it stays within the limits of law and acceptability. When it doesn’t, you end up with your back against the wall, à la Patanjali Ayurved.
This week, the Supreme Court of India rejected yoga proponent Ramdev-run Patanjali Ayurved’s apology regarding a contempt of court case. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against allegedly misleading advertisements run by the Ramdev-owned company. In its complaint, the IMA had said that Patanjali’s advertisements disparaged allopathy and made false claims about curing certain diseases.
What can brands and their marketers learn from this fiasco? First, adherence to ethical standards is non-negotiable even when you are trying to impress consumers with your brand’s credentials. Sandeep Goyal, managing director, Rediffusion, points out, “There are lessons to be learned from this, both positive and negative. On the positive side, one must understand that accountability is certain and that you will eventually certainly get caught. However, the downside is that if authorities continue to turn a blind eye, deception can persist unchecked for extended periods.”
That said, even though the issue blew up because of Patanjali’s unattested contentions, a bigger fallout is that this episode will help many other manufacturers realise that they too are culpable. “All pharmaceutical companies will have to be mindful of what they are promising to customers,” says Meenakshi Menon, communications specialist & founder, Spatial Access. While companies rake in huge profits on the back of such claims (Patanjali is said to have earned a good Rs 400-500 crore from sales of Coronil at the height of the Covid pandemic), such claims are prohibited under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, points out Murali Neelakantan, former global general counsel at Cipla and Glenmark.
Experts say, FMCG brands must also be careful while using claims like “fortified with X, Y, Z”, “extra power” or “take control, see results”. As in this case, healthcare brands will be subjected to greater scrutiny, given their impact, says N Chandramouli, CEO at brand insights agency TRA Research. Beverage and apparel brand advertisements routinely involve a wilful suspension of disbelief where people perform unimaginable feats, but such ads appear with disclaimers.
The other thing to remember is, comparative advertising is okay as long as you don’t disparage competition. Consumer brands regularly launch attacks on direct rivals — Clorets-Chlor-mint, Vivaldi-Peter England/Allen Solly, Pepsi-Thums Up to name a few — but they ‘censor’ or mask audio-visual cues and mnemonics to minimise chances of being hauled up by the ASCI. Hemant Misra, founder and managing director of MagicCircle Communications, says, “Most brands do not make such flagrant claims and do not run down competition. Advertising standards are really strict on such claims.”
India’s advertising watchdog ASCI has, time and again, pulled up Patanjali Ayurved ads as they “unfairly denigrate” products of its rivals. “The problem here is that there is only a slap on the wrist at the most, which doesn’t really affect brands. If there were punitive damages, then we would have seen real change,” points out Spatial Access’ Menon. Clearly, self-regulation isn’t working.
Finally, marketers need to watch out for a situation when the ambassador becomes bigger than the brand. When one goes down, the other will likely follow suit.
In Patanjali’s case, Ramdev is not only an endorser or brand ambassador; he is the brand, say experts. For any other brand, a disgraced ambassador is a short-time problem since they can be easily replaced. Seen from that perspective, Patanjali is on a really sticky wicket. “Ramdev cannot be replaced by Patanjali,” Misra says.
Chandramouli is less unforgiving. “Ramdev is actually bigger than Patanjali. The other products in the company’s portfolio, like toothpaste and personal care products, will not see much impact from this case. Consumers will continue to believe in Ramdev and the Patanjali brand. He is an excellent marketer,” he sums up.