ITV

Tag: ASCI

  • Complaints against ads up 14% in half year period in FY23: ASCI report

    Complaints against ads up 14% in half year period in FY23: ASCI report

    Mumbai: The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) released its half-yearly complaints report, which consists of data from April to September 2022.

    During the period, it processed 3,340 complaints against 2,764 advertisements that were in potential violation of the ASCI code. About 55 per cent of these ads were spotted across the digital domain, followed by 39 per cent in print and five per cent on television.

    As compared to 2021-22, ASCI saw a 14 per cent rise in the number of complaints while witnessing a 35 per cent increase in the number of ads processed. Education remained the most violative sector, with 27 per cent of the complaints related to it; 22 per cent belonged to the classical education category, while five per cent were from the ed tech sector.

    These were followed by personal care (14 per cent), food & beverages (13 per cent), healthcare (13 per cent) and gaming (4 per cent). ASCI’s surveillance remains strong, picking up 65 per cent of the ads processed suo motu.

    98 per cent of consumers’ complaints were received by the artificial-intelligence-based complaints management system TARA. The introduction of TARA has given consumers a comprehensive, hassle-free redressal process. About 16 per cent of the total complaints recorded were from consumers, followed by 15 per cent from the government, while intra-industry complaints comprised three per cent. Of the 2,764 potentially objectionable ads processed, 32 per cent were not contested by the advertisers, 59 per cent were found to be in violation of the ASCI code, and eight per cent were found not to be violating the code.

    Speaking about the survey, ASCI CEO and secretary general Manisha Kapoor said: “Looking at the rapid growth of digital advertising, we have invested heavily in ad-surveillance technology. We will continue to upgrade and streamline our processes to provide a more responsive platform to all stakeholders, including consumers, brands, and government bodies. In our constant pursuit of transparency, we have released a comprehensive report about the kinds of complaints and outcomes that ASCI has looked into during the first six months of the financial year.”

    Of the total complaints received by ASCI, 28 per cent of the violations were by influencers. Of the 781 complaints processed against influencers, 34 per cent were from the personal care category, followed by food and beverage at 17 per cent, and virtual digital assets at 10 per cent.

    As part of the report, ASCI also published a list of cases handled as well as non-compliant influencers and brands.

    Check the full report here:

     

  • ASCI reveals dark patterns used by digital platforms that cause consumer harm

    ASCI reveals dark patterns used by digital platforms that cause consumer harm

    Mumbai: An extensive discussion paper released by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), the self-regulatory body of the advertising industry, has highlighted how UI/UX deployed by digital platforms could manipulate consumer choices and consumption patterns.

    According to the paper, these manipulative tactics or dark patterns come in many forms and are present across multiple platforms. Practices like drip pricing, trick questions, nagging, disguised ads, bait and switch, among others, are just some of the commonly found dark patterns on the internet.

    With online commerce growing rapidly, consumers’ vulnerability to such practices is increasing. In FY 2021-22, 29 per cent of the advertisements processed by ASCI were disguised by influencers as regular content, which is also a part of dark patterns in advertising. Categories found to be major violators were cryptocurrency, personal care, fashion and e-commerce.

    Taking note of the growing global concerns around such practices, ASCI formed a 12-member task force comprising stakeholders from different tech platforms, legal experts, civil society and domain experts. The task force examined key issues related to dark patterns to understand which of these practices potentially violate the ASCI code which inter-alia states: “Advertisements shall not be framed so as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge.”

    Not all dark patterns fall under the domain of advertising and hence may be out of ASCI’s remit, however, they could amount to unfair trade practices which compromise consumer interest. ASCI hopes that in the near future, such dark patterns will be addressed by the regulators as they see appropriate in the interest of consumer protection.

    ASCI has outlined 4 key practices that it intends to address through expanding its code: namely drip pricing, bait and switch, false urgency and disguised advertising. ASCI has invited comments from all stakeholders and the members of the public on this proposed expansion of the ASCI code. One could send their comments to contact@ascionline.in; the last date to receive these comments is 31 December.

    ASCI CEO and secretary general Manisha Kapoor said, “There is a thin line between dark patterns and legitimate targeting and persuasion tactics. Dark patterns cause consumer harm and with the ever-increasing presence of advertising on digital platforms, these are now under sharp scrutiny of ad-regulators around the world. Eventually dark patterns ruin consumer experience and increase abandonments, and make the consumer suspicious of the online space. By choosing fair practices that enhance both consumer and shareholder value, brands can develop sustainable ways of consumer engagement. ASCI continues its investment in technology to track and monitor digital advertising to help keep the online experience safe for consumers.”

    The paper cites examples provided by UX experts of alternative practices that are fair to consumers and that can be adopted by brands. These alternatives can clean up the online space of malicious patterns and build consumer confidence in the digital world.

  • Brands using trademarks in defence of dishonest claims is an unfair practice: Asci and K&S Partners report

    Brands using trademarks in defence of dishonest claims is an unfair practice: Asci and K&S Partners report

    Mumbai: Asci and K&S Partners in a recently released whitepaper titled “Misleading Advertisements and Trademarks-A Registration Conundrum” identified the practise and instances of brands making misleading claims and representations through the use of trademarks.

    It has often been noted that businesses register misleading or even deceptive descriptive or laudatory terms, slogans, etc. as trademarks. These words describe the product’s unsupported nature, quality, or quantity, which ends up misleading consumers. For instance, a sweater brand called “All Wool” implies that it is made of wool. However, if the actual products are not made entirely of wool, such a trademark can be misleading. Similarly, a product with the trademark “Wholewheat Marie,” which contains refined flour as the dominant ingredient, misleads consumers as to the health and nutritional values of such products. The use of such trademarks that falsely describe product attributes is a potential breach of both the Consumer Protection Act and the Asci code.

    Brands and advertisers often cite trademark registrations as a defence. These words or phrases mislead consumers. However, this paper argues that such a defence is not valid as making misleading representations violates the Asci code, the Consumer Protection Act, and the Trade Marks Act itself. The paper calls for greater scrutiny and restraint in permitting descriptive trademarks for brands and to ensure that such trademarks are not a false representation of the product.

    Asci CEO & secretary general Manisha Kapoor said, “At Asci we see cases where the advertiser uses a trademark registration to defend their direct or implied claims, asserting that a trademark registration means that the claim is good in law. This is not true, and we would ask brands to be cautious in using untrue, exaggerated or misleading phrases to describe their products, whether trademarks or not.”

    K&S Partners’ Prashant Gupta said, “The issue concerning false, unsubstantiated, and dishonest advertisements, under the guise of descriptive or laudatory trademarks, is grave. Protecting consumers from deception is one of the principal tenets of the Asci code, the Trade Marks Act, and the Consumer Protection Act. The trademark office needs to raise the threshold for descriptive or laudatory trademarks, failing which, protecting consumers’ rights from fraudulent marks and making informed choices would be severely compromised.”

    Check the full report here: https://ascionline.in/images/pdf/misleading-ads-and-trademarks.pdf

  • Asci names N. S. Rajan as new chairman

    Asci names N. S. Rajan as new chairman

    Mumbai: August One Partners director N. S. Rajan was unanimously elected as chairman of the board of governors of the Advertising Standards Council of India (Asci) on Thursday. The decision was taken at the board meeting following the 36th annual general meeting of the industry’s self-regulator.

    N. S. Rajan is a public relations (PR) veteran with a demonstrated history of setting up and managing firms in the PR industry. He was previously the founder and managing director of Ketchum Sampark, an Omnicom Group.

    Marico managing director & CEO Saugata Gupta was elected vice-chairman, while Shashidhar Sinha, chief executive officer at IPG Mediabrands India, was appointed honorary treasurer.

    Subhash Kamath, the outgoing chairman, will now be a part of the consultative committee of the board, which, among other activities, mentors the new initiatives of the organisation.

    Lintas India Group CEO Virat Tandon and GMS India (Meta) director Arun Srinivas were newly inducted onto the board at the same meeting.

    Talking about his new role as the Asci chairman, N. S. Rajan said, “It is indeed a privilege to take up the role of Asci chairman. Our thought leadership initiatives, industry reports, and Asci academy are important pillars of taking Asci ahead into the future. I am looking forward to advancing the agenda of the Council to rapidly increase Asci awareness among consumers so that they engage more readily and in greater numbers, voicing their concerns, anxieties, and questions about what they experience in the form of thousands of ads per day. That number, on average, in India is anywhere between 7,000-10,000 ads per day!”

    “I would also focus on Asci’s efforts more towards prevention, in addition to the robust corrective mechanisms we have built over the decades. This we would do by using the several initiatives already in play – whether advice, guidance, training, or self-regulation. The third pillar would be to keep ahead of the fast-expanding and fractionalising digital domain to ensure that responsible advertising principles are followed equally across all media and consumer engagements by advertising in every form. A lot has been done by Asci over the last several years, and I am committed to seeing that the momentum generated by all past efforts is kept alive or even pushed forward with greater speed,” he added.

    A key initiative announced at the AGM by the outgoing chairman, Subhash Kamath was the soon-to-be-launched Asci Academy. Asci Academy is set to move industry’s self-regulator in the direction of training and awareness creation, and deep engagement with various stakeholders in the prevention of objectionable ads. This underlines Asci’s move to create impact at the point of creation, and not merely the point of publication. A more detailed agenda for Asci Academy will be unveiled over the next few weeks and months.

    Speaking about his two-term tenure as Asci chairman, Subhash Kamath said, “The past two years have been truly transformational for Asci. Our vision of making Asci more future-ready by taking on the challenges of a digital world and a fast-changing communication landscape, and by adding value to the industry through more agility, responsiveness, services, and thought leadership, has started showing results. I’m sure Asci will continue to grow from strength to strength in the coming years. It’s been a privilege to serve as its chairman and I thank the board, the CCC members and the wonderful secretariat team for making it possible.”

  • Asci releases ‘sector report card 2021-22’: Ad violations by top six sectors

    Asci releases ‘sector report card 2021-22’: Ad violations by top six sectors

    Mumbai: The Advertising Standards Council of India (Asci) has recently released its annual complaints report for the financial year 21-22. The report provided information on the complaints examined and advertisements handled by the self-regulatory organisation. The report processed 4,184 advertisements across mediums including print, digital media and television.  

    The significance of the digital ecosystem was reflected in the fact that 48 per cent of the ads that Asci processed were published digitally, 29 per cent of the complaints that were filed concerned influencers, and the top six violative categories showed the emergence of sectors like gaming and cryptocurrency.

    The report also delves into the specifics of the advertisements examined, the types of complaints, the results of the ads processed, and the involvement of influencers and celebrities in each sector. Education, with 23 per cent increase in comparison to last year, remains the single largest violative industry, followed by gaming (472 per cent increase) and personal care (261 per cent increase).

    Education

    ASCI discovered 23 per cent more violations in this category during fiscal years 2020–21. The edtech category accounted for six per cent of the 1,728 ads checked. In total, 90 per cent of these advertisements were in print. 1.2 per cent were broadcast on television, 8.8 per cent were digital, and 0.1 per cent were distributed through other mediums.

    Nine ads featuring celebrities were found to be misleading, and 12 more were added with influencer disclosure violations.

    Only one per cent of the ads were rejected, while the other 99 per cent required modification. Under the procedural outcomes of cases requiring modification – 17 per cent had informal resolution, 83 per cent were upheld.

    The report stated, “Most of the violative claims against the education industry were pertaining to leadership, awards and rankings, and job guarantee claims. Comparative superlative claims like highest success, lowest fees, etc, and performance outcome claims like best results, success assured were also common. In addition to these, there were a significant number of money back guarantee claims, usually clubbed with result-oriented or outcome-related claims.”

    Gaming

    The gaming industry grew by 472 per cent in fiscal years 2021-22 compared to the previous year. Asci, in total, looked into 383 cases in this category. Where four per cent of the records were not valid, three per cent were dismissed, and 94 per cent required some modification. 11 per cent of ads were upheld while 89 per cent of them had an informal resolution: not contested.

    In total, one per cent of these advertisements were in print. One per cent was broadcast on television, 99 per cent on digital, and none were distributed via other means.

    Eight ads featuring celebrities were found to be misleading, and 22 added with influencer disclosure violations.

    “Most violative claims in the gaming industry were pertaining to leadership, guaranteed winnings, prize money assurance and safety, security & privacy claims. Other claims like consumer trust – trusted by three billion users etc., and comparative claims like win better, Xtimes more winnings were also seen,” said the report.

    Personal Care

    Surprisingly, Asci’s total number of ads checked increased by 261 per cent in the previous fiscal year, to 531. As per the report, four per cent of these were nullified, five per cent dismissed, and 91 per cent required modifications.

    While 69 per cent had an informal resolution—not contested, 31 per cent were upheld. Four per cent of these ads appeared in print, six per cent on television, 88 per cent in digital, and two per cent in other mediums. Four ads featuring celebrities were found to be misleading, and 371 ads were found to be violating the influencer disclosure code.

    In the report, Asci stated, “There were various claims made in the advertisements looked into under this category. Most of the violative claims were pertaining to product performance. Owing to the ongoing pandemic, we saw a number of protection and prevention claims, particularly those claiming protection from germs like viruses and bacteria. Besides these, there were comparative claims, ingredient performance-led claims, natural and organic product claims, leadership claims, consumer trust and recommendation by experts claims.”

    Healthcare

    The previous year saw a surge in Covid cure/protection claims that settled as the pandemic progressed, resulting in a 20 per cent decrease in ads seen by Asci on a fiscal year basis, from 967 to 775 in FY’22.

    The procedural outcomes of cases are: while 19 per cent had an informal resolution—not contested, 62 per cent were upheld, and 19 per cent were in DMR/Covid violations. Adding to that, 0.3 per cent of complaints were not valid, 1.7 per cent were dismissed, and 98 per cent required modification.

    Five ads featuring celebrities were found to be misleading, and 15 more were found to be violating the influencer disclosure code.

    The medium split of the platforms where these ads are published is: 75 per cent of these ads are in print, three per cent on television, 21 per cent in digital, and one per cent in other media.

    According to the report, the majority of the most egregious claims in the healthcare industry concerned leadership, awards and rankings, and comparative claims, particularly in clinics and hospitals. Treatment assurance claims were also fairly common. For drugs and medicinal products, claims of cure, prevention, and protection were the most common. Health condition reversal and product performance claims were among the other violative claims noted. There has been a rise in the occurrence of natural ingredient or procedure-led treatment or cure claims.

    Food & Beverages

    ASCI found a 31 per cent increase in violations in this category during fiscal years 2020–21. Asci, in total, looked into 373 cases. As mentioned in the report, 16 per cent of these advertisements were in print. Seven per cent were broadcast on television, 73 per cent were digital, and four per cent were distributed through other means.

    The procedural outcomes of cases requiring modification recorded 53 per cent informal resolution: not contested and 47 per cent upheld. Adding to that, two per cent of complaints were not valid, 14 per cent were dismissed, and 84 per cent (two cases are currently sub-judice) required modification.

    The number of ads featuring celebrities found to be misleading and violating the influencer disclosure code is two and 131, respectively.

    The report said, “Almost every product sub-category under F&B had immunity boosting claims along with ingredient benefit and product performance claims. Comparative claims, leadership claims, and health and disease risk reduction claims were also common. Like many other categories, there was an increase in claims pertaining to protection from and prevention of various diseases caused by viruses and bacteria. Other claims included awards and rankings, natural source/organic foods, consumer trust, and quality claims.”

    Virtual Digital Assets (VDA)

    The Asci report highlighted that advertising in this category had not been so prominent in the previous years. Therefore, the recorded number this year included only 394 ads in the process, of which four per cent were invalid, one per cent were rejected, and 95 per cent required modification.

    Additionally, while 53 per cent were informal resolution: not contested, 47 per cent were upheld.

    None of the ads featuring celebrities were found to be misleading this year. The number of violations in influencer disclosure stood at 385.

    The medium split of the platforms where these ads are published is: one per cent of these ads are in print, one per cent on television and 98 per cent in digital media.

    The report added, “Most of the advertisements looked into under this industry were influencer disclosure cases, where influencers were talking about how to navigate the VDA platforms or sharing information about the category and how the platform is easy to operate. From some of the ads that made misleading claims, leadership and consumer trust claims were most common. Guaranteed earnings and performance comparisons with other modes of investment like gold and stock investment are followed. The other commonly found claims revolved around promoting the category through referral programme claims like ‘refer a friend and win’.”

  • ASCI processes 5532 complaints in 2021-22; education remains most violative sector

    ASCI processes 5532 complaints in 2021-22; education remains most violative sector

    Mumbai: The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) released its annual complaints report for the period April’ 21 – March’ 22, during which it processed 5,532 advertisements across mediums including print, digital, and television. Education at 33 per cent remains the single largest violative sector, followed by health care (16 per cent), and personal care (11 per cent).

    The digital ecosystem took centre stage with new categories like crypto and gaming in the top five violative categories, and nearly 48 per cent of the ads processed belong to the medium.

    In 2021-22, ASCI processed a whopping 62 per cent more ads compared to the previous year, and 25 per cent more complaints. The self-regulatory body saw an overall compliance rate of 94 per cent.

    While television and print ads remained in focus, ASCI greatly broadened its ambit by proactively monitoring advertising in the digital landscape. With the influencer guidelines coming into force last year, complaints against influencers constituted 29 per cent of the total grievances. Complaints regarding misleading claims in ads featuring celebrities saw a 41 per cent increase out of which a staggering 92 per cent were found to be violating ASCI’s guidelines.  

    Given its focus on digital monitoring, emerging categories included the relatively new categories of virtual digital assets and online real money gaming, contributing significantly to objectionable ads at eight per cent each.

    ASCI continued its proactive surveillance and 75 per cent of ads processed were picked up suo-motu. This included the AI-based monitoring that ASCI has set up for digital tracking. Complaints from consumers constituted 21 per cent of complaints, followed by intra-industry at two per cent and CSO/government complaints at 2 per cent. Out of the 5,532 total ads processed, 39 per cent were not contested by the advertiser, 55 per cent of them were found to be objectionable after investigation, and complaints against four per cent of ads were dismissed as not violating the ASCI code. 94 per cent of ads that ASCI processed needed changes so as not to violate the ASCI code.

    Talking about the annual report, ASCI chairman Subhash Kamath shared: “2021-22 was the year we followed through on our promise of increasingly monitoring the digital media given the way it has been dominating the advertising landscape. We invested heavily in technology and that has worked quite well. We also upgraded our complaints system which has made it very easy for consumers to register their complaints and for advertisers to respond to it. Going ahead, we will continue to be at the forefront in understanding how best to regulate and monitor the digital frontier, even as we keep streamlining our processes to become more responsive, and more proactive.”

    Sharing her thoughts about the annual report, ASCI CEO & secretary general Manisha Kapoor, said: “The ASCI team, the Consumer Complaints Council, the Honourable ex-high court judges on our review panel, and our domain experts have debated the nuances of advertising and scientificnevidence of thousands of ads to ensure that the process and outcomes are fair to both consumers as well as advertisers. Simultaneously, the constant update to our code ensures that we constantly offer guidance and transparency to consumers and advertisers on newer and emerging formats and categories. This helps in keeping self-regulation at the frontier of advertising developments.”

    ASCI has also upgraded its complaints system “TARA” in order to offer a seamless experience to both consumers and advertisers in the management and resolution of complaints. Features like real-time tracking of complaints aim to make the experience similar to what one would expect from any contemporary tech platform.

    Read the report here: https://ascionline.in/images/pdf/complaint-report-2021-22.pdf

  • Smriti Irani releases ASCI’s guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes

    Smriti Irani releases ASCI’s guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes

    Mumbai: Seeing gender stereotypes in advertising has become so common that now people take harmful gender differences as social norms. Unfortunately! The gender stereotypes are so deep-rooted in our minds that we hardly stop and think, why should an ideal family in any ad have an older boy and a younger girl, why not a family with two girls? Why should a typical Indian brand’s ad start with a man reading a newspaper and the woman making him a cup of tea? Why do terms like “men will be men” strike our minds?

    Taking into consideration the deep-seated gender stereotypes in our minds, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has launched a set of eight guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes. The new guidelines aim to focus not just on the bigger violations but on the ones that the audience might not even register, at once.

    The guidelines come as a follow up for its GenderNext report released by ASCI and Futurebrands in October 2021. It was released by the minister for women and child development Smriti Irani at an event held in Delhi.

    Just a few days after the Layer’r shot advertisements were taken down, the guidelines seem like a timely intervention from ASCI. The advertisements from the perfume brand didn’t go well with the audience and were accused of promoting rape culture in the country.

    Sharing his thoughts on ASCI chairman Subhash Kamath added, “Advertising has the power to influence mindsets and decision making and bring about behavioural changes. Hence, we need to help shape the narrative. The recent controversy implies that there is a need for sensitisation, in terms of how we portray genders in advertising.”

    Gender portrayal is a complex and nuanced issue and the guidelines provide an interpretation of ASCI’s Chapter III (related to harmful situations), which deals with ads that can cause harm to individuals or society. Gender stereotypes are harmful because they lock individuals in certain roles and perpetuate certain dynamics that are harmful to society. Advertising, through subtle and implicit depictions, reinforces certain harmful stereotypes and overlooks the aspirations of individuals and groups. A recent study by Kantar shows that 64 per cent of consumers believe that advertising reinforces rather than helps eradicate harmful gender stereotypes.

    While the guidelines focus on women, they also provide guardrails for the depiction of other genders.

    The guidelines, encourage advertisers and creators to deploy the SEA (Self-esteemed – Empowered – Allied) framework that guides stakeholders in imagining as well as evaluating portrayals of gender in their advertising by building empathy and aiding evaluation, as well as the 3S framework, which provides a checklist to guard against tropes and implicit stereotypes that creep into advertising.

    These frameworks can prove to be extremely useful for marketing and advertising professionals to improve their advertising ROIs.

    Speaking at the launch of the guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes, the minister for women and child development, Smriti Zubin Irani said, “While there are women who are happy with the incremental change that has been made in the advertising industry, women of my generation are a bit more impatient. It is time not only for the men but also for the women in the advertising industry to step up. This is a very important move, and I believe that there is a long journey to be undertaken to turn the thinking but it’s required now. Work in this area must move with more and more speed and organisations like ASCI should lead this, the action beginning with its member base”

    She also pointed out how we just end up blaming and boycotting actors who are playing the sexiest roles instead of lashing out at each stakeholder included in the production of a particular advertisement. Irani feels that the real change will only come when each stakeholder will take the responsibility to bridge the gender gap.

    ASCI chairman Subhash Kamath added, “The new guidelines were created after extensive consultation with many partners- both from industry, as well as civil society organisations, including the Unstereotype Alliance and UNICEF. These guidelines are a big step forward in strengthening ASCI’s agenda to shape a more responsible and progressive narrative. We are grateful to the government and Shrimati Smriti Irani for supporting these guidelines, and to the many partners who have been with us on this journey.”

    Social activist and writer Ranjana Kumari reiterated that such guidelines are an attempt to start a discussion and debate around subtle messaging that may go unnoticed. “It is also important to push for laws that will appropriately penalise offenders,” she added.

    ASCI’s Guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes in advertising are as follows:

        1. ASCI will consider an ad’s likely impact when taken as a whole and in context.
        2. ASCI will consider stereotypes from the perspective of the group of individuals being stereotyped.
        3. The use of humour or banter is not likely to overcome the underlying issue of such harmful stereotypes.
        4. The guidelines do not intend to prevent ads from featuring:
            a. glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles;
            b. one gender only, including in advertisements for products developed for and aimed at a particular gender;
            c. gender stereotypes as a means to challenge their harmful effects.

    Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or widespread offence.

       1.  While advertisements may feature people undertaking gender-stereotypical roles e.g., a woman cleaning the house or a man going to an office, or displaying gender-stereotypical characteristics, or for, e.g., a man being assertive or a woman being sensitive to others’ needs, they must not suggest that stereotypical roles or characteristics are:

    •  always uniquely associated with a particular gender;
    •  the only options available to a particular gender; or
    •  never carried out or displayed by another gender(s).

    1.1 Advertisements that are aimed at / depict children may target and feature a specific gender but should not convey that a particular children’s product, pursuit, behaviour, or activity, including choice of play or career, is inappropriate for one or another gender(s). For example, ads suggesting that a boy’s stereotypical personality should be “daring” or that a girl’s stereotypical personality should be “caring”, or someone chiding a boy playing with dolls or girls from jumping around because it is not the typical activity associated with the gender, are likely to be problematic.

    2. While advertisements may feature glamorous and attractive people, they must not suggest that an individual’s happiness or emotional wellbeing depends on conforming to these idealised gender-stereotypical body shapes or physical features.   

    3. Advertisements should not mock people for not conforming to gender stereotypes, their sexual orientation or gender identity, including in a context that is intended to be humorous, hyperbolic or exaggerated. For example, an ad may not belittle a man for carrying out stereotypically female roles or tasks or make fun of a same-sex relationship.

    4. Advertisements should not reinforce unrealistic and undesirable gender ideals or expectations. For example, an advertisement must not depict a man with his feet up and family members creating a mess around a home, while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess, or a woman overly grateful for the man helping her in everyday chores. Similarly, a woman returning from work may not be shown as solely responsible for doing household duties while others around her are at leisure.

    5. An advertisement may not suggest that a person fails to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g., a man’s inability to change nappies; or a woman’s inability to park a car. In categories that usually target a particular gender, care must be taken to not depict condescension towards any other gender or show them as incapable of understanding the product or unable to make decisions. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these stereotypes as a means to challenge them.

    6. Where an advertisement features a person with a physique or physical characteristics that do not match an ideal stereotype associated with their gender, the advertisement should not imply that their physique or physical characteristics are a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic, social or professional lives. For example, an ad may not suggest that a man who is short, a woman who is dark, or any individual who is overweight has difficulty finding a job or a partner due to this aspect of their physique.

    7. Advertisements should not indulge in the sexual objectification of characters of any gender or depict people in a sexualised and objectified way for titillating viewers. This would include the use of language or visual treatments in contexts wholly irrelevant to the product. For example, an online takeaway service featuring an image of a woman wearing lingerie lying back in a provocative pose behind various fast-food items would be considered problematic. Even though the image may not be sexually explicit, by using a suggestive image of a woman that bears no relevance to the advertised product, the ad would be considered objectifying women by presenting them as sexual objects, and therefore is a gender stereotype that is likely to cause harm.

    8. No gender should be encouraged to exert domination or authority over the other(s) by means of overt or implied threats, actual force or through the use of demeaning language or tone. Advertisements cannot provoke or trivialise violence (physical or emotional), unlawful or anti-social behaviour based on gender. Additionally, advertisements should not encourage or normalise voyeurism, eve-teasing, stalking, emotional or physical harassment or any similar offences. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these depictions as a means to challenge them.

  • Layer’r Shot ‘apologises’ for offensive ads, invites further flak online

    Layer’r Shot ‘apologises’ for offensive ads, invites further flak online

    Mumbai: Following a social media backlash over its controversial deo ads, and after being called out by the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), the Layer’r Shot brand issued a clarification statement, including an apology on Monday.

    The statement, however, judging by the responses it received on social media, appears to have done little to quell the outrage surrounding the brand’s films. If anything, it only seems to have fanned the flames of netizen’s outrage even further.

    Here’s the statement from the brand:

     

     

    The statement, while referencing the two recent advertisements from the brand on broadcasting platforms, informs everyone that the brand “aired the advertisements only after due and mandatory approvals.”

    It further added that it never intended to “hurt anyone’s sentiments or feelings or outrage any women’s modesty or promote any sort of culture, as wrongly perceived by some.”

    “However, we sincerely apologise for the advertisements that consequently caused rage amongst individuals & several communities and beg their pardon.” also read the letter, while adding that it has voluntarily informed all its media partners to stop the telecast/ broadcasting of both the TV advertisements from 4 June 2022.

    It may be noted that on the same day (4 June), the MIB had written to social media platforms -Twitter and YouTube to remove all instances of the two “inappropriate & derogatory” ads with immediate effect. The TV channel on which it appeared had already pulled it down on its directions, the ministry had tweeted

    The internet was scathing in its response to what several netizens termed as a poor and even fake attempt at apology. Most of the users took exception to the choice of words used in the apology, specifically the words “wrongly perceived” with regards to people’s perception of the offending ads.

    It wasn’t wrongly perceived, wrote a user, continuing: “It was perceived exactly the way you meant it to be perceived. Don’t try to pretend like you weren’t demeaning women and implying sexual assault in your ads. It was your whole hook.”

     

     

    Not wrongly perceived. What was the story, and what was the implied meaning? Why did the female lead expression change? Pls can you reveal.. @layerr_shot so we can be sure that it was wrongly perceived.

     

     

    Another user-determined: “This is not an apology. You know what you did. You know why you did it.”

    Yet another fumed at the alleged audacity of the brand to term the public’s response as wrongly perceived, further adding: It’s also kinda sickening that it went through several people who found it to be okay.

    A Twitterati called out the brand’s marketing department and corporate communication team, stating that they ought to be “case studies on how to spend money to earn infamy.”

    Accusing the brand to be still in denial of its wrongdoing, an apology with a comment of how the viewers “Wrongly perceived it.. Is not an apology.” And another added, “You need to apologise for this apology too!”

    “Pretty bad ad. The agency partners, brand team, approval team and conceptualization teams, are all at fault. A fake apology like this won’t help!” schooled another user.

     

     

    Another netizen was outraged against the brand for its attempt to blame the audience. “This reflects on the toxicity of the unevolved brains behind this ad. They are blaming the audience. Every script has an insight behind it; the girls’ disgusted face (reaction) when the group of boys say those uncouth words is a clear indication that u knew!,” she wrote.

    Some were severe in their indictment of the brand’s attempt at clarification, writing: Really? This is an apology? Didn’t the story in the advertisement cause rage among people in the meeting room when the advertisement was pitched. The ad has gangrape culture on full display and your product henceforth will smell like rape on the users. Shut it down.

     

     

    For the unversed, the outrage is against two recent ads promoting the Layer’r Shot brand’s deo. The ads can be viewed here:

     

     

    The first one of the offending ads features a couple getting intimate in a bedroom. Four of the guy’s friends barge into the room, sneering at the couple and asking a seemingly loaded and crude question. After a few moments of suspense, wherein the girl is seen visibly getting alarmed at what the guys’ true intentions are, the ad reveals that the friends were simply asking if they can use the Shot deo kept in the room!

     

     

    The second ad plays out along similar lines, where the four men are showcased indulging in an animated conversation at a supermarket. A woman is shown in the forefront, while they discuss who will take the “shot” since there are four of them and just one of “it”. Again, the ad plays on the fear factor of the woman, as she looks back in alarm at the four men, only to find that they are talking about the single bottle of the Shot deo left in the store, while the ad makes it look as if they are talking about the woman.

    Earlier, while referencing the action taken on the ads, ASCI CEO & secretary general Manisha Kapoor told Indian Television that: “An ad goes through many layers of discussions and approvals, and it is very disappointing that such ads were not weeded out.”

    Everyone in the ecosystem has a role to play, including the advertiser, agency, production partners, and endorsers, she further added.

    The ads, however Kapoor clarified, are not conceptualised by Triton Communications as several publications wrongly stated initially. In fact, the advertisements are an in-house creation.

    The ministerial action came after several netizens flagged the offensive video commercials, accusing them of promoting rape culture and trivialising sexual violence against women, and being plain creepy. 

    The advertising self-regulatory body, ASCI also suspended the ads after finding them to be in serious breach of its code and against the public interest.

  • It’s very disappointing that this wasn’t caught before going live: ASCI CEO on suspended Layer’r Shot’s ad

    It’s very disappointing that this wasn’t caught before going live: ASCI CEO on suspended Layer’r Shot’s ad

    Mumbai: Deodorant ads have not exactly been known to propagate gender sensitivity values. However, two recent controversial advertisements from deo brand Layer’r Shot probably take the cake in offending gender sensibilities. The latest ad film from the brand raised a stink on social media with several netizens flagging the commercials, accusing them of promoting rape culture, trivialising sexual violence against women, and being plain creepy. So much so that even the MIB (ministry of information and broadcasting) sat up and took notice.

    The ministry on Saturday wrote to social media platforms, Twitter and YouTube to remove the offending video commercials of the deo brand for their alleged obscene content.

    The move came after the advertising self-regulatory body, Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) found the ads to be in serious breach of its code and against the public interest, and ordered its suspension.

    Following the ministry’s action, the channel Sony ten 1, which originally aired the ad during a sports telecast, has pulled it down.

    Coming right on the back of the Asci updating its code to prevent new areas of possible discrimination or derision, the council was alerted to the offending ad for the deodorant product on the morning of 3 June 2022, ASCI CEO & secretary general Manisha Kapoor told IndianTelevision.com. After seeing the ad, which was in serious violation of Chapter II of the ASCI code against offensive advertising, the council immediately invoked a special process called “Suspended Pending Investigation (SPI)”.

    On the same day, the industry body informed the advertiser of the decision to suspend the advertising and invited the advertiser’s response, which would be tabled before the Consumer Complaints Council in the coming days, Kapoor added.

    The SPI, Kapoor informed, is invoked, in exceptional circumstances, when it appears prima facie that an advertisement is in serious breach of the ASCI code and its continued transmission on any medium causes public harm, injury, or its continuation is against the public interest. In which case, the company would, pending investigation, forthwith direct the advertiser/the advertising agency/the media buying agency and the media concerned to suspend the advertisement with immediate effect.

    The first of the ads features a couple getting intimate in a bedroom. Four of the guy’s friends barge into the room, sneer at the couple and ask a seemingly loaded and crude question. After a few moments of suspense, wherein the girl is seen visibly getting alarmed at what the guys’ true intentions are, the ad reveals that the friends were simply asking if they can use the Shot deo kept in the room!

    Layer’r shot deo ad #1

     

     

    The second ad plays out along similar lines, where the four men are showcased indulging in an animated conversation at a supermarket. A woman is shown in the forefront, while they discuss who will take the “shot” since there are four of them and just one of “it”. Again, the ad plays on the fear factor of the woman, as she looks back in alarm at the four men, only to find that they are talking about the single bottle of the Shot deo left in the store, while the ad makes it look as if they are talking about her.

    Layer’r shot deo ad #2

     

     

    Needless to add, such casual propagation of sexual violence is alarming and completely unacceptable in a country like ours, which’s already reeling under the problem, as was pointed out by several netizens.

    Does the ad industry watchdog need to be more proactive in weeding out such ‘bad apples’ before they hit our screens, we ask Kapoor.

    She responds that everyone in the ecosystem has a role to play, including the advertiser, agency, production partners, and endorsers. “An ad goes through many layers of discussions and approvals, and it is very disappointing that such ads were not weeded out,” Kapoor said.

    Adding that ASCI takes action on already-released ads, she points out, “We do offer a pre-production advisory service which responsible advertisers can use in order to ensure that their ad does not have objectionable or misleading content. Due diligence done can prevent this sort of incident from being repeated.”

    Kapoor also noted that the channel has stopped airing the ad after the intervention of ASCI and the MIB. “We expect the ad being played on YouTube to be pulled down shortly.”

    Layer’r Shot’s mother company Adjavis Venture was incorporated in 2013. Its current portfolio includes body deodorants, body spray and perfumes.

    The same brand had released a ‘woke’ commercial in 2018, featuring actor Varun Dhawan. Which is in stark contrast to, and seems to go completely against the grain of its own messaging propagated by its recent ads. The slogan for the earlier ad went (believe it or not!): ‘Gandi soch ki badbu no more, soch ho khushbudar’ in regards to misogynistic, petty and shallow thoughts of people. The creative was credited to Triton Communications agency.

    Watch the 2018 Varun Dhawan ad here:

    The latest set of offending ads, however, are not conceptualised by Triton, Kapoor clarified. “To the best of our knowledge this is an in-house ad,” she added.

    Well, going from its latest creatives, it looks like the brand could do with a dose of its own product for some “khushbudaar soch”, even as it is in dire need of some fresh ideas to remove the stink kicked up by its recent ads.

  • Layer’r Shot deo ads accused of inappropriate content; MIB, ASCI take action

    Layer’r Shot deo ads accused of inappropriate content; MIB, ASCI take action

    MUMBAI: The ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) on Saturday wrote to social media platforms -Twitter and YouTube to remove two recent controversial advertisements from deo brand Layer’r Shot for their alleged obscene content. The move came after several netizens flagged the offending video commercials, accusing them of ‘promoting rape culture’ and trivialising sexual violence against women, and of being plain ‘creepy’.

    The advertising self-regulatory body, ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) also suspended the ads after finding it to be in “serious breach of its code and against the public interest”.

    The ministry wrote to social media platforms – Twitter and YouTube to remove the offending video commercials of the deo brand for their alleged obscene content. The move came after ASCI found the ads violative of its advertisement codes.

    “An inappropriate & derogatory advertisement of deodorant is circulating on social media. The I&B ministry has asked Twitter & YouTube to immediately pull down all instances of this ad. The TV channel on which it appeared has already pulled it down on directions of the ministry,” the ministry tweeted.

    The ministry said the ads violate Rule 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.

    The emails called the attention of the social media platforms to “certain videos which appear to be an advertisement of a company, and are being posted by several users on the intermediary platform Twitter” and the “video titled “Layerr shot Mall 15 Opt2 Hindi Sub HD” published” on 3 June.

    Following the ministry’s action, the channel Sony Ten 1 that originally aired the ad during a sports telecast has pulled it down.

    Coming right on the back of the ASCI updating its code to prevent new areas of possible discrimination or derision, the council was alerted to the offending ad for the deodorant product, on the morning of 3 June 2022, ASCI’s CEO Manisha Kapoor told Indiantelevision.com. After seeing the ad, which was in serious violation of Chapter II of the ASCI Code against offensive advertising, ASCI immediately invoked a special process called “Suspended Pending Investigation” (SPI).

    The body also wrote to the advertiser on the same day, informing them of the decision to suspend the advertising, and invited the advertiser’s response which would be tabled before the Consumer Complaints Council in the coming days, Kapoor further added.  

    One of the offending ads features a couple getting intimate in a bedroom when four of the guy’s friends barge into the room. They sneeringly ask the guy a seemingly loaded, crude question. After a few moments of suspense, wherein the girl is seen visibly getting alarmed at what the guys’ true intentions are, the ad reveals that the friends were just asking if they can use the Shot deo kept in the room!

    Layerr Shot deo ad #1:

    The second ad plays out along similar lines, where the four men are showcased indulging in an animated conversation at a supermarket. A woman is shown in the forefront, while they discuss who will take the “shot” since there are four of them and just one of “it”. Again, the ad plays on the fear factor of the woman, as she looks back in alarm at the four men, only to find that they are talking about the single bottle of the Shot deo left in the store, while she thinks they are talking about her.

    Layerr Shot deo ad #2 :

    Several users on Twitter called out the brand for being plain creepy and suggestive of sexual violence against women.

    “How does this kind of ads get approved, sick and outright disgusting. Is @layerr_shot full of perverts?” wrote one user.

    “Whoever ideated, wrote, produced, acted in and approved the new Layer’r Shot ads, shame on each one of you,” wrote another netizen.

    “@layerr_shot pull these ads. They perpetuate rape culture. Sony Liv pls stop broadcasting these #Layershot ads,” another Twitter user said.

    Another user wrote, “There have to be some regulations for ads man. That Shot deo ad is nothing short of disgusting. Even though I knew it was an ad and it wouldn’t happen. The fear for a second I felt was real. Imagine making an ad on the fears of millions of women,”

    “There have to be some regulations for ads man. That Shot deo ad is nothing short of disgusting. Even though I knew it was an ad and it wouldn’t happen. The fear for a second I felt was real. Imagine making an ad on the fears of millions of women! WTF!”, yet another tweeted.