DGHS warns IPL on surrogate ads, but will the crackdown be enough?

DGHS also instructed that there be no "sale of tobacco/alcohol products in all affiliated events and sports facilities."

In a letter earlier this week to India Premier League (IPL) Chairman Arun Singh Dhumal, Director General of Health Services (DGHS) Atul Goel made many a telling point.

 

He urged Mr Dhumal to ensure that cricketers do not, directly or indirectly, engage in any form of surrogate advertising for tobacco or alcohol. The director general wrote, “IPL should strictly implement the regulations banning all forms of tobacco/alcohol advertising, including surrogate advertisements, within the stadium premises where the games and related IPL games/events are held as well as during telecast sessions on national television.”

 

He also instructed that there be no “sale of tobacco/alcohol products in all affiliated events and sports facilities.” Further stringency was imposed by saying, “Discourage promotion of sportspersons (including commentators) who directly or indirectly endorse products directly or indirectly linked to alcohol or tobacco.”

 

The director general’s letter to the IPL chief is music to my ears. For the past 7–8 years, I have been the advertising industry’s lone (and often lonely) crusader against surrogate advertising. I was jeered at and laughed at. Many in the industry questioned why I was taking up cudgels against the powerful and well-entrenched tobacco and liquor lobbies. What did I have to gain? I ignored the taunts and sneers and persisted in my efforts to get the Advertising Standards Council of India (Asci), the industry watchdog, to take action against those flouting the law of the land.

 

I was also in touch with multiple secretaries in the government, particularly in Consumer Affairs. I repeatedly reached out to the  Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Censor Board and appealed to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the official broadcaster. But, honestly, very little materialised.

 

I have written open letters in the past to Asci Chairpersons Abanti Sankaranarayanan, Subhash Kamath, and N S Rajan on the issue of surrogate advertising of alcohol. I repeatedly pointed out to Asci that The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, Rule 7(2)(viii) clearly prohibits the direct or indirect promotion and advertisement of cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor, or other intoxicants.

 

The rule also specifies that advertisements must not use particular colours, layouts, or presentations associated with these prohibited products.

 

Past experience, however, shows that liquor brands have long disguised themselves as water, soda, and bar accessories. As they became more innovative and creative, alcohol was even peddled as books, 0.0 per cent variants, ale, AI-driven fan experiences, and more—flimsy surrogates designed to circumvent the law.

 

Because of my untiring crusade to bring erring brands to book on usage of false surrogates, Asci finally took action in January 2021. Following the liquor brand extension ads that appeared during the IPL on television and OTT platforms, Asci took up 14 complaints. In two cases, the advertisers apparently agreed to withdraw the advertisements immediately. The other 12 cases were taken to Asci’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) and issued notices. The following year was a bit quieter on the surrogates front. But over the past two years, the masquerading is back in full swing.

 

What I am intrigued about is why the DGHS has chosen to write to the IPL Chairman? That too, he has stressed in his letter that India is experiencing a significant burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) — cardiovascular, cancer, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension etc, which account for more than 70 per cent of annual deaths. Tobacco and alcohol use, he said, are key risk factors for NCDs. Honestly, the DGHS did not need to explain all these usage effects to Mr Dhumal. The law prohibits flimsy and false surrogates and the IPL needs to ensure that the law is adhered to. Why is a lengthy explanation by the DGHS warranted or needed on NCDs?

 

While one appreciates the DGHS’s initiative (at least someone in the government has acted suo moto), one still wonders why the information & broadcasting ministry has never stepped in to question broadcasters on surrogate ads. Also, why has the Consumer Affairs department shown little interest in curbing blatantly false surrogates?

 

It would also not be inappropriate perhaps to ask if the DGHS’ missive is only aimed at the IPL. Does this mean that liquor and alcohol surrogates can continue on other channels and in other media? These brands are known to exploit all such loopholes that are left open.

 

Will IPL comply? Most likely, yes. The DGHS mentions telecasts on national television, so the broadcaster will have to toe the line. However, OTT is not mentioned in the letter—does that mean surrogates will be allowed there? Perhaps, it would be nice if the DGHS clarified.

 

The author is chairman of Rediffusion