Sharing responsibility
Film stars have to share responsibility of content and quality of the products they endorse that helps them rake huge amounts of cash by the hour
Kumkum Chadha
If the Indian Governments current thinking is anything to go by, chances are that celebrities may find themselves behind bars for facing the camera. Simply put, this means that film stars have to share responsibility of content and quality of the products they endorse that helps them rake huge amounts of cash by the hour. Literally. This follows the Union Government examining recommendations of a Parliamentary panel that has mooted that celebrities must answer for being the face of misleading advertisements. They would be hauled up for making unrealistic claims of products they are signed up to endorse.
If the recommendations are accepted in letter and spirit, celebrities could, apart from paying up a penalty to the tune of 50 lakhs, end up with a prison term of upto five years. In real terms this could end up celebrities closing shop and brands scouting other means to boost sales of their products.
The Parliamentary Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, in its report, went for the kill, as it were. It mooted stringent provisions to tackle misleading advertisements, as well as to fix liability on endorsers or celebrities.
In recent years, corporate social responsibility or CSR as it is known has come to occupy centre stage. Alongside celebrities, film stars and sportspersons et al, companies are also expected to play a role and ensure that the emotional bonds that they create between the consumer and celebrity must be backed by diligence rather than motivated by the sole consideration of making money.
In India, celebrity endorsement is a big thing and filmstars and cricketers are roped in to endorse a product they usually have nothing to do with in real life. Once a viewers favourite cricketer or a film star reels out lines backing a product, there are good and proven chances of it doing better than other brands whose promoters cannot afford famous faces.
Consequently, the theme of common responsibility is being weaved in to restrict and restrain purely commercial considerations in going before the camera and exaggerating the benefits of a product that may or may not meet the norms the celebrity is mindlessly advocating.
A celebrity does two things to the advantage of the manufacturer: it gets an instant connect with the consumer and lends credibility to the product. The rest is then easy.
At least it was till the Government woke up. Or there was an outrage that spilled to the streets and also went viral on social media.
Among the most talked about advertisments were the Kalyan Jewellers ad, Amrapali builders ad, and the Maggi controversy. In the last an FIR was filed against cine stars Amitabh Bachchan and Madhuri Dixit. They were pulled to court for endorsing Maggi noodles in TV advertisements against the backdrop of the manufacturers being sued for not complying with safety and quality standards.
Another Bachchan was also in the eye of a storm after featuring in a controversial jewellery advertisement. It was dubbed as racist because Aishwarya Rai, Amitabh Bachchans daughter in law, was shown reclining under a parasol held over her head by a dark skin boy presumed to be a slave. There was a public outcry and even though the product was not in question, the social connotation was. The promoters hastily withdrew the ad.
Last year, FMCG company Emami was asked by a district consumer court to pay a fine of Rs 15 lakh after a Delhi-based executive challenged the advertised claim of one its products, Fair Handsome, that it can lighten the consumers skin tone within four weeks. The young man complained that the product made no difference to his complexion. Shah Rukh Khan was endorsing the product when the complaint was filed. The company was asked by the court to withdraw the advertisement.
But it was cricketer M.S.Dhoni who bore the brunt when investors went knocking and crying foul at real estate promoters duping them.
The Indian skipper was forced to step down as the brand ambassador of real estate firm Amrapali after homebuyers trolled him about the delay in completion of the housing project. Dhoni who earns around Rs 8 crore per brand endorsement, said that the builder should deliver on the promises made to buyers. Whether it was a call of conscience of fear of the law catching up remains
debatable.
That there is a need to regulate endorsement has many takers. There is a case for weaving in a social and moral responsibility. A celebrity, irrespective of the money that comes in, can ill afford to lend his voice and image to a dubious product or brand. It is in this context that celebrities endorsing paan masala or tobacco products are being decried.
Were the government to introduce a stringent law, things would be on the mend. Overall endorsements may come down but it would provide a level playing field for products that may be good but not have the financial where withal to rope in famous faces and voices.
India may not go the China way where the law says that celebrities must try the product before advocating its uses but a law in place would do more good than harm.
In many quarters strong words like enticement have been used.
The new law, if and when it comes will start a war between the government, the corporate sector and the celebrities given that it leashes the unrestrained. It also checks unrealistic claims and forces a celebrity to look at other aspects apart from the crores in the bank. It would also push in the trust quotient rather than the money factor that currently comes into play.
As of now it is the latter that is the sole consideration and not without reason. A celebrity earns up five crores a day for an endorsement. Aamir Khan even manages seven crores as brand ambassador for giants like Titan watches , Coca Cola and Tata Sky; Shah Rukh Khan upto four crores per day endorsing Tag Heuer and toothpaste brands; Salman Khan upto five crores a day endorsing Thums Up and mobikes; Amitabh Bachchan over three crores per day endorsing Parker pens, Dairy Milk, Kalyan Jewellers among others; Akshay Kumar upto 10 cores annually for Honda India and others.
Women actors like Deepika Padukone are paid over seven crores for high end brands while Karina Kapoor half that price for endorsing shampoos and paints. Therefore a law will not be a welcome move in the game of money making.
The Government on its part will ofcourse ensure enough safe guards including taking into account the fact that celebrities have little opportunity to verify the products they are endorsing. For instance how can Shah Rukh Khan know for sure that Fair and Handsome will actually make him fair? Surely, he cannot be expected to apply the cream and see its effects before endorsing it. Therefore the China model is a complete no-no in India.
The Government is considering studying best practices around the world and see what works for India. It would, before cracking the whip, rather tread with caution.
It would opt for moderation and toning down harsh penalities. There are reservations on the jail sentence and there is a view that harsher monetary penalties should replace the prison term. It would also not make celebrities vicariously liable if something goes wrong with the product but fastens them with a legal obligation to take all precautions and act with due diligence. The proposed law is likely to spare the celebrity to be pulled to court by a consumer. The Court can only take cognizance if the complaint made by an authorized officer or an an executive wing of the government.
So it is not hell let loose: it is to tie up loose ends and ensure that the consumer is protected; the celebritys credibility not endangered and the government regulates a free for all.
The writer is a senior Indian
journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])
