By Sajag Karki

''Buy two get one free”. “Surprise gifts with every purchase”. These are common taglines used by companies in Nepal to attract potential customers. Except for a handful of ads of reputed multinationals along with some local companies that actually communicate brand personality via branding, Nepali advertisements typically focus only on a specific scheme or promotion. They have nothing much to offer except to lure customers into buying the product by providing them with monetary reward or somekind of freebie. Advertising has been around just for a few decades in a developing country like Nepal. Though there has been significant development, there is lot of room for improvement to meet international standards. In this turbulent phase of progress, ethics still comes in question. Nepali media whether TV or print has been flooded with Indian ads with Nepali voiceover. Big B Amitabh Baachan can be seen endorsing more than a dozen ads at the same time. People are confused and tired of seeing the same person over and over again for most products. Due to his popularity, it is also hard to ignore his presence keeping in mind the commercial success celebrities bring about. However, there must be a match between the personality of the brand with that of the celebrity. Same celebrity endorsing multiple products can hamper the image of the product. Are promotional schemes and celebrity endorsers a good way to communicate a company’s product to its customers? Also, the use of celebrities for products that don’t suit their personality is controversial. The importance and relevance of ethics in advertising in the Nepalese context has been a debatable issue. Ethics is something that is usually not compatible with advertising in Nepal. The fact about advertising is that in most cases it is hard to sell products without offending anybody. Another harsh reality is that a single ad cannot please everybody. Such customers can go for customised products rather than standardised ones in order to fulfil their needs. Since there is always a target group of people that a company caters to, an ad cannot be made that is liked by everybody. Who is responsible for influencing young people for drinking or smoking? Is it important to be ethical while creating ads of one’s organisation or should they be more concerned with just adding value of the firm while ignoring the ethical and moral issues of advertising and business as a whole? 

The topic of ethics in advertising is such that it is never black and white. It is impossible to paint a rosy picture by just claiming yes or no to ethics. There are subtle shades of grey in which arguments from both sides are viable. Practically speaking, the direct adaptation of moral philosophy principles in marketing communication is unsuitable. However, this doesn’t mean that ethics should be completely neglected. The parameters for judging ads cannot be the same as judging the morality and ethics of society. Hence, marketing must develop its own philosophy of ethics. In the advertising world, some puffery is allowed since no company can sell anything by saying just the mere truth. A bit of dramatisation and an element of excitement (buzz) are added deliberately to give maximum mileage to the brand. Only this makes it possible for people to bear up with advertisements.

Advertisers are selective about the values and attitudes to be fostered and encouraged, promoting some while ignoring others. Ads cash in on the popular culture while targeting the younger audience. Ads encouraging dark people to use whitening creams to look fair are targeted especially to the young so that they are easily influenced. Can such advertisements that portray dark as ugly and unacceptable be called ethical or unethical? If it is unethical than what would be a better way to communicate the product’s attributes in an ethical manner? 

On the other hand, advertisers cannot completely forget ethics while delivering their creative piece. I am by no means saying that false advertising should be encouraged or that ethics should completely be neglected. The fact is that even though advertisements are verisimilitude, ethical threshold should always be maintained to depict a clean picture to the audience. A striking reality to consider is that negative words spread way faster than positive ones. It is like a wildfire that spreads so fast that it’s almost impossible to extinguish it right away. Similarly, negative opinion of the ad due to unethical content will spread in such a way that it will be almost impossible to mitigate the damage created. Only a handful of unsatisfied viewers who find some ads unethical can spread negative word of mouth to a whole lot of people around them. In no time, such ads will be called phony ultimately resulting in adverse effect on the brand equity of the advertised product. Ethics is specially of top priority while showing comparative ads as there must be sufficient evidence backing the superiority of the product against competitors. Along with ethics, rational judgment should also be used so that they do not have to face legal issues. 

No brand can be built in a jiffy. It not only takes creative heads along with deep pockets to gain a worldwide recognition of the brand but also a whole lot of time. Coke would not have been the most popular brand in the world if its advertising was not sculpted with ethical standards right from the beginning hundreds of years ago. Hence, it would not be a good idea for any company to ruin its image in no time by showing unethical ads just for the sake of money making or for cheap publicity. This kind of debate can go on and on and on. Books have been written and issues have been raised over the topic of ethics in advertising but without a tangible conclusion. To simplify this I would say that ad makers should come up with only such ads that they would accept as an audience. A little empathy towards audience and use of intuitive judgment by advertisers would probably help address this intrinsic advertising issue to an extent. 

(Karki is currently associated with KIST Bank.)