What India's advertising industry should learn from Seinfeld's speech on ads

American comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s tongue-in-cheek comment that “I love advertising because I love lying” has left the esoteric world of advertisers red-faced though it was arguably cloaked in half-humour. But then making tall claims is the calling card of the advertising fraternity as indeed it is that of politicians in democratic countries. A committee’s report must, by definition, be as dry as dust but an advertisement without embellishment bordering on the exaggeration is no advertisement.

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) tried to rein in exaggerated claims in advertisements but with little success. Its successor, the Competition Commission, has a more serious mandate—to rein in monopolistic and anti-competitive tendencies and practices. Lies, exaggerations and tall claims in advertisements come under the self-regulatory body of the advertising fraternity in India called Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). So what is the best way then to ensure that advertisements do not unduly stretch the credulity of viewers?

Celebrity advertising epitomizes lying and exaggerations in advertising more than other forms because there is often no connection between what the celebrity brings to the table and the product being endorsed. Amitabh Bachchan, the matinee idol of the yesteryears, endorses everything ranging from noodles to cement. A sporting celebrity endorsing a health drink brand or sports shoes might carry credibility but anything short of a direct connect between a celebrity’s talent and the product endorsed immediately assails the discerning as an attempt to sweep the viewers of their feet. But then celebrity advertisements are a great hit in a starry-eyed nation such as ours.

A less popular form of advertising -comparative – can nail lies but unfortunately is not widely practised in India for the fear of someday having to taste one’s own bitter medicine. But this does not detract from the intrinsic merits of comparative advertising.

There is no reason why a detergent brand should not take on its rival based purely on facts just as why a car should not take on its rival with cogent facts and irrefutable figures. While it is true that not all products/services lend themselves to comparative advertising, the lamentable fact is those lending themselves to such bold statement of facts too shy away from it perhaps for the fear of comeuppance sooner or later as well as for the fear of becoming liable to suit for disparagement by the rival brand done in by the advertisement.

Despite its limitations, comparative advertising has a lot to commend itself on. First, it applies brakes on making tall claims for the fear of the rival brand coming out with a factual counterblast puncturing the tall claims. Secondly, a rival can say with facts he is better than the best. Thirdly and more importantly a customer would be better served if he has access to comparative statement at a glance of all the features, for example of a sedan manufactured by several companies.

While it is for individual brands to decide which form of advertising is best suited for it, there is no reason why ASCI should not actively promote comparative advertising if only to shore up the faith of people in advertisements. As it is there is an advertisement fatigue engendered as much by overkill on various television channels as by the inevitable exaggerations ingrained in them. In every middle class drawing room, family members take turns to hold the remote so as to be able to press the mute button when commercial breaks start.

The alternative to comparative advertising is enlightenment with a touch of litigiousness - going to court to challenge a tall claim made by an advertisement. To be sure, the damages awarded may be punitive but not many citizens are reluctant on a corporate giant which has the resources to sap the energy of the brave citizen-litigant. Even in the litigious America people go to court in advertisement-related matters only when they suffer personal injuries due to an advertisement.