Advertising ethics, self regulation and industry concerns

Advertising ethics, self regulation and industry concerns

By S. Vaidyanathan

JAKARTA (JP): Advertising ethics in Indonesia are set forth in
the Tata Krama dan Tata Cara Periklanan Indonesia, or Guidelines
on Ethics and Methods for the Indonesian Advertising Sector. This
code has been in force since 1981. The Commission on the
Indonesian Advertising Code of Ethics is charged with the
responsibility of arbitrating and advising on all matters
connected with the implementation of the code.

The Commission's members represent the current seven
advertising associations: PPPI (advertising agencies), ASPINDO
(advertisers), Yayasan TVRI (television), SPS (print media),
PRSSNI (radio), GPBSI (cinema) and AMLI (outdoor advertising and
billboards). PPPI is currently chairing the commission. The code
of ethics, taken together with the code of conduct, forms the
basis for the settlement of disputes between affected parties.

The code is not law. As its name indicates, it is a set of
guidelines only. Agency heads talk about a self-regulatory
mechanism also being in place, which guides them in matters of
immediacy; corporate advertisers are usually governed by their
own corporate ethics which preempt any wrong-doing; and media
owners as the final judges are keenly sensitive to criticism.

The need for ethical considerations in advertising is largely
dictated by the need to have an even playing ground for all the
players, including consumers. Above all, it also stems from
wanting to be responsible to the general public.

Code and practice

In practice, many advertisers and agencies are broadly guided
by their own feelings of right and wrong, and by what they
perceive as "doing the right thing by the consumer". Some others
speak of the cultural background that they come from as
influencing their decisions.

On cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, the code does not
impose an outright ban. Rather, it is restrictive. It states that
advertisements for the two products should not influence or
encourage the public to begin smoking or consuming alcohol.
Officially, TV does not accept cigarette or alcohol
advertisements. However, in actuality, the commercial TV channels
do. But they refrain from using words such as "kretek" or
"cigarette" or from showing people smoking or drinking.

This is a compromise of sorts. On servicing clients from these
two industries, each ad agency has its own view. Nuradi of
InterVista, known to be a stickler in matters of ethics, is known
to have refused to advertise cigarettes products, even while
continuing to be a smoker himself. In an interview with Jakarta-
Jakarta in September 1992 he said, " The agency is not only
responsible to its clients, it is responsible to the public."
Karmadi of Matari draws the line where alcohol is concerned.
However, he distinguishes between beer and other alcoholic
beverages.

In the context of the Calvin Klein scandal on the use of
children in provocative ads, many agency heads agree that such a
thing would never happen in Indonesia because it is simply not in
the culture of its people. However, while continuing to use
children in ads, especially where they are the target group, they
agree that children should not be exploited and should be used
only if appropriate. Indra Abidin of Fortune Indonesia says that
ads should refrain from exploiting their immaturity.

Comparative advertising, although a relatively new concept, is
present in varying degrees in some parts of the world. Pepsi-Cola
and rival Coca-Cola are known to indulge in it in the United
States. Unilever and Proctor & Gamble are known to have engaged
in such an exercise in the United Kingdom last year. However, the
code does not consider direct comparison a hallmark of good
advertising and the industry in Indonesia desists from doing so.

On the use of language in advertising, Bahasa Indonesia is the
industry consensus. It is hoped that effective 1996, all
advertising materials will be in the Indonesian language.

This is an example of self-regulation. As a reflection of this
understanding, property developers as a category of advertisers
have begun implementing changes in property names.

As important as larger ethical considerations, are the
specific concerns that affect the day-to-day running of the
agencies. For instance, many agencies are aware of the constant
threat posed by unscrupulous rivals, who are waiting in the wings
to entice their clients. This, they feel, is unethical too. The
established agencies are all too aware of this danger and do
their best to help each other with information they may have
about such moves.

Under-cutting by some small agencies is also viewed as a major
problem. The apparent ease with which agencies proliferate is
another matter for concern expressed by industry figures.

Consumer claims

A code exists on the right of the consumer to not be misled.
However, cases of claims over the negative impact of or
insufficient information in ads have been known to occur. The
October 1995 issue of Matra reports the case of a Bouraq Airlines
customer in Kalimantan. The advertisement produced for Bouraq,
for reasons of design considerations, did not mention the time
limit within which the customer had to surrender used airline
tickets in order to exchange them for a free ticket. Another case
was that of the advertisements for the developer of Pondok
Maritim Indah housing complex in Surabaya, which claimed that the
complex never flooded, when in fact, parts of it were flooded
throughout the rainy season. As many as 167 residents of the
complex, who had purchased their homes on the basis of the
information in the advertisements, sued the developer and were
granted the right to compensation by the court.

The most common way for aggrieved consumers to seek redressal
is to write to the editor of a newspaper. The government is
sensitive to consumer reaction. The Advertising Ethics Board is
also quick to act. The machinery protecting the consumer in this
manner immediately stops the campaign in the media and takes up
the matter with the agency, advertiser and all parties concerned.
The advertiser, agency and the media share the responsibility for
the misinformation in the ad. In a way, one acts as a filter for
the other, with the media being the final arbitrator. Karmadi
agrees that letters are effective in that they are read. He adds
that the non-confrontational culture of the people generally
helps to settle these disputes amicably.

Koes Pudjianto, chairman of PPPI, speaks of the spirit of
'musyawarah mufakat' or consensus, which usually governs these
matters.

There are other formal and informal groups that act as watch-
dogs over the industry. The Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia, a
consumers' protection body, represents consumer interests. The
consumer lobbying or pressure groups common in some other
countries are not present in Indonesia. Concerns are sometimes
expressed by student or religious associations, as well as
legislators.

Abidin cites an example of a cigarette ad which made use of a
child under 15 years of age. In this case, the protests came from
a religious leader.

Legislators have been most outspoken about the concern that
proper and correct Indonesian be the vehicle for advertising.

There are gray areas in the code of ethics, however, which
present difficulties. Karmadi says that at times ads use
questionable means to sell or, border on the ethical and
unethical; at other times, limits are not clearly definable.

Difficulties

In an interview with Jakarta-Jakarta, Nuradi, who is
considered the pioneer of Indonesian advertising, said that the
Advertising Ethics Board could play only a limited role due to
the lack of laws regulating advertising ethics.

Actual enforcement of the code presents practical
difficulties. Agencies are not mandated to register themselves
with the PPPI. Its current membership of 136 does not reflect the
actual number of agencies in the marketplace. This gap makes the
enforcement of the codes of ethics and conduct difficult.

Pudjianto says that as the umbrella organization for ad
agencies, PPPI is currently engaged in talks with the government
on this matter.

Not all agencies are aware of the code's existence. Abidin
says that only about 20 percent of the agencies and companies
operating in the advertising sector are aware of the code.
Consumers are also unaware of its existence. Furthermore, the
code was put together by representatives of the advertising
industry at a time when TV advertisements were banned. Karmadi
acknowledges that the code has a tendency to fall behind new
developments.

Pudjianto says that many new industry members are unaware of
the code's existence and that the commission, together with all
its members, plans to undertake a publicity campaign to inform
the people as soon as the code has been revised and updated. He
hopes to be able to do so by the end of this year.

The code states among other things that, "If and when
requested by consumers, the advertising agency, media and
advertiser should be prepared to provide explanations on any
given advertisement."

Jakarta-Jakarta reports that agency heads agree with Nuradi
that consumers must certainly have a strong say in matters of
ethics in advertising. They all feel that a law has to exist to
support this right.

Abidin says that while legislation is a serious matter, it
should not curb creativity and thus hinder client services. He
explains that in the run-up to the formulation of the code of
ethics in 1981 and again during its current revision, consumer
groups have been consulted. He urges strengthening dialog forums.

Ken Sudarto of Matari says, "Loopholes can be found in any
regulation, if one wants to, ... nothing is air-tight ... What is
important is self-regulation for the ad industry."