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."