Should Brand Ambassadors be held responsible for an
Unhealthy Product?
INTRODUCTION
Advertising is one of the most dynamic, cut-throat competitive industries in the world. The whole process of making a simple product – a Brand, lies on their shoulders. With multiple avenues of consumer interest, scores of companies vying for their attention, having a credible face to endorse your product, is considered as a pre-requisite for success. This is where the role of Brand Ambassadors come in.
Brand Ambassadors usually are iconic personalities from Entertainment or Sports. People love them and it becomes easy for a lay person to buy a product, if a Brand Ambassador is associated with it.
CONTROVERSY
Last year, when higher content of MSG(Monosodium Glutamate) was found in Maggi noodles. Notices were sent not only to the company but all their past and present brand ambassadors. Similarly, a popular cricketer was harassed when his association with a Real Estate Group (Amrapali) was questioned, after delayed possession of flats.
The Parliament Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has proposed a Bill, levying penalties ranging from Rs.10-50 lakhs, to 2 year jail terms for celebrities held guilty of endorsing a defected product.
Arguments for:-
- Misleading the consumers
Consumers hold celebrities in high esteem. It is this feeling that Advertising agencies exploit and make them the face of the brand. A layperson has no knowledge about the intricacies of the product. He blindly follow his idol, and is open to unforeseeable loss.
- Better Research
Many Brand Ambassadors are respected individuals of the society. Some are even decorated with Padma Awards. It is their moral responsibility, not to expose their fanbase to a substandard product. They should do better research and only when they are satisfied, they should go ahead with the endorsement.
- Celebrity Contract
Every celebrity signs a contract before endorsing a product. If a product’s quality is found to be wanting, celebrity is as equally responsible as the Company.
Arguments Against:-
- Inspect the Units
One cannot expect, celebrities to go and inspect the manufacturing units of the product nor do they have the expertise. They like any person, go with the overall reputation of the company to sign a contract.
- Mere messengers
The maxim ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’ holds apt here. Celebrities are mere messengers of a product. The final choice rests with the consumers what product we ought or not ought to buy. If we will hold them responsible, than even the shopkeepers act as a messenger- can we sue them aswell?
- Government’s Responsibility
It is the government and its regulators like FDA, TRAI etc. who should be vigilant about any fraudulent practices and not the Brand Ambassadors.
CONCLUSION
Although it is true that it will not be feasible to hold Brand Ambassadors responsible for any product gone bad, yet some sort of answerability mechanism must be established. Either prior warning should be given before the advertisement or a disclaimer on the product. Celebrities are also questioned about endorsing many social taboos like fairness creams, sugar-free syrups for better figure, breathtaking adventures after drinking a Cola. ‘With great powers comes great responsibility’ should be the motto of all brand Ambassadors.