News Anchors as Products Endorsers

            Mike Enriquez, Mel Tiangco, Vicky Morales and Arnold Clavio are some of the most trusted and famous broadcasters in the country. Because of their fame and reputation, people rely on them for current news. As news presenters, the audience believes in almost everything they say. But a side-line all of them practice might be affecting their credibility.

            These broadcasters are also endorsers of products. Just like celebrities who are paid to promote certain products, these reporters are seen in television commercials and other kinds of advertisements. But as people with a reputation to keep, is endorsing products not a problem for their image?

            As these newsmen decide to become the faces of these products, whatever image this certain product may have to the public, the reporter’s image will be attached to the product’s reputation.

            What if one of these broadcasters has to report something about the products that they endorse which is in bad light? There is conflict of interest. This instance may not only affect a reporter’s credibility, but his will also have an impact to the whole program as well because of a confusion that people behind the lime light may have about the report which has to be done.

            Although there are some television stations in the country that don’t impose strict restrictions for its reporters, this should not be taken as an excuse by news presenters to not be critical of their actions. It is not easy to establish a good reputation, but once it is tarnished, trust will be hard to be regained from the public.

            2011-01955(2)

Sexy Car Advertisement

Video Ad accessible via Youtube:  Dodge Ram Funny Sexy Car TV Ad Banned Commercial

       Una, brand ng kotse ang ipino-promote nila. Pero bakit may isang seksing babae na nasa banyo at nagpapahid pa ng "lotion?" Eh kung tutuusin, wala namang koneksyon ang pagpapakita ng laman nung babae sa "commercial."

       Pangalawa, bakit hindi na lang nila ipakita 'yong mismong kotse... hindi 'yong inilagay pa sa pang-upo nung babae 'yong "logo" nung kotse.

       Pangatlo, "misleading" 'yong konsepto nung "commercial." Kung gusto nilang tangkilikin ng mga mamimili 'yong produkto nila, dapat ma-gets kaagad nung nakakapanood ng patalastas nila na kotse 'yon at hindi kung ano pa man.

       Hindi rin magandang tingnan 'yong "commercial," para kasing naoobjectify 'yong babae sa eksena. Hindi ba't dapat i-promote ang pagrerespeto sa mga kababaihan. Sa ginagawa nila parang naiiba 'yong "image" ng mga babae. Parang ine-encourage pa nila na ayos lang namang gamitin ang mga babae sa ganoong klaseng mga eksena kahit hindi naman "appropriate."

       Parang ginagamit din 'yong seksing katawan ng mga babae para tangkilikin ng mga lalaki 'yong produkto. Masyadong nakakababa sa mga babae kung gagamitin silang tila mga "sex objects."

       Paano rerespetuhin ang kababaihan kung maging sa mga ganoong klaseng ads, itinutulak silang gumawa ng mga bagay na hindi naman naaayon?

       Kung ako ang mag-iisip ng konsepto, gagamitin ko 'yong mismong kotse at ipapakita ko 'yong mga kaya nitong gawin. Bakit pa ako gagamit ng seksing babae kung pwede namang maging mabenta 'yong produkto kahit walang "involved" na tao? Kung sakali mang maglalagay ako ng "driver," pagsusuotin ko naman ng maayos na damit. Hindi naman kasi ako nagpopromote ng kahit anong bagay na nag-eencourage ng "sex" at ano pa mang "sexual desire."

2012-09820 (2)

Promoting smart TV by commodification of women?

Samsung Smart TV Commercial:

       This advertisement from Samsung (2013) showed women as an object of desire and women being flirtatious to men. The scenes (except for the last part) give the viewers a different idea about the content of the video.

        Also, the last part where they showed an old man crossing the street is a disrespect to the elderly because although it is not explicit, it suggests that he will to also go to the woman's condominium unit.

        Women are not to be presented in anyway, as objects of desire. The concept is also not suitable for a technology commercial. The commercial must be edited to give respect to women and to suit the image that Samsung has.

2012-17133 (2)

Coffee-mate, better than your mate?

            Nowadays, many commercials focus on the sexual aspect of women when presenting their products, suggesting that their product will bring consumers the sexual desire that is being presented. This form of presentation is very devaluating to women as it objectifies them as a sexual object.

              In a certain Nestle Coffee-mate Commercial, a man is shown to enjoy his coffee more while ignoring his partner who was trying very hard to “please” him. This commercial subtly suggests that the coffee produced by the using Coffee-mate will be even better than a woman, or in this case a “sexual object.

              Using the Potter Box Model, the definition formed by the producers is that the situation requires them to sell a product to the viewers. The values used by the producers are that of a professional values that focuses on maximizing their profit. The culture of the media today, in my opinion, already sees the sexual appeal of a woman to be a very effective approach in selling any product. Following this idea, the producers may have decided to use sexual appeal, but it still lacks for them since sexual appeal is already a common approach. In the end, the producers decided to present their product to be better than this “sexual appeal”. The principles that they followed is that of a utilitarian, focusing on the greatest happiness that will be brought to their company or client. In the end, their loyalty remained to their firm and decided to bring that kind of commercial, regardless of its subtle message.

              In my opinion, this commercial may be different to those which objectify women, but it is different in a worse way since it devaluates women even further. The usual concept shows that women are objects that are able to give pleasure. But the commercial worsens this concept by adding the message that women are now even disposable and can be easily replaced by other objects, in this case, the coffee and its creamer. Commercials nowadays are in a dire need to change in order to prevent the objectification of women but this commercial does the exact opposite. This brings into mind a big question. In the future, will the marginalization and objectification of women be demolished, or will media help in worsening the situation?

2012-36978 (2)

How is "Alagang Magulang" portrayed in this TVC?

TVC: Alagang Magnolia - Robot:

        This particular advertisement from 2011 showed how children are being mistreated when their parents shouted at them. It directly violate parts of the Article 3 of the ASC Code of Ethics (Standards for the Protection of Children). In a way, it normalizes the presumption that parents shout at their children.

        There are other ways of promoting a product without mistreating children in any sort. If a child who experiences such thing would see the video, he/she may feel bad about his/her self. The child may be psychologically affected.

       The contents of the video must be thoroughly examined before showing it to the public. The welfare of the children and of the parents and the bad image that will be instilled in them must be considered in the creative process of making this TV commercial.

2012-17133 (1)

Unfair Portrayal: the Controversial BIR Print Ad

            On March 2, 2014, a foul tax campaign advertisement by the Bureau of Internal Revenue appeared in a newspaper.

            In the half-paged print ad, it can be seen that a female doctor is riding piggyback on a female teacher. The ad also shows the income of the said doctor and teacher. The doctor named Marjorie Villena, earned P1, 075,080.52 and paid only P7, 424 in taxes while the teacher named Carina Santos, who earned P852, 169.48, paid P221, 694.23 in taxes. At the bottom of the ad is a message saying: "When you don’t pay your taxes, you’re a burden to those who do. Do your share. knowyourtaxes.ph."

            First, the print ad violated the Ads Standard Council Code of Ethics, Article 2 section 1 (b) where it stated that “advertisements should not be deceptive or mislead the public”. The said ad is misleading to the people who might see it because it will lead them to the conclusion that all doctors are tax cheats. “Let's say for example that there might be some truth to it, the presentation of the doctor is still unfair for it generalizes the whole population of doctors in our country.

           The ad created a negative image and employed stereotyping and shaming which is an ethical violation in advertising. If the BIR wanted to collect taxes, shaming and stereotyping is not the right way to do it especially that it is a government agency and it represents the Filipino people. It is ironic how something that should represent the Filipino people undermines its countrymen. The Bureau of Internal Revenue should have been more mindful on what they are trying to say rather than just creating a "publicity gimmick" for people to pay their taxes.

2012-34875 (1)

(Editor’s note: If the figures in the print ad were annual incomes, then doing some simple calculations will lead us to the assumed monthly income of Carina Santos, the school teacher,  at around P65,000 a month [annual income divided by 12+1 months]. Perhaps, BIR (or at least the creative geniuses behind this print ad) should also earn the ire of school teachers for misrepresenting a very basic fact about them.)

Jollibee TVC: Company Promotions as Peddlers of Hope?

Jollibee, a fast-growing Filipino fastfood chain in the country, recently came up with a promo in partnership with Ford entitled "Scratch 2 Snatch A Ford." Apart from advertising the promo, the TVC¹ also strengthens the company’s value---family.

 However the television commercial, with the intention to showcase and promote the promo, did a rather outrageous thing on the last line of the script. The last line of the TVC---habang may promo, may pag-asa---gave me a different idea of its purpose. The line implied a different concept of hope and promos. This unmindful "claim" of hope could have an impact to some struggling families by changing their outlook towards life. After watching the TVC, they might fall for the subtle message and consider promos as the answer to their daily woes. In addition, the last line was partly delivered by the child whom I bet did not have any idea that she would be a part of this distasteful yet subtle message.

I came up with the judgment that the TVC is unethical by simply putting more value in KBP’s principle of Pananagutan. Although the said principle is intended for broadcasters, it could also be applied to the ad agency of the TVC. As communication students and soon-to-be part of the industry, we should be responsible for all the things that we will make, write, or release because our name is at stake every time we “fulfill” our roles in our society.

2012-50133 (1)

At the Expense of Others: the Case of the Infamous Aegis Malaysia Viral Ad

          Aegis Malaysia, a global business process outsourcing company, was featured in an online video advertisement that discouraged foreign investors from coming to our country, saying that Malaysia is a better investment site than the Philippines.

          The video ad entitled “Aegis: Spearheading Malaysia’s ‘Developed Economy’ Drive,” listed several reasons why one shouldn’t invest in the Philippines -- inadequate infrastructure, unfriendly climate, less security, lack of government support, and the country’s location being at the Pacific Ring of Fire. Later on, the opposite of these reasons were attributed to Malaysia, suggesting that their country is the better choice.

          The 3-minute video was originally uploaded on YouTube and went viral hours after it was released.  It incited anger from both Filipino and foreign netizens, saying that the ad portrayed the country in a bad light and it was “very offensive” and “unethical.” According to reports, the ad was deleted from the website after gathering such negative feedbacks and only downloaded copies of it are now available online.

          The company, however, already issued a public apology saying, "We regret the upload of the recent video on Malaysia. The video was developed locally by an agency and uploaded in error and the contents were NOT approved by Aegis Corporate." They also added that they “apologize and regret any communication that may have inadvertently hurt any sentiments.”

          This video advertisement is a good example that illustrates violations of the Ads Standards Council (ASC) Code of Ethics. The ad agency may not be from the country and is not under the ASC but this affected the image of the Philippines.

          First, the ad violated Article I, Section 1 (Respect for Country & the Law) by belittling the country just to promote their own. It contains elements that are “injurious to the image and prestige of the Philippines and its people,” including the “faults” of the government, law, and its reinforcement.

          It also violated Article IV, Section 1. a. (Disparagement) indicating that “advertisements shall not directly or indirectly disparage, ridicule, criticize or attack…” competitors. It is clear that the country was looked down on as portrayed in the advertisement. Another violation is that of Section 1. g. which says that “advertisements shall not make any presentation that brings advertising into disrepute both as a profession and as a business activity.” This ad received comments all over the social media as “the worst advertising strategy” and some netizens also asked why advertising had come to this, stooping to the level of bashing a competitor just for promotion.

          The ad also violated Article IV Section 2 (Comparison Advertising) for not providing enough bases for claims of superiority of Malaysia over the Philippines in the aspects mentioned. Besides, there was never really a need for comparing the two countries in the first place. Malaysia can be promoted in other ways such as pointing out the good things the country can offer and simply not looking much into the negative aspects of another country for comparison.

          The Philippines has its own flaws (any other country actually has) and Malaysia may be of a better standing compared with the Philippines, but that need not to be slapped right into the Filipinos’ faces. What if investors saw this ad and cause them to really think twice of coming into the country for business? What if other countries watch this video and deem the country weak?

          Filipino people are resilient. The country may have inadequate infrastructure, unfriendly climate, less security, lack of government support, and is located at the Pacific Ring of Fire, but all of these are taken as challenges. Despite these, Filipinos continue to stand tall and the Philippines continues to grow.

          2012-33947 (1)

(Editor's note: The moral agent in this case is the ad agency that produced and uploaded the video and not Aegis Malaysia. It was also clear in the blog article that Aegis Malaysia already issued a public apology and has categorically stated that the ad was not approved. Another ethical lapse that could be tackled is the breach of confidentiality of the producer/agency in uploading an unapproved communication materials.)