[Intl-tobacco] Nigeria: debate over ad ban

[Robert Weissman]

Tobacco smoke engulfs advertising scene

by John Ajayi
NIGERIA;
Source: Lagos Comet (ng), 2002-01-12LEGAL dimension, which the
proposed ban on the advertisement of tobacco products has assumed,
will for a while pollute the advertising scene with a feud as odious
as that of tobacco smoke, writes John Ajayi

Latest developments in the Nigerian advertising landscape on the
vexed issue of a ban on tobacco advertisement will surely be of
great interest to students of drama and the literary inclined. To be
exact, the serious issue of tobacco and its health implications has
been subject of theatrics-intriguing in plot and amusing in
dramatisation.

It all started when August last year, Chief Olu Falomo, chairman of
Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria, (APCON), issued a
statement in Abuja regarding APCON’s decision on the advertising of
tobacco products in the country.

Falomo, a veteran adman and managing director of Forum Advertising
told a well attended gathering of newsmen that the governing council
has examined current and long term challenges and notes that:

• industry collective is weak and/or fragmented, which makes common
approaches and co-ordinated representation almost non-existent.

• It is imperative that APCON, as a government regulatory agency
should:

• Respond to the overwhelming evidence, globally, that tobacco is
hazardous to health;

• Adopt a more pro-active  stance in the marketing  communications
industry to enhance its perception by the government and public;

• Show objectivity in all its actions within the industry,
especially as they  affect the sectoral groups, by constantly
improving levels of understanding of its  viewpoints and positions,
and

• Recognise the need for existing regulations to be constantly
re-assessed but at the same time ensuring  that emerging  new media
and practice are not stifled by over-regulation;

• Consumer organisations and other interest groups, including
politicians, are increasingly showing concern on the promotion of
certain categories of products like tobacco and alcohol. There is
need, therefore, that industry viewpoint is heard. That initiative
should include the special care taken in putting together industry
wide guidelines for our practice being highlighted and a contact
lobby group to the legislative and of government to be set upon an
on-going basis.

Failure to do this could result in more strict legislations or
administrative instructions.

APCON, in its regulatory role, affirms that public representation
and self-regulation are impossible to separate. It is by joining
forces that we (APCON) can best develop, promote and protect
commercial freedom and expression of all shades of opinion. In view
of this APCON pronounced that:

• Advertising/promotion of tobacco products in print
(newspaper/magazine) is restricted to inside covers and run-of press
inside pages.

• No tobacco advertising shall be carried on the outside covers of
magazines or newspapers;

• No colour advert will be allowed in the print media

• No tobacco advertisement shall be carried in publication targeted
at children.

• Whereas the advertising/promotion of tobacco products is allowed
on radio, the timing restrictions (vide section 4.3.19 of the code
of advertising practice, 2nd edition, 1998) will remain in force and
appropriate action to stem the rash of edicts/bills at various
stages of reading in our legislative houses has become imperative.
Continuing contact with all relevant groups has been initiated and
will continue.

APCON reasoned that tobacco products, for reasons beyond the
restriction, that the health hazards of tobacco consumption have
been so articulated in the country and elsewhere that current bills,
if allowed to be passed in their existing forms, will not only
undermine APCON’s relevance but also go against the principle of
sensible legislation, especially along the times of practices in
larger sections of the global market.

As a result, the council said it has decided on the following
pre-emptive control measures (followed by appropriate contact) with
the legislative house to halt the blanket bans being proposed).

• Advertising or promotion of tobacco products on television, home
videos and outdoor hoardings are banned with effect from January 1,
2002.

• With effect from January 1, 2002 no pitch panel display of tobacco
products (brand or pack) shall be allowed in sporting arenas or
stadium and this directive shall be rigorously enforced.

Where carnivals or events are organised in support of tobacco brands
(musical or in any other guise), the branded activities remain
restricted to the arena for the event and this would be without
television live coverage or recordings;

• Organisers/promoters have the responsibility to ensure that all
participants are above 18 years;

• The practice where on air, presenters engage in brand hype will
not be allowed.

• Corporate sponsorship of events, including sporting events, by
tobacco companies is allowed, but on no account should brands or
packs be featured in opening/closing credits. Spots or logo flashes
product-in-use exposure is also prohibited.

Shortly after the Abuja pronouncements by APCON, the vice president
of Outdoor Advertising Association of Nigeria, OAAN, Chief Ipoola
Ahmed Omisore in conjunction with other executive members of the
association summoned a press conference at the Oyetola Idowu
headquarter of the outdoor body.

At the well attended news event, OAAN kicked against APCON’s
pronouncements, saying that although the motive was right, the
procedure and modalities for executing the ban on tobacco
advertisement in the print, billboard hoardings, and electronics was
wrong.

In objecting to APCON’s decision as announced by Falomo, OAAN vice
president identified the following as basis for its objection. These
are:

• "The failure to tarry awhile and carry along members of OAAN, who
are major stakeholders  and the most responsive  sectoral body
within the APCON set up;

• OAAN representative attends meeting before endorsing the report of
the Ad-Hoc Committee despite the fact that our (OAAN) president
wrote to indicate his inability to attend the said meeting;

• The failure to ensure that OAAN was even represented on the ad hoc
committee that looked at the review of the previous control right
from the on set, so no input was sorted from OAAN, a major
stakeholders;

The failure to ensure that such ban of advertisement in the outdoor
medium is staggered for a period of 3-5 years (if the ban is
unavoidable) in such a way that outdoor advertising could be phased
out gradually to protect our investments and even give room to
educate consumers on dangers of smoking; and

• The failure of APCON to take into consideration that in outdoor
advertising business, contracts or media bookings are made by our
(OAAN) clients/agencies on a minimum of 12 months or yearly basis.
How come the ban is to be effective 1st January 2002 i.e. in 5
months time? Who is going to bear the brunt of the breach of
contract litigation? Is APCON ready to be joined as co-defendant in
likely suits that would emanate?

Consequently therefore, OAAN, the umbrella body for outdoor
advertising practitioners insist there was no justification for the
ban almost immediately. Although Omisore said his group was quite
aware of global outcry against tobacco and smoking and no one is
grudging against plans to ban tobacco advertising in the long run.
Nevertheless, he expressed displeasure at "an abrupt and sudden
decision to wipe out a N2 billion business (outdoor, media and
production) from the current dormant Nigerian economy.

The outdoor advertising chieftain reasoned that such a loss of
revenue, giving a 5-months notice would lead to collapse of
business, loss of jobs, loss and of revenue to local governments
etc.

The outdoor advertising group does not believe stopping tobacco
advertising would stop tobacco consumption as it believes that the
consumption would continue as long as the act remains a social
habit. In view of these, OAAN appealed for a 6-year gradual
withdrawal  plan for the advertisements of tobacco on billboards.
Therefore, rather than effecting the ban January 1, 2002, OAAN
suggested that the ban be delayed till January 1t, 2006!

The association backed up its suggestion with a protest letter to
APCON on the need for the regulatory body to protect the interest of
its members (OAAN). While all these were going on, Newspapers
Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) and Broadcasting
Organisation of Nigeria (BON) did not bother to get involve in the
controversy. Even though the proposed ban would affect their
business, the two bodies kept mute. However, the Association of
Advertising Practitioners of Nigeria (AAPN) nevertheless took a
position on the issue.

The association in a communiqué issued at the end of 4th heads of
agencies summit and extra ordinary general meeting held at Gateway
Hotel, Abeokuta November last year objected to APCON’s immediate
action on tobacco advertisement.

The summit suggested that:

• tobacco advertising should remain with some moderations as
suggested below:

• tobacco advertising concepts should not be aspirational or played
around success or celebrities;

• as much as possible, tobacco advertising creative should be more
abstract.

• the use of outdoor hoardings should remain, but the ad materials
should be in black and white with no product display or product in
use.

• use of lighted billboards should be discouraged

• alternatively, the enforcement of the ban should be extended  by
one year (January 1, 2002 — January 1, 2003) to allow:

• All pre-booked ad to run fully

• All newly invested money to be fully expended

• All investors recoup their investment

Based on this cacophonous views, APCON, in its wisdom set up a
12-man committee to look into the various positions canvassed by the
major stakeholders. The committee comprising all sectors in the
advertising business such as the Advertisers Association of Nigeria,
ADVAN, BON, NPAN, OAAN, AAPN and APCON representative was mandated
to review the earlier position of APCON and offer new advise if
needs be.

However, at the committee’s meeting held December last year at APCON
House, Iganmu Lagos, the protagonists of ban extension on tobacco
advertisement lost out? The committee comprising respectable
advertising men and women voted eleven against one i.e. eleven
people in the committee voted for APCON’s ban on tobacco
advertisement while the only dissenting voice came from OAAN. In
other words, AAPN, which had earlier objected to the date, saw the
need to follow APCON on the issue believed to be an acid test for
the embattled regulatory agency.

The AAPN’s final support for APCON, an industry source told The
Comet was hinged on objective assessment of global campaign against
tobacco consumption, which is believed to have derived continued
loyalty through relentless promotions.

Tobacco antagonists and environmental pollution crusaders believe
that the multi-nationals behind the manufacture and importation of
the various brands of cigarettes have become so ingenious as to
frame tobacco as an individual and behavioural decision.

In doing this, the companies make people assume that people make
decisions in a state of vacuum, completely uninfluenced by their
environment including industry. Brand owners of Benson & Hedges,
Rothmans, ST Moritz, Dunhill, London, Malboro et al, have resorted
to strategic and insidious mix of pricing, placement and promotion.
They have been actively involved in the sponsorship and product
placement in films, sports and entertainment programmes.

A world — No Tobacco Day 2000 statement said "tobacco advertising
and sports industry projects images of smokers as fun loving and
glamorous and, most insidiously, healthy."

"Attractive images and people suggest that smoking is a powerful
tool for enhancing self-image. The illusion helps the tobacco
industry sell a product that kills, the WHO statement said.

It was gathered by The Comet through a World Health report that
tobacco companies spend as much as $6 billion a year in the United
States alone in order to entice the youth to smoke. The report said,
"tobacco companies make you believe that if you smoke, you are going
to be sexy, attractive, successful, accepted by peers, rocking and
macho cool.

"They project this image in every media — from day time movies to
night time movies, magazines and even cartoon characters,"  observed
the WHO report.  If these companies can be spending such a huge
amount in promoting tobacco in a country where there is strict
regulation, one could imagine what they (tobacco manufacturers would
do in unregulated market like Nigeria. This perhaps informed the
APCON initiative, a top AAPN official said.

Sensing that APCON has received all necessary support it requires to
embark on the ban crusade, OAAN quickly resorted to a legal action.
The result, an injunction said to have been procured by OAAN
December 24, 2001 stopping APCON from carrying out the ban with
effect from January 1, 2002.

OAAN claimed efforts to serve APCON with a copy of the injunction
failed last December because the regulatory body went on Christmas
holiday.

When The Comet visited APCON over the matter early in the week, a
top official of the council told The Comet that the council could
not be expected to be in the office at such a period when it
normally goes for Christmas break.

Besides, the APCON official said since the council resumed work
January 2, 2002, it has not seen or been presented with any court
injunction by anybody or group.

As at Monday January 7, 2002 when The Comet visited the council
secretariat, none of the officials can lay claim  to having seen a
copy of the controversial court injunction.

At the OAAN secretariat, efforts to see the administrative manager,
Mr. Bola Ajibola proved futile. However, the secretary of OAAN, Mr.
Kola Ademulegun gave a clue to the actual state of the said
injunction. Ademulegun, the executive director of Media Link
Advertising Ltd, told The Comet  that the notion that the injunction
was a ruse is incorrect as he said the court papers are with OAAN
lawyers who reside in Ogun State. He nevertheless assured  that the
papers  will be forwarded  to APCON before this weekend. The
assurance by Ademulegun over the court injunction appeared to be
timely as feelers in the industry revealed that the outdoor body may
be using the court papers to cajole the press in weeping up
sentiments against  the proposed ban. Contrary to standard practice,
none of the media reports quoted from the injunction nor mentioned 
the name of the court that gave the injunction. This does not 
indicate  that the story is being cooked-up, but only subjects the
veracity of  the purported action to undue controversies. APCON has
insisted that in case  there exist an injunction stopping it from
the ban exercise, it will have no option  than to obey the law. This
it plans to do, because the body believes all its steps were aimed
at public  good.

Until the regulatory body is served with a copy of the injunction
and the court speeds up hearing on the issue, the smoke being
emitted through the purported ban on tobacco advertisement will
continue to engulf the whole industry.