This is one of those ads people see in media, whether print, radio or TV, that does not come across as unethical. We see advertisements like these a lot. Examples of milk brands that show ads like this are Gain and Promil. Yes, this advertisement does not have any offensive visuals and messages just as the other unethical ads we have posted in this blog. Nevertheless, are ads that degrade human dignity the only ads deserved to be considered “unethical”? Of course not.
This ad clearly conveys that a child’s development is possible through proper nutrition. Without question there is nothing wrong with that. What makes this advertisement wrong is that it may convince the viewer into thinking that milk (particularly their brand, Enfakid) is what a child needs to become successful in the future. Although this is implicitly conveyed in the ad, the ad does not seem to consider that a person’s success is not only a result of the nutrition a person gets during his formative years. A person’s success is also a result of other factors such as genes, “natural God-given” talent, practice, hard work, etc. Hence, this advertisement violated Article IV, Section 1, Number 3 of the Advertising Code of Ethics. This says, “An advertisement should avoid any possible confusion as to the identity of the advertiser or the source or identity of a product or service.”
The advertisers were very smart in choosing the endorser (Lea Salonga) for this ad to make this ad’s message clear and more believable. Lea Salonga is not only a well-known singer here in the Philippines but also abroad. She has been in several successful local and international musicals and concerts. Despite this, it was wrong of them to choose Lea Salonga as the endorser because Enfakid is a newly introduced milk product of Mead Johnson and the advertisement “claims” that Lea Salonga used the product during her early years. Knowing this and knowing that Lea is already 37 years old makes you doubt the truthfulness of their claim that her “use” of the milk helped her become successful. How could have Lea drank Enfakid when she was young when Enfakid was just released not more than 5 years ago? Not to mention, the young kid in the advertisement is not Lea Salonga but a kid called Jermaine. Moreover, didn’t Lea endorse Klim, a milk brand by Nestle, when she was young? This all shows that there is almost nothing true in the commercial. Therefore, this advertisement has also violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Advertising Code of ethics which says,
Milk advertisements should be like one of the ads aired last year by Nestle’s Nido. It was mentioned in the ad that genes and other factors help a child become intelligent and not only milk.
- Pearl
This ad clearly conveys that a child’s development is possible through proper nutrition. Without question there is nothing wrong with that. What makes this advertisement wrong is that it may convince the viewer into thinking that milk (particularly their brand, Enfakid) is what a child needs to become successful in the future. Although this is implicitly conveyed in the ad, the ad does not seem to consider that a person’s success is not only a result of the nutrition a person gets during his formative years. A person’s success is also a result of other factors such as genes, “natural God-given” talent, practice, hard work, etc. Hence, this advertisement violated Article IV, Section 1, Number 3 of the Advertising Code of Ethics. This says, “An advertisement should avoid any possible confusion as to the identity of the advertiser or the source or identity of a product or service.”
The advertisers were very smart in choosing the endorser (Lea Salonga) for this ad to make this ad’s message clear and more believable. Lea Salonga is not only a well-known singer here in the Philippines but also abroad. She has been in several successful local and international musicals and concerts. Despite this, it was wrong of them to choose Lea Salonga as the endorser because Enfakid is a newly introduced milk product of Mead Johnson and the advertisement “claims” that Lea Salonga used the product during her early years. Knowing this and knowing that Lea is already 37 years old makes you doubt the truthfulness of their claim that her “use” of the milk helped her become successful. How could have Lea drank Enfakid when she was young when Enfakid was just released not more than 5 years ago? Not to mention, the young kid in the advertisement is not Lea Salonga but a kid called Jermaine. Moreover, didn’t Lea endorse Klim, a milk brand by Nestle, when she was young? This all shows that there is almost nothing true in the commercial. Therefore, this advertisement has also violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Advertising Code of ethics which says,
“Advertising must provide the general public with relevant and truthful information on products and services, thereby helping consumers make their respective choices”.
Milk advertisements should be like one of the ads aired last year by Nestle’s Nido. It was mentioned in the ad that genes and other factors help a child become intelligent and not only milk.
- Pearl
12 comments:
Pearl, you have explained it so well. Yes, there was doubt when I saw the commercial showing Lea when she was a toddler.Was there an enfakid then? Then I thought hmmmmp...this commercial is tricking us!
That's right! After people see that Enfakid commercial, they think that it was because of the milk that Lea became very successful. It's every mother's dream for their child to become great just like Lea, but that can't be achieved with Enfakid. Besides, milk commercials spend so much money advertising their brand but breastmilk would still be best for babies. It's a good thing milk is no longer advertised for children below 2. Many Filipinos believe that cow's milk is a good alternative to breastmillk when it really isn't. Nice one Pearl!
That's right! After people see that Enfakid commercial, they think that it was because of the milk that Lea became very successful. It's every mother's dream for their child to become great just like Lea, but that can't be achieved with Enfakid. Besides, milk commercials spend so much money advertising their brand but breastmilk would still be best for babies. It's a good thing milk is no longer advertised for children below 2. Many Filipinos believe that cow's milk is a good alternative to breastmillk when it really isn't. Nice one Pearl!
@ anonymous:
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.:) It is a good thing that you had second thoughts on the commercial the first time you saw it. There are a lot of commercials aired on television that are seen as 'ethical' even though they are not. So viewers really have to be aware and be quick to analyze the advertisements they see in order for them to spot the not so ethical advertisements from those that are ethical.
@ jewelz:
thanks! yeah, i completely agree with you. it is better to breastfeed babies than to let them drink cow's milk. it is 'one of the factors' that help improve a child physically and intellectually. :)
I believe the Enfakid commercial is successful. It's moving and inspiring.
I think you forgot to notice this line in the ad:
"Excellence springs from support, caring, and superior early development."
That pretty much sums up the things you required of the ad.
It does not deserve to be "spank'd".
To consumed an inordinate amount of time and come out with a decision to judged the commercial in which you presumed doubtful and erroneous is subjective. It is acceptable to disagree with differing opinions and perspectives, but to brand the enfakid commercial unacceptable to your standards is very unsettling! Besides there are numerous excellent factors in the commercials that were not given enough recognition but instead disected (the ads) into pieces as if it was really too bad in its context. In my humble opinion, the ads conformity to the requirements were met although not entirely. In comparison though to other ads listed like(Dove ads displaying nudity), this one do not deserved to be spanked and deserves reconsideration.
at anonymous 1 and anonymous 2:
Advertisements that show nudity are surely unethical. But how could one say that advertisements showing nudity are unethical? Is it only based purely on our own instinct (natural law as it is called)? In our team’s case, to be able to convince people (whether they have any philosophical background or not), of course it is not enough. It is not enough that in judging advertisements we base our judgments solely on our own instinct and what we think is right or wrong. Sometimes what we think is right isn't right and what we think is wrong isn't wrong. Hence, we need to be guided when making judgments. Our judgments will be more solid if we also base it on law. In this case, our team has based our judgments and analysis on the Advertising Code of Ethics. It is in this code where we see that advertisements that show nudity are not the only ones that should be considered unethical but also other advertisements whether they look wholesome as long as they violate the Advertising Code of Ethics. To comply with the standards of the Advertising Code of Ethics is one of the major requirements an advertisement needs.
In this Enfakid commercial, the advertisers and marketers of the said brand has violated Article IV, Section 1, Number 3 and Article I, Section 4 of the Advertising Code of Ethics. Both articles were violated since the Enfakid advertisement is manipulative and untruthful for the reason that it makes the viewers assume that Lea Salonga used Enfakid when she was a young child. This is far from possible because Mead Johnson just recently launched Enfakid making it impossible for Lea Salonga to have drunk the said milk product when she was young.
now i get your point on why this advertisement is unethical. thank you for citing which part of the advertising code of ethics this ad has violated. i was not able to see why this ad should be considered unethical until you guys posted this. hmmm... come to think of it, maybe there are a lot of ads out there (which i may have seen) that are unethical even if they may not seem to be..
yes,u r rigth w wat u said,commercials should be informative n true specially it involves kids.lea salongas enfakid commercial is not an effective advertisement,i like the enkakid a+ commercial before,the 1 with the cute little girl making origami w her mom.it shows that milk can help nourish but at the same time parents or guidance should always be hand in hand with the childs growth.and the little girl model there seems so cute so convincing that me n my friends kids now are drinking enfakid!
better read first kasi before posting any objections...
the points raised by pearl on her latter posts (that made anonymous change his???/her??? mind) were already on pearl's original post (somebody just didn't read first)
duh???
first time i saw the commercial, i asked all members of my family who were with me "diba kelan lang lumabas ung ENFAKID?"...i believe even ENFAPRO was just out in the RP market 2 decades ago (more or less)...si Pilita pa nga ata endorser...now Lea here who is almost 40 had ENFAKID when she was a kid??? kahit ENFAPRO pa un di ako maniniwala eh... LOL
wala lang...i just hate misleading commercials...i feel they violate our rights as consumers...very influential pa naman ang boob-tube >.<...it's disgusting!!!
"wala lang...i just hate misleading commercials...i feel they violate our rights as consumers...very influential pa naman ang boob-tube >.<...it's disgusting!!!"
"Wala lang..." "Wala lang..." I say, that there is a very nice reason to bash something. Oh I'm sorry your term here is "spank". Can a product not change it's name? If "Coca-cola" used the name "Coke", wouldn't it be the same product? Can idiots like you use the internet to do some research before banging something up? From what I know ENFAKID is the improved ENFAPRO which is the improved ENFAMIL. So essentially these 3 milk brands are all the same with only a few improvements. Wow! Was that so hard to deduce? Well, for you maggots maybe it was... Fuck... Wala lang I just wanted to Bash'd you people... Pffft... Wala lang... kwenta...
Post a Comment