Enfakid got SPANK'd!

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,

“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

Enfakid

Here is a commercial of Enfakid by Mead Johnson.

*taken from another website

What do you think of this commercial?

Do you like this ad?

Bayantel has been SPANK'd

Erine SPANK'd...

Bayantel Billboard Ad

This is another example of a print ad that uses sexually implicit content in the wrong context. As you can see, the copy reads: "Satisfaction guarantee" (Wrong spelling, it should be "Satisfaction guaranteed") and the visual shows a woman in a state of ecstacy.

Ok, sure some people would say that its ad isn't sexually implict since it doesn't expose any private parts, but then again, exactly what kind of satisfaction is the ad talking about? The satisfaction of using Bayantel's telephone services? Or the sexual kind of satisfaction? A foul-mouthed cynic could probably say "Look at the logo, stupid!", but then again, if someone who didn't know what Bayantel was would mistake the ad for something other than a telephone service provider's print ad. What I don't understand is why a company would even want to advertise using sexually implicit content when it has nothing to do with the brand anyway. Is it because are they not confident about their product or service that they have to use something like this to grab attention? Sexually implicit content may at first grab one's eye but its just that. It doesn't even sell the product or service anyway so why bother using it? Might as well show the exact benefit or value that you can get out of the product (or service, in this case), to the intended target market, otherwise don't bother advertising!

For reference, here's a section of the Advertising Code of Ethics that we found useful for this Ad:

Advertising Code of Ethics – Art. IV, Sec. 1, # 4:

“Profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, or presentations which are offensive to contemporary standards of decency or morals, shall not be allowed, even when understood only by part of the audience.”