Panning the Pun in Billboard Advertising

The tarpaulin was very simple by contemporary advertising standards. It contained no models, no breathtaking background; only the product and the tagline “Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?” set in golden bold-faced monarchical font-type made more lustrous by the plain bright red background. But members of various sectors of civil society, particularly those who belong to women’s groups, child's rights advocates, parents and minors in the same age bracket, raised hell like a woman scorned over such advertisement that promoted Destileria Limtuaco’s Napoleon Brandy, aged fifteen years. After much lobbying and news features both in the print and broadcast medium, not to mention the volley of cases filed between the proponents of the advertisement and those against it as well as the revocation of the permit to display/air such ad by the AdBoard, the ad considered by Representative Liza Maza of Gabriela as “offending and degrading to women” was pulled down and pulled out from all the media mediums. Just as the controversy over the brandy advertisement was being laid to rest, another advertisement sought to stir the same pot. This time around, it’s a cola ad for Virgin of the international company with the same name headed by Richard Branson, the tagline going like “virgins to satisfy you.” Unlike its predecessor, the uproar on this ad died quickly. The advertising agency handling ad, probably taking its que from what happened with the brandy ad, added the words “more” and “from” in order to diffuse the controversial slogan which now reads “More from Virgin to satisfy you.”

The taglines are obviously play on words. Puns and double entendres meant to catch the readers attention, the meaning of which depends on the person’s perception viewign the same. Contextually speaking, sans any malicious visuals and our Filipino culture’s taboo-istic view on anything is sexual or even just connotes sexuality, the advertisement did not violate the so-called civil society’s morals. Quoting Karen De Asis, Agora awards Marketing Educator of 2003, “It was a correct ad. It did not go against regimented rules. [However] in the outside world, an ad may be okay, but might not fit well with the beliefs of people.”[1]

The advertising industry in the Philippines, unlike the movie and television industry, is self-regulated. Though both boards, the Philippine Board of Advertising (PBA), now AdBoard and the Movie, Television, Regulatory and Classification Board (MTRCB) were created during the martial law regime, the former was given a “free hand” so as to make Marcos’ mass media regulations more palatable to the taste. Using the freedom of expression as its springboard and linchpin, the advertising industry was able to maintain its self-regulation; protecting itself against interventions from governmental agencies who lack the sensitivity to appropriately respond to the industry’s nuances and idiosyncrasies. But in the heat of the cutthroat battle to win the consumers’ attention, where the most effective weapon of choice appears to be one that appeals to consumers’ baser interests, would self-regulation still be enough?

Commercial speech, or in this case advertising, under the Constitution is lower in rank in the hierarchy of protected speech as the same does not form an integral part of the robust exchange of ideas vital to a democratic society. Reading the taglines in question, one may be all too willing to agree that commercial speech need not be protected as much as the core speeches. And knowing that these taglines were displayed/aired because of the industry’s practice of self-regulation, one may even go one to venture and say that the “Kinse Anyos” controversy just goes to show the futility of self-regulatory practices. The AdBoard does not have any compulsory powers to implement the orders they churn out, making it a practice in futility. The severest disciplinary action within and among their ranks is an issuance of cease and desist order, the implementation of which depends on the agreement of the AdBoard and its member-organization and in extreme cases, ostracism from the advertising community. Further, its is uncertain who has jurisdiction over controversies involving billboard advertisement. The AdBoard’s Executive Director, Oscar T. Valenzuela, has stated that they don’t have a mandate over billboards. “This is usually left to the discretion of the advertiser and the advertising agency except when the billboards advertise infant formulation as an extension of a print ad, skin ads that bare flesh and contain number one claims as well as superlatives, to which the AdBoard requires substantiation.”[2] Technically speaking then, billboard advertising is unchecked and unregulated.

Clearly, coming from the “Kinse Anyos” debacle, the answer to the first question posted would have to be a resounding no. Self-regulation is not enough. This then brings us to other questions. Is regulation, similar to the one that MTRCB is exercising the answer? Or is it better to leave judgment-making to the experts, the courts?

Providing the AdBoard with an intrusive power similar to MTRCB would be like chopping off the hand that feeds it. Due to the fleeting nature of the attention span of its target audience, advertising needs the elbowroom to exercise its practitioners’ creative freedom. Taglines have always been attention grabbing because they need to be. Otherwise, they loose their purpose for recall. The use of the tagline in the case of the “Kinse Anyos” instead of the usual scantily clad woman clutching the brandy bottle complete with the comehither look should be seen as an effort of liquor advertisements to move away from objectifying women rather than as an affront to them. Again, contextually speaking, nowhere in the billboard ad can one find any allusions made to a woman or a girl for that matter. The allusion that is vehemently objected to by the various civil society sectors is only created in the mind. Condemning the play on words used in the controversial ads based solely on perceptions and connotation would set an unstable precedent, as the condemnation would be based only conjectures and inferences that are changing and not established facts as what every decision should be.

However, this is not to say that advertising, particularly billboard advertising should be left unchecked and unregulated. Freedom of expression is not absolute. It can be regulated. The problem lies in the application of a set of rule of thumbs that have been outdated through time. Precisely because the standards are ever expanding, and the goal post of public norms and morality is constantly shifting that we must reserve regulation to the courts. Leaving regulation and enforcement of public norms to only a hand-full of people is a romanticized idea that blots out the reality of unequal access to power to make judgment call for others. It is best to remember that the sauce of the goose is not always good for the gander.

----------------------------------
[1] Cai U. Ordinario. Billboard Bangs On The Head Of Rp Ad Industry http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/mar/13/yehey/business/20040313bus1.html. Last accessed on October 25, 2005.
[2] Id.