Pernod Ricard India Private Limited - Ballantine’s Soda

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Moto

The CCC-R panel noted the following arguments made by the advertiser: Objection 1 – Sales data of the product – the advertiser stated that the company submitted the CA certificate issued certifying that the net sales turnover of Ballantine’s Soda is INR 178.00 lakhs for the period 6th April 2024 to 13th January 2025. Further, the company also submitted the purchase orders for Ballantine’s Soda with its distributors. The product has achieved a net sales turnover of INR 227.51 lakhs from 6th April 2024 to 28th February 2025 which exceeds the turnover criteria prescribed under Clauses 1(B) of the ASCI Guidelines. Objection 2 – Advertising spend of the product – the advertiser submitted that upon being informed of the amended guidelines of Brand Extension, through industry forum, they sought consultation from ASCI on the said amended guidelines, highlighting the concerns and unfair implications of these advertising spends restrictions on the industry. In this regard they refer to the discussion with ASCI where the concerns were highlighted by various industry bodies and members. Thus ASCI to restrict their review to the applicable laws, rules and regulations (including any amendments thereof) issued by the appropriate government/ judicial authorities. The CCC-Review Decision The CCC-R panel viewed the OTT advertisement and considered the advertiser’s submissions for Review. The CCC-R panel observed that the advertiser is promoting non-alcoholic carbonated water (Soda) under the Ballantine’s brand. Objection 1 – Sales data of the product On evaluating the advertiser’s submissions for review, the CCC-R panel noted that a Chartered Accountant’s certificate of March 2025 has been provided, stating that the net sales for Ballantine’s Soda from 6th April 2024 to 28th February 2025 amounted to INR 227.51 lakhs. The CCC-R panel discussed that the advertisement in question was telecast on 26th January 2025; therefore, the relevant sales data should cover only the period from the product’s launch on 6th April 2024 upto the date the advertisement was aired. Including sales figures beyond the date of airing does not accurately reflect the product’s market performance at the time the advertisement was broadcast. Hence, this sales data cannot be considered as conclusive. The CCC-R panel further discussed that as per the ASCI Brand Extension Guidelines, products in the market for less than two years must show a minimum net sales turnover of Rs. 20 lakhs per month from the date of launch to qualify as valid brand extensions for advertising. The advertiser reported total sales of INR 227.51 lakhs over about 11 months, however, this figure includes sales beyond the airing date of the advertisement. Therefore, the data does not establish compliance with the revenue criteria at the time the advertisement was aired. The CCC-R panel discussed that the purchase orders submitted by the advertiser for the months of January and February 2025 do not meet the requirements outlined in the Brand Extension guidelines (Clause 1B (III)). According to these guidelines, when manufacturing or procurement is outsourced, evidence should include long term contracts (over one year) with service providers or manufacturing entities. These contracts must clearly specify capacities, contracted volumes, or Rupee values to demonstrate the ability to achieve the projected turnover. Since the purchase orders submitted are only for the initial two months of 2025 and do not meet the criteria for long term commitments, they do not support the brand extension's expected turnover. Objection 2 – Advertising spend of the product The advertiser objected to the quantitative guidelines in the ASCI Code. The CCC-R panel members were apprised by the ASCI Secretariat that the industry had been invited to share alternative suggestions and the last discussion was to wait for any government guidelines before decisions on further amendments to the ASCI Code. While the CCC-R panel made note of these comments, it reiterated that changes to guidelines is not in its remit and that the CCC-R panel must assess each case with respect to the ASCI Code as it exists at the time of the case hearing. The CCC-R panel noted that the Brand Extension guidelines clearly specify that the advertising budget for a brand extension should be proportionate to the sales of that extension. Hence the budget should not exceed 200% of sales turnover in the first two years post launch, 100% in year 3, 50% in year 4, and 30% in the subsequent years. Additionally, the guidelines stipulate that the advertising budget must include media spending across all platforms for the 12 months prior to the extension’s launch. The CCC-R panel observed that the advertiser has not provided the advertising budget for media spend across all platforms for the brand over the prior 12 months, nor was the information accompanied by documentation certified by an independent CA firm. Based on these observations, the CCC-R panel concluded that the OTT advertisement contravened Clauses 1(B) (I) and 2 (a) of ASCI Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension - Product or Service. The earlier decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.