A Brand Ambassador is someone who, at the most elementary level, symbolizes a brand in a positive way; he/she embodies a brand. The brand ambassador communicates the message of a company to consumers or people who would be interested in buying the company’s brand after learning about it. Thus, BA puts a human face on the multi-million dollar corporations because consumers associate with them more effectively.

The affinity consumers have for certain celebrities can greatly influence their purchase decisions. People perhaps feel that, “If the product is good enough for her, its good enough for me.” This philosophy is often the force behind advertisements for makeup, skin creams, lingerie, banks, eatables, beverages and attire. The brand ambassadors infuse confidence in the consumers to use a product/service. Essentially, the celebrity’s testimonial adds instant reliability to a small or big brand.

That’s why brand ambassador is a part of the company’s marketing and sales team. Celebrities endorse for products in lieu of heavy money. Therefore, they automatically become responsible if the brand turns out to be spurious/bogus/contaminated. It’s simple, before endorsing a product it’s their responsibility to check the credibility of a product/service. In the recent Maggi Noodle’s fiasco, the Uttar Pradesh Food and Drug Administration’s decision to recall packets of Maggi Noodles for reportedly having monosodium glutamate and lead more than permissible limits, film star Madhuri Dixit, who endorsesMaggi’s brand of ‘nutritious’ oats noodles is in trouble. The Haridwar FDA has issued her a notice  seeking an explanation as to how the noodles are nutritious, and on what the basis Nestlé is making such a claim. If she fails to respond within a fortnight, a case could be filed against her, according to officials of the FDA.

Can ambassadors simply shrug off their responsibilities when the brands endorsed by them turn out unauthentic?  Misrepresentation of products, especially in the food sector, is a serious issue, and not as silly  as many would like to believe. In February 2014, last year, the Central Consumer Protection Council, under the leadership of former Union Food Minister KV Thomas, decided  unanimously to propose laws to hold celebrities endorsing products also liable in cases of misleading advertisements. The rationale behind this decision of the CPCC was that celebrities had considerable influence over consumer choice, and that there must be some form of liability for the endorsements being made.

In US, Kellogg’s popular Rice Krispies cereal had a crisis in 2010 when it was accused of misleading consumers about its immunity boosting properties. The Federal Trade Commission ordered Kellogg to halt all advertising that claimed that the cereal improved a child’s immunity with “25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients — Vitamins A, B, C and E stating the claims were “dubious.” Ironically, just a year prior, the company settled with the FTC over charges that its Frosted Mini-wheats cereal didn’t live up to its ads. The campaign claimed that the cereal improved kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%, and was shot down when the FTC found out that the clinical studies showed that only 1-in-9 kids had that kind of improvement and half the kids weren’t affected at all. Now, we just cannot imagine this kind of strictness and vigil in the Indian administration. Our laws are indistinct and lack spirit to take up firm steps.

There is a notion that brand ambassadors can’t generally be tamed. The ad agencies do speak in favor of their models. When the going is good, everyone wants to be party to the success, but, when the going gets bad you can test the actuality of people. The celebrities behave larger than life. They should be held guilty for false advertisements because they exploit their fan following and their popularity. The fans revere them so much; they follow their personal lives and their styles to no end. Tiger Woods was a brand ambassador for Gatorade, Gillette, Accenture, AT&T, Gold Digest and Tag Heuer. After his plentiful extramarital affairs were revealed, the majority of these brands discontinued him as they found it difficult to continue him as their brand ambassador.

In India in 2012, actress Genelia D’Souza was summoned by court for allegedly making false promises through ads and brochures for a real estate company in Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh High Court demanded her explanation as brand ambassador for a project called ‘Anjaniputra’ located close to Hyderabad Deccan when the project seems to have gone bust. This is the latest in how society and the laws in India are dealing with the extremely doubtful advertisements. It is a matter of time before similar questions are raised by other consumers who are swayed into investing in products or services, by fraudulent advertisements endorsed by celebrities who are supposed to also be role models.

The Home Trade scam of 2002 had the celebrity endorsement  of three big celebrities, Sachin Tendulkar, Hrithik Roshan and Shah Rukh Khan. Having created not a single product, the company made away with thousands of crore rupees of investor money, and celebrity-endorsed brand building  was a crucial part of their operation. Activists have also been speaking out against ads for sauna-belts, medicines, Hanuman-chalisa yantra and gem-stones on TV screens.

How can celebrities vouch for the authenticity and effectiveness of that product with great confidence without checking them? Like with politicians, an advertisement and the celebrities involved in it can simply be voted out. They can be thrown out in disgrace. This message is clear; the company and ad agencies cannot work on the premise that the consumers are fools. They better learn to respect their constituency, i.e. the consumers.

Due diligence should be exercised before making of an ad. All stakeholders must share their responsibilities. The three stake-holders in ad making are advertiser, advertising agencies and the media. Let’s understand this straight: in advertising, there’s a big difference between pushing the truth and making false claims. Most of us have some or the other time in our life been victims of false advertising. Are we going to take it lying low or question the companies to change their marketing policies? Can we allow the companies to continue to prioritize profits over the consumers?

In progressive countries like America and Europe companies need to face harsh penalties. Companies are made to pay up the consumers for cheating them.
Dannon’s popular Activia brand yogurt lured consumers into paying more for its purported nutritional benefits when it was actually pretty much the same as every other kind of yogurt.

In Canada and America law suits were filed against Dannon for falsely touting the “clinically” and “scientifically” proven nutritional benefits of the product.  In spite of the company got a famous spokesperson, Jamie Lee Curtis, for the supposed digestion-regulator, some customers didn’t buy it. Do you know that a class action settlement forced Dannon to pay up to $45 million in damages to the consumers? The company also had to limit its health claims on its products strictly to factual ones.

In another case, hundreds of car owners were extremely disappointed to find out that Hyundai and Kia Motors overstated the horsepower in some of their vehicles. In 2001, the Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation uncovered the parody, which for some models was as much as 9.6 percent more horsepower than the cars actually had. A class action lawsuit in southern California claimed the companies were able to sell more cars and charged more per vehicle because of the false claims. In the end, the auto powerhouses had to pay customers; the settlement estimated to be between $75 million and $125 million.

In India, to protect rights of consumers the process of filing complaint and finding resolution needs a drastic improvement. Strict guidelines should be made and law suits must be resolved in minimum a week’s time. Then, we might find respite from getting cheated recurrently by companies, their advertisements and savvy brand ambassadors.

A whistleblower is a person who exposes misbehavior, a wrongdoing, alleged dishonesty or illegal activity occurring in an organization/society. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, sexual molestation and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally; for example, to other people within the accused organization or externally to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, fraud, and mismanagement, and in preventing disasters that arise from negligence or wrongdoing. Those within public institutions and the private sector who speak out about wrongdoing potentially save lives and resources. It is in the public interest that the law protects whistleblowers so that they can speak out if they find mismanagement in an organization. Blowing the whistle is more formally known as ‘making a disclosure in the public interest.’ Whistleblowers risk their job, sometimes their life, and their prestige for social welfare. It is therefore the society’s obligation to protect them from getting victimized.

The term whistle-blower comes from the whistle – a referee uses to indicate an illegal or foul play. US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970s.

They are a crucial source of intelligence to help society, organizations and governments in identifying wrongdoings and hazards in society. However, often whistleblowers have been disgracefully treated for doing good. They are victimized and oppressed for their good work. We have heard of too many cases of inexcusable treatment given to whistleblowers by others in society – their colleagues, head of departments, statutory bodies, police, and government. In 2005, in India, Shanmughan Manjunath, a former manager at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), spoke against adulteration of petrol. He was shot dead on November 19, 2005, allegedly by a petrol pump owner from Uttar Pradesh. This lack of action has a profound impact on confidence and trust in the system, and means that employees are less likely to blow the whistle for fear of what may happen to them. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the whistle against appalling frauds taking place in the Golden Quadrilateral project by the National Highway Authority of India. Take the recent case of D.K.Ravi an additional commissioner of commercial taxes (enforcement) a 2009-batch Indian Administrative Service officer, whose death was camouflaged as suicide; Ravi fought against the land mafia in Karnataka for which he had to die unnaturally at a very young age.

The corporate world is also the same. Under the lable of organization “ethos” and “loyalty” lot of ill-doing has to be borne by employees and many things are hushed up in organizations. Prior to the 1960s, corporations had broad self-sufficiency in employee policies and could fire an employee at will, even for no reason. Employees were expected to be “loyal” to their organizations at any cost. Then labour unions were formed, and unions made noise for anything and everything. But, then you also get to see organizations like IBM who allow open-door policy which allowed employees to discuss their issues and grievances if any.

In a survey of Ministry of Defense employees, only 40% of respondents felt they would not suffer retaliation if they raised a concern, and a survey of Department of Health employees found only 54% of respondents felt confident that they could speak up. Over one third of civil service employees do not even know how to raise a concern under the civil service code. Take the case of Durga Shakti Nagpal IAS of 1984 cadre who was suspended for launching a massive drive against corruption and illegal sand mining within her jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar and later for allegedly demolishing an illegal mosque wall in a village in Greater Noida. Of course in her case, the opposition political parties, associations of Indian bureaucrats and the general public on online social media demanded for her suspension to be revoked and it was done!

Whistleblower’s problems are often concealed rather than solved. Globally, there have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistleblowers. The India Law Ministry is working on a draft to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2011 aimed at safeguarding against disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, etc. Whistleblower’s protection should be broadly defined without any loopholes in it.

Culturally whistleblowing implies betrayal. There is still a gap between the promoting and protecting whistleblowers. In most of organizations employees are scared to speak up for fear of personal punishment or losing job. Many times employees confide some wrongdoing in a wrong or faulty person; he/she misguide the whistleblower by carrying tales to the higher-ups. Most times employees feel that no one is listening; they are unlikely to report any malpractice or misconduct that they see. Speaking out is difficult, especially in a culture where brazenness is practiced openly.

Whistleblowing is most effective when it operates in an open-door culture that actively encourages employees to report concerns. It works in societies/governments/organizations which work for bringing in a positive change. Not only does this create an environment where problems are dealt with before they become potentially damaging risks. The mentality of the top level is vital. Quality communication in handling the matter is essential.

A new report which was co-authored by researchers from Australian NGO Blueprint for Free Speech, Transparency International Australia, Griffith University and Melbourne University,  on the state of affairs of whistleblower protection based on a research in some of the world’s richest countries has found that Germany ranks alongside Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey where whistlebloweres are not protected. These countries do the least to ensure that whistleblowers can speak out without fear of revenge. The report found that serious shortcomings remained in most of the above mentioned countries – and those shortcomings affected most of the areas potential whistleblowers would be concerned about. Provisions for whistleblowers to remain anonymous when using internal channels to express their concerns were identified as a particular weakness. Most of the EU states are poor in protecting whistleblowers.

There is limited research about the psychological impact of whistle blowing. However, poor experiences of whistleblowing can cause discouragement to people who want to voice disorders. Whistleblowers often become paranoid, anxious and suffer from nightmare.   Depression is often reported by whistleblowers, and suicidal thoughts may occur in up to about 10%. Their health conditions often decline as they become fearful. In short, whistleblowers suffer for speaking. Nobody in power likes whistleblowers.

Precise, clear, inclusive, simple, and effective legislation must be introduced to protect those who, in good faith and on rational grounds, speak out against suspected acts of wrongdoing. It is everybody’s responsibility to provided safe and peaceful atmosphere for whistleblowers.  As a society we can no longer afford to ignore their wellbeing. There should not be gaps between writing policy, adopting it, and then going on with business as usual. Let’s stop the duplicity somewhere.