IOAA Proposes Major Revisions To BMC Outdoor Advertising Policy

The Indian Outdoor Advertising Association (IOAA) released a statement regarding the BMC Draft Policy Guidelines. The IOAA emphasises the importance of government support for outdoor advertising across all levels.

Additionally, the IOAA argues that the BMC guidelines should adopt a broader vision for out-of-home (OOH) advertising, extending beyond mere restrictions on hoardings and signages.

Below are excerpts from the statement:

At the outset, IOAA applauds and welcomes the evolution of fresh set Guidelines for Outdoor Advertising. IOAA unequivocal supports the increased focus on safety. Though, largely these guidelines are a progressive movement towards betterment, but a quite few gaping holes persist at a fundamental conceptual level. IOAA is working on the response and will respond to the anomalies in the guidelines by 26th August.

Outdoor Advertising or as now referred as Out of Home Advertising, has evolved to encompass fairly varied genre of advertising formats outside the home, beyond the hoardings. Obviously, these guidelines do not capture or consider this rapid and massive evolution of the medium.

As such, OOH Advertising needs encouragement at policy levels by Government and their arms at all levels. However, an uncontrolled or unregulated proliferation of this medium is also not a desirable state of affairs, which should actually be curbed with stricter regulations and vastly improved implementation to protect city aesthetics.

On one hand, too little regulation or implementation of regulations leads to chaos and ultimately leading to society discarding this form of advertising. On the other hand, too much regulation leads to subversion of the medium leading to under realisation of its revenue potential.

Globally, OOH advertising continues to be one of most successful ways of establishing state-of- art urban infrastructure in large & key metros, in a mutually beneficial way between local authorities, OOH advertising practitioners and local citizens. In the more advanced nations, city infrastructure and street furniture have been developed and are being maintained by OOH Advertising Media companies, which has added value to life style and comforts of the society, besides saving the city municipalities large amounts of expenditure that it would have spent otherwise. These guidelines need to encapsulate a larger vision from an OOH perspective rather than just restricting it hoardings and signages. This means that these guidelines need to be embedded in subject matter research & findings, which globally has evolved as a science in itself, contributing to many lively & vibrant urban environments across some of the major cities in the world.

Therefore, international subject matter experts, people who have contributed to the design of OOH guidelines in some of the major urban agglomerations around the world should have consultative role in framing of these guidelines.

Furthermore OOH needs to be looked at as an integral part of the city development, rather than in isolation. This aspect is completely absent in the these guidelines, since there is an absence of an consulting urban or town planner. There are other aspects, which have proven to be the bane of OOH, can be mitigated far more effectively through collaboration with the OOH fraternity. The most obvious example of this is illegal sites which despite all intent to the contrary continue mushroom, posing danger to the man on the street.

As IOAA, we had suggested and represented to BMC that in collaboration with BMC, IOAA can create a database of all legal sites permitted by BMC and put in public domain through the IOAA website. There is a complete lack of awareness among the end advertisers/brands using the OOH media, of which hoardings are legal and which are not legal.

All brands and media agencies that we have approached are willing to cooperate and only buy legally sanctioned sites installed in accordance with the structural stability norms defined by the BMC. This will negate the primary incentive of the illegal hoarding owners, since they would not be able to sell the hoarding and make money from it any longer.

Similarly, there has been an attempt to create common standards (clause 2.5 Duties of the Permit holders) for the implementation of the sites on ground, which is a great step towards ensuring safe and aesthetic media assets. However these guidelines in the current state are at best vague, prone to multiple subjective interpretations, leaving gaping holes in the endeavour to implement aesthetically designed structures.

Similarly same clause, 2.5 Duties of the Permit holders, point (g) states “In case of any accident, The Advertiser shall be solely liable against all action /suits / claims / damages & demands of any nature." This is an essential clause to affix accountability, however throughout the guidelines Agency/Permit holder/Advertiser have been used interchangeably leading to massive confusion in interpretation. The above mention clause is part of the "Duties of the Permit Holders" which is essentially the responsibilities attached to the holder of the licence of that particular hoarding site, whereas this clause, because of the use of the word "Advertiser" has been interpreted across the media as, the liability for an accident rests with the brand or the company of display, which is not true and completely erroneous interpretation.

This possibility of multiple subjective interpretation of a the guidelines persist through the entire document and provide a definite loophole for the people/ companies to exploit these to bypass norms.

Yes, the BMC has given an opportunity for response & corrective measures, but we at IOAA think it not enough, the policy requires a deeper intervention and designed from scratch in view of massive evolution and changes.