By Ewa Izuchukwu
In recent times, the advertising sector has faced an unprecedented but organized wave of resistance to its continued growth and progress, particularly from forces seeking to discredit the efforts of the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) to sanitize the digital space. This campaign of criticism, spearheaded by stakeholders uncomfortable with the tightening of industry standards is an attempt to reverse progress made thus far, erode consumer protections, and maintain the status quo.
Since the repeal of the APCON Act that birthed ARCON and under the leadership of its Director-General, Dr. Olalekan Fadolapo, the regulatory body has made great strides in tackling longstanding issues like crippling industry debt, delayed payment circles, copyright infringements, and the offshoring of production, among many others.
Before now, the Nigerian advertising industry has long been plagued by unsustainable levels of debt, with agencies struggling to secure timely payments for completed work. Historically, agencies faced payment cycles stretching between 60 to 120 days, impeding business growth, employee compensation, and even operational viability. Through ARCON’s interventions, these cycles have been reduced to less than 40 days, a move that is relieving financial burdens on agencies and promoting stability within the industry.
This shift mirrors successful policies in countries like India, where the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) implemented similar measures, leading to the development of Mumbai as a global advertising production hub. Also, the United States Prompt Payment Act enforces stringent timelines on federal agencies for contractor payments, imposing interest penalties for delayed payments. Without doubt, ARCON’s work toward similar financial protections has strengthened Nigeria’s advertising ecosystem.
Historically, multinational companies routinely exported entire production processes abroad, depriving the Nigerian creative ecosystem of valuable opportunities. But ARCON’s policies now mandate that production processes intended for the Nigerian market are conducted locally, creating an avenue for growth within the domestic creative industry and providing opportunities for local professionals. This local-content policy has created jobs, preserved intellectual capital within the country, and bolstered Nigeria’s position as an emerging advertising hub in Africa. Countries like India and Brazil enforce similar policies, encouraging global corporations to produce locally as a way of nurturing their creative industries.
Working collaboratively with sectoral groups under the aegis of the Heads of Advertising Sectoral Groups (HASG), ARCON has also elevated the industry’s status with its daring effort on the valuation of the advertising industry and the multiplier effect of advertising on the economy, among other achievements too numerous to mention.
But despite ARCON’s many achievements, it faces a coordinated campaign of calumny aimed at discrediting its work and pushing for the repeal of some sections of its act, particularly section 54. Section 54 of the ARCON Act mandates prior approval from the Advertising Standards Panel for all advertisements, across products and services across all media. Interestingly, this section is older than ARCON itself, considering it was part of the repealed APCON act.
Section 54 is not unique to Nigeria. Many countries impose similar regulations to safeguard consumers and maintain advertising integrity. In Canada, for example, the Competition Bureau and the Advertising Standards Council enforces the Competition Act, which mandates that advertising claims are accurate and verifiable, thus protecting consumers from false or misleading advertisements. Singapore’s Advertising Standards Authority maintains strict pre-approval requirements for certain advertising categories. The European Union enforces prior review requirements for various forms of financial and health-related advertising. Likewise, the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) enforces strict guidelines on advertisements, ensuring that all claims are truthful, legal, and not misleading. ARCON’s policies are not exceptional; they are aligned with international best practices, designed to protect consumers and ensure ethical advertising.
Indeed, the focus of naysayers on the perceived burdens of this section distracts from its broader goal of ensuring ethical advertising in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. Consumers, more than corporations, suffer the consequences of misleading or harmful advertisements, and regulations like Section 54 address this imbalance. Fraudulent schemes such as MMM, which operated as a Ponzi scheme and left many Nigerians financially devastated, come to mind.
In fact, unsubstantiated reports have it that certain groups are gathering signatures to remove Section 54, an action that reveals the lengths to which these forces are willing to go to reverse ARCON’s progress. Sponsored articles and opinion pieces have flooded media channels, each echoing the same unfounded criticisms while conveniently ignoring the successes ARCON has achieved in the last few years. Rather than acknowledging the agency’s role in stabilizing the advertising industry, these detractors opt to portray ARCON as an obstacle to growth, an unfounded narrative that ignores the real beneficiaries of ARCON’s work—Nigerian consumers.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the requirement of Section 54 wilt under international comparison. For instance, The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s action of slamming the hammer on Kim Kardashian, resulting in a $1.26 million fine for undisclosed cryptocurrency promotion on her personal social media space, demonstrates how developed markets maintain even stricter oversight. Compare this to the case of Nigeria where Toyin Abraham, a veteran Nollywood actress similarly endorsed and advertised for RevolutionPlus Property, a real estate company, where many of her fans and admirers lost money they invested. What would have happened if ARCON had slammed the hammer on her like Kim?
Recall the controversies that followed Peak Milk and Sterling Bank’s Easter advertisements in the recent past. Or is it the one from the FIRS claiming that Christ only paid the debt of sins and not taxes? These incidents further reiterate the critical importance of pre-emptive regulation for our multi-ethnic and religious society. Let me not fail to add that ARCON’s intervention in these avoidable cases prevented potential religious conflicts that could have erupted from insensitive advertising content.
It is very clear that ARCON’s regulatory framework is indispensable for sustaining its growth in a way that prioritizes ethics, consumer welfare, and economic sovereignty. The resistance to ARCON’s work is, at its core, a resistance to accountability. Those who oppose the body are not fighting for a more dynamic industry; they are fighting to retain a system that allows unchecked profit-making at the expense of consumers. The path forward is clear: ARCON must continue to enforce its regulations, particularly Section 54, to safeguard Nigerian consumers and businesses alike.
Ewa Izuchukwu, a marketing communications expert and public affairs commentator, writes from Afikpo, Ebonyi State.