It was a delight to see the public discourse on advertising regulation rebooted recently. The reboot, admirably, was not initiated by the industry or its stakeholders, but by someone not within that loop. Technically, at least.
The initiator was Segun Adeniyi, an accomplished columnist and media adviser to the late President Shehu Yar’Adua. In his weekly column in ThisDay of 6 February, the columnist re-invited public attention to the issue of advertising regulation. A voice like his cannot be ignored, given his skyscraping profile. He was an editor and a presidential spox, a serially published author, and, if I am not wrong, the incumbent Chairman of the editorial board of ThisDay.
Anyone that is credentialed knows a thing or two and, I need to add, a little more about many things. The edition of his column reference re-invited attention to the regulation of advertising in Nigeria by his dismissal of the regulation of advertising messages as “ridiculous and dangerous.”. He is of the view that the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) is an ogre that seeks to crush entrepreneurship through its insistence—backed by law—that advertising messages be vetted before exposure to the public. The greenlight for the exposure is the Advertising Standards Panel pre-vetting certificate.
The celebrated columnist arrived at the verdict that pre-vetting suffocates entrepreneurs and job creation and that the law prescribing it is one of the “useless” pieces of legislation from our legislature through the experience of a friend, who runs a restaurant. The friend should count herself lucky that she has had heavy artillery (that’s what the columnist is) rolled out to fight for her.
She had attracted the attention of ARCON, the columnist wrote, by publishing a promotional message about her restaurant (“call this place for food”) on Instagram. That message was published without the mandatory vetting approval certificate from the Advertising Standards Panel, a reason she received a letter demanding the payment of a N1 million penalty within seven days, as it was communicated to her that such a message should have been communicated to ARCON before publication. The message was considered a piece of advertising.
The fire got more fuel when, the columnist wrote, a TikToker without any affiliation to the restaurant owner was also asked to pay N1 million within seven days for publishing a message advertising the same restaurant. Boot on the other foot, I would have been as upset as the columnist if my friend and another person offering unsolicited assistance to her were each asked to pay N1 million as a penalty.
Read also: Truth in Advertising: Why Marketers must be honest in the Digital Age
I understand the columnist’s criticism of that and the extension of his pique to ARCON’s power to subject promotional messages by influencers, bloggers, comedians, skit makers, and brand owners. I understand his view, but I disagree that advertising messages should not be controlled so as not to kill entrepreneurship and job creators in an era where the country badly needs them. The country needs entrepreneurs, the type that play by the rules.
I do not think entrepreneurs, who may want to use fraudulent or deceptive information in digital or even traditional advertising to influence consumer behaviour in a way that they would not have otherwise, are the type we need. The reason for pre-vetting is to ensure that consumers are protected from the type of advertising that can compel them to make purchases based on incorrect or misleading information.
False or misleading advertising takes various forms, including omitting crucial product or service information, and it applies across different advertising mediums, especially digital. Platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram, for instance, tailor content to every user’s individual preferences. Since platforms prioritise engagement over accuracy, what algorithms amplify is not necessarily true, nor helpful, nor safe. The only objective is keeping users engaged. This is precisely why regulation is imperative.
Human health—physical or mental—is, it is safe to say, not the concern of the algorithms. They have no business determining whether the food, drugs, or drinks promoted by business interests are safe or otherwise. Consumers find it easy to trust influencers because of their relatability, who seem more like real people than salespeople.
Consumers scrolling through, say, Instagram or TikTok may think they’re getting genuine advice from influencers when, in reality, they are being exposed to hidden advertisements that promote drugs that may not work as advertised, food that may not be what they are cracked up to be, and investment schemes designed—from the start—to fleece them. These hidden promotions blur the lines between personal experience and paid endorsement. “What I ordered and what was delivered” is a rueful social media message commonly posted by consumers who have been duped by misleading marketing messages.
Does handing TikTokers, Instagrammers, and Facebookers total freedom to do as they wish protect the consumer from entrepreneurs? I do not think so. That is hardly responsible, actually. A prominent index in the most livable societies around the world is the protection of citizens from exploitation through control of information that shapes consumer decision-making. It is why regulatory agencies around the world have advertising regulatory frameworks that have a bit of teeth, if not fangs, to ensure that marketing messages to which the public is exposed are those that are sufficiently accurate and transparent to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
In the European Union, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) stipulates pre-vetting for advertising messages issued by high-risk sectors like alcohol, gambling, and children’s toys. Last year, Germany’s Advertising Standards Council (Werberat) fined BMW in 2024 for misleading claims about vehicle emissions. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) further restricts targeted advertising, requiring explicit consumer consent for data usage.
In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is almost unforgiving in its demand that advertising messages be accurate. A few years back, for instance, showbiz personality Kim Kardashian was fined $1.26 million by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for promoting a cryptocurrency token on Instagram without disclosing she was paid $250,000. Also in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires advertisers of medications to seek pre-clearance for medical advertisements. This, obviously, was instituted to shield the public from the consumption of drugs that have not been scientifically validated.
In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) vets broadcast advertising messages pre-exposure, while those in digital and print are monitored post-publication, with penalties for violations. ASA requires all advertising messages to be “legal, decent, honest, and truthful.”. Fines for a breach could reach £500,000 for repeat offenders.
Nigeria cannot and should not be different. That must have saved lives aplenty. Without control, the consumer is endangered, and so is the society. At home some three years ago, the Sterling Bank Easter advertisement message that was deemed to have trivialised the message of the season “He’s risen” by likening it to how dough rises provoked Christian anger. It did not help that the managing director of the bank has a Muslim name. It took ARCON’s insistence that the offensive imagery be excised to de-escalate the tension.
A little less than a year ago, also at Easter time, an advertising copy by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (“Christ Paid for Sins, Not Taxes”) was withdrawn because it got Christians red-eyed. Many Nigerians have been skinned by real estate scam artists, who target prospective investors with honeyed messages that, sadly, have proved successful.
I also do not agree with the columnist’s insinuation that for every breach of the regulatory framework, ARCON imposes a fine of ₦1 million, something that has the potential of strangulating small businesses. ARCON is not the Pharaoh of the Bible, mind. ARCON charges ₦15,000 for the review of advertising content but imposes a fine of ₦1 million for deliberate violation of its regulations to deter, not a standard charge.
It is not a practice exclusive to Nigeria, as pointed out in the example of ASA in the UK. The columnists, I believe, did not approach this matter with eyes wide shut or have an agenda. His position, erroneous as it may be, must have been informed by genuine concern for a friend and those who may be impacted by the regulatory framework, which has items one may genuinely object to. But it cannot be right to say every bit of that framework must be discarded. That will be an invitation to danger.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
