Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)’s newly drafted and revised OOH advertising policy seems to be getting mixed feedback from the advertising industry and has sparked discussions over the ambiguities of the guidelines.
Although formulated with ‘good intentions’ and to ‘ensure safety, prevent clutter and maintain urban aesthetics’, the industry has raised concerns about how the stringent guidelines may negatively impact advertising spends. Stakeholders have also said that the policy could potentially be burdensome for both media owners and authorities.
The role of advertisers and their accountability also seem to be misconstrued.
Following the Ghatkopar incident which took 17 lives and left over 75 injured in May 2024, the BMC released a newly drafted revised OOH advertising policy on August 13. The last hoarding policy was formulated in 2008.
The 58-page policy is now open for public feedback and suggestions until August 26.
Apart from the revisions in the standard operating procedure to ensure structural stability, the draft policy has proposed a 10% hike in licensee fees annually, backlisting of advertisers for non-payment of fee, and cover of Rs 5 lakh to Rs 1 crore in case of loss and damage due to a hoarding proportional to its size.
Additionally, regulations for digital hoardings include prohibiting video content in the right of way and multiple static images with a dwell time of a minimum of eight seconds.
Rohit Chopra, COO, Times OOH, points out that the proposed restrictions on operational timings for DOOH assets may pose challenges, particularly in a city like Mumbai that operates around the clock. These limitations could impact the return on investment (ROI) for media owners.
“We are apprehensive that the three-month permit renewal process, as it could become burdensome for both media owners and authorities. A streamlined renewal process and a single gateway for permissions would foster greater efficiency and ease for all parties involved,” he said.
However, Rajesh Radhakrishnan, CMO, VrittiiMedia, a leading DOOH solutions provider, notes that the inclusion of a digital advertising policy opens new avenues for innovation, particularly in high-traffic areas like malls and commercial complexes. The introduction of an online system for permit granting and renewal is a game-changer, ushering in a new era of transparency and efficiency, ensuring that the process is streamlined and accessible to all.
Indian Outdoor Advertising Association says that these guidelines do not capture or consider rapid and massive evolution of the medium.
OOH advertising needs encouragement at policy levels by government and their arms at all levels. “…too much regulation leads to subversion of the medium leading to under realisation of its revenue potential”, it said.
The association is of the belief that these guidelines need to encapsulate a larger vision from an OOH perspective rather than just restricting hoardings and signages. “These guidelines need to be embedded in subject matter and 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,” it said.
IOAA suggested that 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.
Read more: BMC’s new OOH advertising policy could do more harm than good, fear stakeholders
Praveen Vadhera, CEO, IOAA, earlier told Storyboard18 how the policy is being made in isolation with no consultation from the stakeholders.
IOAA has given a representation to BMC, urging them to work closely in eradicating the illegal sites. In its representation, IOAA suggested BMC to create one single nodal body or be the single nodal body through which all these permissions are routed to have better control over the OOH in the city.
However, Vadhera remarked that there has been very little interaction with BMC with regards to working together to rationalise the entire policy.
“There is an absence of a consulting urban or town planner,” IOAA said on the BMC latest draft.
The role of the advertiser
The draft policy in the current state at best vague, and prone to multiple subjective interpretations, leaving gaping holes in the endeavor to implement aesthetically designed structures.
Under ‘Duties of the Permit holders’ the BMC states that “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-mentioned 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, a liability for an accident rests with the brand or the company of display, which is not true and completely erroneous interpretation, IOAA added.
“This possibility of multiple subjective interpretations of the guidelines persists throughout the entire document and provides a definite loophole for the people/ companies to exploit these to bypass norms,” IOAA said.
“The policy requires a deeper intervention and is designed from scratch given massive evolution and changes,” the association concluded.
Clarifying the role of the advertiser, Kiran Dighavkar, Deputy Commissioner (Special) of BMC told Storyboard18 exclusively, “The hoarding applicant will be responsible for any mishap. BMC does not deal with advertisers; we deal with OOH agencies when granting permissions to erect hoardings, etc.”
Further elaborating, Dighavkar said, “An advertiser deals with the OOH agency and not with BMC. For example, if there is an OOH campaign for Dabur or Bisleri, and we find any irregularities, the OOH agency will be responsible for the incident, not the advertisers.”
One of the media agencies, on condition of anonymity, explained that typically, when a product company, like an FMCG firm, engages an advertising or OOH agency, that agency in turn works with the media owner of the hoarding. If any mishap occurs involving the hoarding, the media owner—responsible for the billboard infrastructure—will be held accountable, not the FMCG company or the advertising/OOH agency. This has always been the case, so there shouldn’t be any confusion; BMC doesn’t hold advertisers liable.