Consumers are rational decision-makers only to a limited extent, and emotions play a larger role in their purchase decisions (Simon, 1955, 1956; Zeelenberg, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Pieters, 2008). The idea of bounded rationality states that the people desire to make good decisions with minimum resources, something achievable by converting rational decisions to emotional ones (Afuah & Tucci, 2012). Celebrities make the purchase decisions of customers easy. Hence, brands associate with them to draw positive meanings and emotional responses (Halonen-Knight & Hurmerinta, 2010). Research supports the idea that celebrities have a greater influence on the public at large. Celebrity endorsements have an impact on the purchase decisions of customers (Choi & Berger, 2010).

Perceived expertise (Eisend & Langner, 2010) and trustworthiness (Spry, Pappu, & Bettina, 2011) of a celebrity for a product category largely influence consumers’ perception of an advertised message’s effectiveness. Different celebrity dimensions like credibility, performance, personality, feelings, physical appearance, cogent power, and values lead to the transfer of celebrity characteristics to the product and from the product to the consumer (Jain & Roy, 2016). In such circumstances, it is essential to understand the role celebrities play in the branding of offerings. India ranks as one of the largest consumer markets in the world, where 60% of all advertisements in India use celebrities when the global average is around 25% (Saxena, 2008; Shimp, 2003). Indian celebrities help promote and advertise various brands for a long period and charge a large fee for the same.

Even though brand endorsements contribute a major share to the earnings of celebrities, those endorsements have some negative implications too (Keel & Nataraajan, 2012). Some celebrities, for money, become part of advertisements that provide misleading information or are for products harmful to end consumers. Normally, celebrities avoid their moral responsibility toward customers and shift them to the brands they advertise. They claim to make their decisions based on the research data and information those brands share. Although their rationale may have legal validity, they are devoid of morality, and such celebrities end up promoting unethical advertising practices for their personal benefit. Such behavior is directly in conflict with the American Marketing Association’s code of ethics, which promotes honesty and fairness as basic values for marketing practices (American Marketing Association, n.d.).

Many instances of celebrity endorsements exist in India in which the advertisements were unethical because of misrepresentation of facts, surrogate advertisements, puffery advertisements, unverified claims, and exaggerated representations. In this chapter, we will discuss a few cases in which Indian celebrities were on a wrong footing while promoting certain brands. In some of the cases, celebrities faced legal cases, while in the rest, they faced flak in print and online platforms. The focus of these cases is to identify various unethical nuances of celebrity endorsements and implications for the public at large.

Emami is a leading Indian company in the personal and healthcare sector. It has a product, ‘Fair and Handsome,’ for which the brand ambassador was Mr. Shahrukh Khan, a popular film personality. In its advertisement, Emami claimed fairer skin for users in three weeks. The advertisement misrepresented the product as the one making the skin fairer. It was a clear exaggeration of benefits accruing from the use of the product. Mr. Shahrukh Khan reportedly charged a large fee for promoting Fair and Handsome. In 2012, a consumer filed a case against Emami in a District Consumer Court (Sengupta, 2015). The complainant used Fair and Handsome for four weeks, just like Shahrukh Khan mentioned in the advertisement. The user did not find any difference in his skin color and went through mental agony, and he decided to file a suit against the company to save other people from similar negative emotions. The legal battle went on for two and a half years before the court imposed a fine of INR 15 lakhs on Emami for misrepresentation of facts (“Fair & Handsome Ad Removed,” 2015; Sengupta, 2015). Consequently, the company withdrew that advertisement featuring Shahrukh Khan, yet Emami drew flak on various online and offline platforms (“Fair & Handsome Ad Removed,” 2015). However, Shahrukh Khan is not the only one involved in endorsing skin fairness products in India.

There are many other film personalities like John Abraham (Garnier), Ileana D’ Cruz (Ponds), Vidya Balan (Dabur), Shahid Kapoor (Vaseline), Deepika Padukone (Garnier), and Sonam Kapoor (L’Oreal) endorsing skin fairness brands (“Abhay Deol Calls Out,” 2017). Although there are many Indian celebrities who have time and again declined offers to promote a skin fairness brand, most of the times, celebrities are least concerned about the ethicality of the advertisements when they decided to promote a brand.

It was unethical on Mr. Khan’s part to promote Fair and Handsome for two reasons. First, he made a claim that was false and led to mental distress for the consumers. No one has the right to exploit and play with the emotions of others for his or her material benefits. Second, India is a country where most of the people are brown skinned. The promotion of skin whitening cream signals the supremacy of white-skinned people. Such advertisements are equivalent to promoting racism in the country. When a popular face like Shahrukh Khan testifies the need for fair skin, the thought process of his fans and public at large becomes biased. In the long run, such advertisements can have a very adverse impact on the society as they create discrimination toward dark-skinned people.

Surrogate advertising is indirect advertising in which the purpose is to promote one product in the guise of another (Sharma & Chander, 2007). Entities use surrogate advertising to promote banned products like liquor, cigarettes, and tobacco. In the Indian context, surrogate advertising is a major ethical issue. Liquor companies nowadays are using music CDs, drinking water, and soda for surrogate advertisements of their brand. Similarly, cigarette and tobacco companies engage in surrogate advertisements through sponsorships, socially responsible messages, and allied products. This problem of surrogate advertising of liquor and tobacco products becomes more intense when celebrities become part of such advertisements. Ajay Devgn, a famous film personality, became associated with Bagpiper, a renowned whiskey brand, in 2006 and featured in an advertisement of Bagpiper Soda (Dhillon, 2015; Vaj, 2006). Similarly, famous cricketers like Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni, and Harbhajan Singh signed an advertisement contract for Seagram, owner of Royal Stag whiskey, for promoting music CDs under the brand name of Royal Stag (Bag, 2014). Surrogate advertisement for promoting liquor brands is a clear violation of law in spirit, if not words. Celebrities help brands in making consumers not only attend to the information (Wei & Lu, 2013) but also retain it (Erdogan, 1999; Misra & Beatty, 1990). When a celebrity shares information about a socially harmful product in the form of surrogate advertisement, that information remains for a long period and increases the sale of such products. Moreover, when celebrities become brand ambassadors for promoting liquor in a disguised fashion, they are setting a very poor example for people as their role models. Adolescents idolize celebrities featuring in advertisements and purchase such products to be like them (Chia & Poo, 2009). Celebrities justify consumption of liquor, which has a negative impact on such vulnerable consumers.

It is considered unethical to compare a brand with competitors on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. In 2017, the first Indian celebrity yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, head of his homegrown FMCG company Patanjali, landed in the middle of a controversy. In a radio advertisement, Baba Ramdev claimed the products of foreign companies are dangerous for the people and the country, as they take their wealth abroad. He also claimed that foreign companies’ products are sub-standard (Gupta, 2017). He blamed them for selling adulterated food items and drinks, hair oils with cancerous elements, and cosmetics with chemicals in them (Gupta, 2017). Many companies raised objections to the claims Baba Ramdev made. It is clearly unethical on the part of Baba Ramdev to make such false allegations against other companies without any proof. All the products of companies like Hindustan Unilever Limited and Proctor & Gamble comply with all the rules and regulations of the country. Moreover, multinational companies around the world are contributing to the Indian economy by making investments in the country, providing employment, and raising the standard of living. Extant literature terms Patanjali’s strategy to promote its products as negative advertising, and negative advertisers promote their product by establishing the superiority of their brand and focusing on negative aspects of a competitor brand (Vijayalakshmi, Laczniak, & Muehling, 2015). Although the normal application of negative advertising strategy is for a zero-sum game situation, in which the loss of one competitor is others’ gain (Merritt, 1984); however, Patanjali effectively categorized the available brands in the FMCG sector in two categories, Indian and foreign. As the major shareholding in the FMCG sector in India lies with Unilever and Proctor & Gamble, this strategy was successful in branding all their competitors as foreign brands. People find negative advertisements more credible and believable, even when they do not like the negativity in the information (Robideaux, 2013). The fortunes twisted in favor of Patanjali, and it had sales of INR 105 billion in FY 2016–17 from around INR 20 billion in 2014–15 (Sarkar, 2017). The celebrity, in this case, engaged in unethical practices for multiple reasons. First, it is immoral for any local brand to incite feelings of nationalism in a wrong way for its own benefit. The repercussions of such negative campaigns can have a detrimental impact on all the Indian companies doing business in foreign lands. Second, unsubstantiated claims featured in the campaign. Third, the presence of a celebrity further increased the salience of negative information for the public. Indeed, the established practice inscribed in the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) declares “the advertising agency should compete on merit and not by attempts at discrediting or disparaging a competitor agency” (n.p.). Although negative advertisements have legal validity, many ethical concerns remain, and the presence of celebrities in such campaigns further aggravates those concerns.

Many celebrities promote brands whose target customers consist of vulnerable populations of society, like children or elderly people. Vulnerable customers believe in claims of such advertisements more as compared to regular customers, and hence, it is the duty of the celebrities to ensure they behave in an ethical fashion while promoting brands to this section of society. Many Indian celebrities also endorse products meant for children. Trouble erupted for Maggi, a Nestle noodles product, in 2015 when food regulators found lead and monosodium glutamate over and above the permissible limits in it (Anand, 2015). The government intervened and immediately stopped the sale of Maggi noodles. An Indian court summoned three celebrities, namely, Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta, who appeared in the advertisement of Maggi noodles (Mehta, 2015). They received charges of misrepresentation of facts and promoting an unhealthy food product. This controversy was a huge embarrassment for Nestle and the celebrities involved in their advertisements.

Even if this controversy did not happen, there are problems with the promotion of products for vulnerable consumers. The first problem is that advertisements influence and lure the children in the purchase and consumption of food items (Hamilton-Ekeke & Thomas, 2007; Halford, Boyland, Hughes, Oliveira, & Dovey, 2007). Childhood food preferences remain with people throughout their lives, and thus, advertising can affect a child’s future health status (Skinner, Carruth, Bounds, & Ziegler, 2002). The negative effects of advertisements on younger population increase with the presence of celebrities. Advertisements featuring celebrities have a greater influence on children food consumption (Birch, 1999). Children prefer to consume products that celebrities endorse, unconcerned about their own health. We argue that in such circumstances, the onus of verifying their advertised claims about a product lies with the celebrity, and the celebrities cannot shun their responsibility toward children.

The second problem starts when celebrities support unverified claims about a product and project it as a healthy option for children. In many cases, children start believing the celebrity-promoted products are healthier than they actually are (Phillipson & Jones, 2008). Even in the case of Maggi, celebrities made tall claims about its nutritious value. In reality, Maggi noodles are a type of fast food that are not good for health. Children perceive Maggi as a healthy food option due to celebrity endorsements, and this amounts to a misrepresentation of facts by these celebrities. Celebrities’ appearance in food advertisements has damaging and confusing effects on children’s understanding of healthy food. Children lose their competence to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy foods and often resort to overconsumption (Boyland et al., 2013). They consume more than required, which leads to health problems like obesity and stress among children. In the present case discussion, even when the celebrities are working within the legal framework, they are still morally responsible toward society. They should never promote anything directed toward children unless they are confident about the effect of such endorsements.

Another problem with celebrity advertising is that of exaggerated claims they make. It is grossly unethical on the part of a celebrity to project a brand in a way that overstates its functionalities. Hindustan Unilever Limited developed an advertisement featuring actor Ranbir Kapoor for promoting its new deodorant under the brand name Axe. In the advertisement, the actor keeps a record of a number of times he is able to grab female attention in a day. The advertisement makes an exaggerated claim when it projects that applying Axe deodorant can always attract females toward a man (“Axe Gets Ranbir,” 2013). In a huge embarrassment to Hindustan Unilever Limited, a 26-year-old filed suit against it for cheating and causing mental agony (Kamral, 2011). He claimed he had been using Axe deodorant for the previous seven years but still was not able to find a girlfriend.

The involvement of celebrities in such exaggerated claims enhances the problem as customers buy brands under false promises and feel cheated. Such advertisements easily influence non-users and waste their money on products they do not require. Such advertising, which makes customers acquire products with false or misleading beliefs, falls under the category of deceptive advertising (LaTour & LaTouor, 2009; Xie, Madrigal, & Boush, 2015). Deceptive advertising is a morally objectionable act because it is wrong to rob anyone of his or her financial resources for one’s own benefit. Celebrities must avoid being part of such advertisements. Another common unethical practice most celebrities follow is they promote products they never use. While endorsing a brand, they may make an impression that the product benefits them in one way or another but in reality, they themselves are not actual consumers. Again, it is unethical on their part to endorse something they have not personally experienced.

In all the cases above, our purpose is to understand the morality of celebrities involved in such branding initiatives. Celebrities are brands in themselves, and they have the potential to amplify the impact of advertised brands (Buttle, Raymond, & Danziger, 2000). So, it is pertinent to comprehend the kind of role celebrities play while endorsing brands. Celebrities get celebrity status because of their fans and people at large. They are successful because other people support them, and they at least owe to society not promoting brands without looking into all the important claims. They cannot hide behind the companies they endorse for any such misdeeds. From a virtue-based ethics perspective, every individual and organization needs to improve its character and contribute to the betterment of society at large (Melé, 2009). A virtue ethics framework provides us with a standard to measure the ethicality of celebrity behavior in an advertising context. Celebrities, thus, need to understand the social impact of their decision as part of an advertisement campaign.

Celebrity endorsements are known for improving the financial health of companies (Chung, Derdenger, & Srinivasan, 2013; Elberse & Verleun, 2012). Advertising practitioners are the third party involved in celebrity advertising. They are the main entities that conceive and execute a campaign. Research indicates that advertising practitioners themselves suffer from “moral myopia” (Drumwright & Murphy, 2004). Their decision-making process is devoid of ethical considerations (Bakir & Vitell, 2010). In such circumstances, the onus of proving the ethicality of their act lies mostly on the celebrities. There is no strictly defined law in India to regulate endorsements by celebrities. Even when the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, states that “any person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of an advertisement, which falsely describes any food, or is likely to mislead as to [its] nature or substance or quality… or gives a false guarantee” (p. 45), there are many legal loopholes that make it difficult to make celebrities clearly accountable for promoting a wrong product. In such circumstances, it is the responsibility of celebrities to check for the morality of the decisions they make while promoting any brand.

Recently, in a major development in the Indian advertising sector, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) came up with guidelines making celebrities responsible for the claims in the advertisements (Bhusan, 2017). As per new ASCI guidelines, the celebrity endorsements or opinions should reflect the genuine and current opinions based on their actual experience with the products. In another development, a parliamentary panel is pondering on strict punishment for celebrities featuring in misleading advertisements (“Celebrity endorsers could face 10 Lakhs fine,” 2016). The panel is likely to recommend a jail term up to five years and a fine up to INR 5 million for celebrities found guilty. The point here is that when citizens to not voluntarily fulfill the moral obligations, it leads to the birth of strict formal rules and regulations, which in itself is not good. People in society do not need rules for each and every transaction, and one should be aware morally of his or her duties toward other members of society and act accordingly.

Thus, in a nutshell, celebrities need to depict more ethical behavior while endorsing different brands. They are representatives of society, and choices they make have an impact on the society. They cannot pass on blame to brands if something goes wrong. They are accountable for the decisions they make. Celebrities should endorse only products they have experienced personally and should verify the genuineness of the claims in brand advertising to the best of their knowledge. There should not be any misrepresentation or exaggeration of facts under any circumstances. All celebrities should avoid promoting socially undesirable products like liquor or cigarettes through surrogate advertising. Last, celebrities should take the utmost care when they decide to promote a brand targeting vulnerable consumers like children or elderly people. We expect a better future for consumers and companies in which celebrities behave in a more socially responsible manner.

• 1    Do you think celebrities involved in advertising have some responsibilities toward consumers? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

• 2    Discuss the effectiveness of rules and regulations in governing advertising scenarios around the world.

• 3    Who should be more responsible toward consumers, the celebrities or the brands?

• 4    How should the celebrities decide which brand to endorse?

• 5    What should be the repercussions of a product failure on the celebrity endorser?

• 6    In the race to achieve higher sales, how should brands set the boundary of what is ethical advertising?

Singh, G., & Mishra, A. (2018). Ethics and celebrity advertising: Cases in the Indian advertising industry. In H. Gringarten, & R. Fernández-Calienes (Eds.). Ethical branding and marketing: Cases and lessons (pp. 173–184). Routledge Management and Business Studies Series. London and New York: Routledge.

1. Abhay Deol calls out Bollywood’s obsession with fair skin; Disses SRK, Deepika. (2017). News 18. Retrieved from http://www.news18.com/news/movies/abhay-deol-calls-out-bollywoods-obsession-with-fair-skin-disses-srk-deepika-1371577.html

2. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0146

3. American Marketing Association. (n.d.). Statement of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Statement-of-Ethics.aspx

4. Anand, U. (2015). Are the endorsers of Maggi culpable? Law sweeping, no legal precedent yet. Indian Express. Retrieved from http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/are-the-endorsers-of-maggi-culpable-law-sweeping-no-legal-precedent-yet/

5. Axe gets Ranbir going with clicker, without Axe. (2013). Campaign India. Retrieved from http://www.campaignindia.in/video/axe-gets-ranbir-going- with-the-clicker-without-axe/418767

6. Bag, A. (2014). Surrogate advertisement of liquor in India: How Indian liquor companies game the rules? Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/surrogate-advertisement-of-liquor-in-india-how-indian-liquor-companies-game-the-rules/

7. Bakir, A., & Vitell, S. J. (2010). The ethics of food advertising targeted toward children: Parental viewpoint. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 299–311. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0084-2

8. Bhusan, R. (2017). Advertisements for products being reworked after ASCI puts the onus on benefit-based claims on celebs. The Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/advertising/advertisements-for-products-being-reworked-after-asci-puts-onus-of-benefit-based-claims-on-celebs/articleshow/58707116.cms

9. Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19(1), 41–62. doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.41

10. Boyland, E. J., Harrold, J. A., Dovey, T. M., Allison, M., Dobson, S., Jacobs, M. C., & Halford, J. C. (2013). Food choice and overconsumption: Effect of a premium sports celebrity endorser. The Journal of Pediatrics, 163(2), 339–343. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.059

11. Buttle, H., Raymond, J. E., & Danziger, S. (2000). Do famous faces capture attention? Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 245. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8395/volumes/v27/NA-27

12. Celebrity endorsers could face 10 Lakhs fine, 2-year jail for misleading ads. (2016). NDTV. Retrieved from https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/celebrity-endorsers-could-face-10-lakhs-fine-2-year-jail-for-misleading-ads-1395273

13. Chia, S. C., & Poo, Y. L. (2009). Media, celebrities, and fans: An examination of adolescents’ media usage and involvement with entertainment celebrities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 23–44. doi:10.1177/107769900908600103

14. Choi, C. J., & Berger, R. (2010). Ethics of celebrities and their increasing influence in 21st-century society. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 313–318. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0090-4

15. Chung, K. Y., Derdenger, T. P., & Srinivasan, K. (2013). The economic value of celebrity endorsements: Tiger Woods’ impact on sales of Nike golf balls. Marketing Science, 32(2), 271–293. doi:10.1287/mksc.1120.0760

16. Dhillon, A. (2015). Bollywood icons who endorse irresponsibly. The National. Retrieved from https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/bollywood- icons-who-endorse-irresponsibly-1.122209

17. Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2004). How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 7–24. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639158

18. Eisend, M., & Langner, T. (2010). Immediate and delayed advertising effects of celebrity endorsers’ attractiveness and expertise. International Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 527–546. doi:10.2501/S0265048710201336

19. Elberse, A., & Verleun, J. (2012). The economic value of celebrity endorsements. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(2), 149–165. doi: 10.2501/JAR-52-2-149-165

20. Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 291–314. doi:10.1362/026725799784870379

21. Fair & Handsome ad removed after this student fought for two and half years. (2015). The Logical Indian. Retrieved from https://thelogicalindian.com/news/this-student-fought-for-two-and-half-years-to-get-fair-handsome-ad-removed/

22. Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006. (2006, August 23). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department). Retrieved from http://www.fssai.gov.in/home/fss-legislation/food-safety-and-standards-act.html

23. Gupta, R. (2017). #Recap 2016: Most controversial ads of the year. AdAge India. Retrieved from http://www.adageindia.in/advertising/recap2016-most-controversial-ads-of-the-year/articleshow/56259411.cms

24. Halford, J. C., Boyland, E. J., Hughes, G., Oliveira, L. P., & Dovey, T. M. (2007). Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5–7-year-old children. Appetite, 49(1), 263–267. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.003

25. Halonen-Knight, E., & Hurmerinta, L. (2010). Who endorses whom? Meanings transfer in celebrity endorsement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), 452–460. doi:10.1108/10610421011085767

26. Hamilton-Ekeke, J. T., & Thomas, M. (2007). Primary children’s choice of food and their knowledge of balanced diet and healthy eating. British Food Journal, 109(6), 457–468. doi:10.1108/00070700710753517

27. Jain, V., & Roy, S. (2016). Understanding meaning transfer in celebrity endorsements: A qualitative exploration. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(3), 266–286. doi:10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0020

28. Kamral, D. (2011). Deo ads face the Axe effect. The Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/Deo-ads-face-the-axe-effect/articleshow/8585331.cms

29. Keel, A., & Nataraajan, R. (2012). Celebrity endorsements and beyond: New avenues for celebrity branding. Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 690–703. doi:10.1002/mar.20555

30. LaTour, K. A., & LaTour, M. S. (2009). Positive mood and susceptibility to false advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 127–142. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380309

31. Mehta, A. (2015). Maggi noodles in soup: Can actors who endorse products be held liable? Hindustan Times. Retrieved from http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/maggi-noodles-in-soup-can-actors-who-endorse-products-be-held-liable/story-2i1mxjj5ticxPDyMqiw1oJ.html

32. Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0108-y

33. Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13(3), 27–38. doi:10.1080/00913367.1984.10672899

34. Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21(2), 159–173. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(90)90050-N

35. Phillipson, L., & Jones, S. C. (2008). I eat Milo to make me run faster: How the use of sport in food marketing may influence the food beliefs of young Australians. In D. Spanjaard, S. Denize, & N. Sharma (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (pp. 1–7). Sydney, Australia: Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy.

36. Robideaux, D. (2013). Credibility and television advertising: Negative and positive political ads. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 7(3), 68. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/jmdcopen.html

37. Sarkar, J. (2017). Ramdev’s fast food chain to take on MNC’s. The Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/ramdevs-fast-food-chain-to-take-on-mncs/articleshow/58524814.cms

38. Saxena, R. (2008, April 22). It’s not working. Business Standard, The Strategist. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/management/it-s-not-working-108042201018_1.html

39. Sengupta, A. (2015). Emami fined Rs 15 lakh after executive feels cheated. ABP Live. Retrieved from http://www.abplive.in/india-news/emami-fined-rs-15-lakh-after-executive-feels-cheated-239938

40. Sharma, R. R., & Chander, S. (2007). Consumer psychographics and surrogate advertising: An application of multiple discriminant analysis. ICFAI Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(4), 25–47.

41. Shimp, T. A. (2003). Advertising, promotion, & supplemental aspects of integrated marketing communication. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

42. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. doi:10.2307/1884852

43. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129. doi:10.1037/h0042769

44. Skinner, J. D., Carruth, B. R., Bounds, W., & Ziegler, P. J. (2002). Children’s food preferences: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(11), 1638–1647. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90349-4

45. Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Bettina Cornwell, T. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility, and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882–909. doi:10.1108/03090561111119958

46. Vaj, J. (2006). Ajay Devgan signed as Bagpipers brand ambassador. Business of Cinema. Retrieved from http://businessofcinema.com/bollywood-news/ajay-devgan-signed-as-bagpipers-brand-ambassador/15882

47. Vijayalakshmi, A., Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. (2015, January). Measuring consumers’ responses to negative advertising: The tolerance of negativity (ton) scale. In American Academy of Advertising. Conference. Proceedings (Online) (p. 123). American Academy of Advertising. Retrieved from http://www.aaasite.org/proceedings

48. Wei, P. S., & Lu, H. P. (2013). An examination of the celebrity endorsements and online customer reviews influence female consumers’ shopping behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 193–201. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.005

49. Xie, G. X., Madrigal, R., & Boush, D. M. (2015). Disentangling the effects of perceived deception and anticipated harm on consumer responses to deceptive advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 281–293. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2155-2

50. Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R. M., Breugelmans, S. M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 18. Retrieved from http://journal.sjdm.org/vol3.1.htm