The Advertising Board of the Philippines

The Advertising Board of the Philippines , also known as AdBoard is composed of ten (10) national organizations involved in advertising that are unified together to uphold the progress of Philippine advertising through self-regulation. Being the umbrella organization of the advertising industry, its mission is to practice world class advertising along with advocating professional ethics through responsible and truthful advertising.

AdBoard was formerly known as the Philippine Board of Advertising . The board was formed as a result of a series of meetings in 1973 by leaders in the advertising industry. They felt the urge to commit themselves in creating a committee to achieve their goal in serving the interests of the nation. The Board was established on May 3, 1974.

Vision
We are the voice of the Philippine advertising industry.
The pivotal force of a dynamic, prosperous, and responsible industry.

Mission
* We recognize self-regulation as the cornerstone of our existence
* We uphold the highest standards of fair play and professional ethics.
* We foster harmony among our members
* We safeguard the interest of consumers through truthful & responsible advertising
* We create the environment where world class advertising flourishes.

History
THE ADBOARD STORY
by: Cid Reyes
It was the worst of times, it was certainly not the best of times. On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos issued President Decree 1081. With one stroke of the pen, the dictator proclaimed emergency rule, and placed the entire country under Martial law. The proclamation was timed near the end of his second and last legal term. With the obvious intent of perpetuating himself in power, Ferdinand E. Marcos ostensibly used the engulfing menace of Communism as a reason for the imposition of Martial Law.

Among other acts, the dictatorial government immediately moved to suspend media operations. Due to the mass communication nature of advertising, the government needed to control it. Television and radio stations and newspapers were closed, delivering a considerable blow to the advertising industry. Only one news paper, the crony-owned Daily Express, was allowed to operate after a one-day lapse. Media leader ABS-CBN (Channels 2 and 4) which also owned ABC (Channel 5), DZMT and DZWS, were all closed. With no media outlet available, some advertisers enterprisingly resorted to imaginative venues such as nightclub bands and entertainers singing their jingles. THE MASS MEDIA COUNCIL

Soon after, Marcos directed the formation of the Mass Media Council, supervised jointly by the Secretary of Public Information, Francisco Tatad and the Secretary of National Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile. In turn the Office of Civil Relations was assigned to coordinate all media activities, then under the charge of Colonel Noel Andaya. In January 1973, the Mass Media Council meet with the heads of all communications associations in the Philippines to develop new and updated rules for the conduct of media advertising agencies. At that time, all media and advertising agencies were loosely classified as mass media.s Presiding over the meeting was Andres Cristobal Cruz, director of the Bureau of Standards for Mass Media, an office of the Department of Public Information. Several councils were formed at the meeting, among which was the Council for Advertising, Public Relations, Research and Sales Promotion. It was headed by entrepreneur Francisco R. Floro of Floro Enterprises.

A sub-committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Lyle K. Little, who was then president of J. Walter Thompson. The aim was to forge a Code of Ethics as well as Rules and Regulations governing all those engaged in advertising and sales promotions. Participating in the sub-committee were representatives from the Association of Philippine Advertising Agencies, Philippine Association of National Advertisers, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoners na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan, The Outdoor and and Cinema Advertising Associations of the Philippines, Print Media Organization, the Office of Civil Relations, the Institute of Mass Communications, and the Consumer Sector. Fifteen months after the initial meeting, this Council completed the Code of Ethics in March 1974, subsequently approved and ratified by all participating organizations. It was then submitted for approval to the Secretary of Public Information. Yen Makabenta, a member of the DPI, was assigned to refine the code, and suggest appropriate changes in terms of clarity and precision. THE BIRTH OF THE PBA

The existence of a Code of Ethics made prominent the essential need for a formal organization that can unify the various sectors of the advertising industry. Thus, on May 6, 1974 the Philippine Board of Advertising (PBA) was organized, with the above-named associations comprising the founding members. The secretary of Public information released the Code on April 4, 1975. Because the Code was meant to be a living, dynamic instrument responsive and sensitive to the needs and changes of the time, additional modification would be made in succeeding years. On June 19, 1975, the PBA adopted a revised version of Code of Ethics which included certain other modifications. More significantly, the revised Code identified and confirmed the PBA as the self-regulatory body referred to in that code. FRANCISCO FLORO – FOUNDING CHAIRMAN

The PBA elected Francisco as its founding chairman. Appointed as the First Executive Director was Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.; Vice Chairman, Antonio L. Cantero; Secretary Santiago D. Olbes; Treasurer, Napoleon R. Cruz; Information Officer, Lyle K. Little. The office was located at the 2nd Floor, National Federation of Women’s Clubs Building , J. Llanes Escoda St. , Malate. Meanwhile Presidential Decree No. 756 of 9 November 1974 had created the Print Media Council and the Broadcast Media Council to replace the Media Advisory Council (successor of the Mass Media Council.) This 1974 decree stated that:

Since the abolition of the Mass Council and the creation in its stead of the Media Advisory Council, the various sectors of mass media have shown capability for self-regulation and internal discipline within their ranks, and have demonstrated responsibility for maintaining standards for professional conduct and excellence, The Print Media Group and the Broadcast Media Group are hereby authorized to organize and determine the composition of a body or council within each group, which shall be responsible for instituting and formulating systems of self-regulation as well as in the implementation and enforcement of the PBA’s decisions relative to the advertising screened… “Based on its experience so far, the Philippine Board of advertising has informed the Department of Trade that it needs a more direct involvement of the Department to more effectively coordinate all decisions made with reference to cases involving violations of the industry — promulgated Code of Ethics and other existing laws on unfair trade practices involving the use of mass-media advertising. “Pursuant, therefore to the powers vested upon me by law, I am hereby directing that:

* All cases and/ or cases of alleged violations of accepted fair-trade practices or laws involving the use of mass-media advertising brought before the Department of Trade or any of its instrumentalities be referred to the Philippine Board of advertising for proper hearing and adjudication; * The PBA be authorized to screen all advertising as may fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade. In this connection, at least senior officials of the department of Trade shall be appointed by the Secretary of trade who shall participate in the activities of the screening of the Philippine Board of advertising. * The Philippine Board of Advertising shall submit its screening procedures to the Department of trade for endorsements. * The sanctions provided for by law will be imposed by the Department of trade upon the recommendation of the Philippine Board of Advertising on parties found guilty of violating existing laws and/ or governmental rules and regulations relative to fair-trade practices in the use of mass-media advertising.

“The Department feels that the implementation of this basic agreement, which shall be covered by the necessary Department administrative Orders and Circulars, will enhance the development of the concept of self-regulation of an industry vital to the development of our national culture, in the dissemination of information and in the conduct of trade. Finally, it is understood that this agreement is being formalized pursuant to the government’s philosophy that self-regulation by an industry often serves to inculcate a greater sense of responsibility. We wish the Philippine Board of Advertising success in this endeavor.” The government’s endorsement of the original PBA Code was important in order to stress that recalcitrant advertisers would not be let unpunished. However, the progressive extension of the prescreening requirement has reduced the importance of this threat, since all broadcast commercials must now be approved in advance, thereby minimizing the likelihood of post broadcasting complaints. THE PHILIPPINE ADVERTISING CONGRESS

Coinciding the birth of the PBA was the third Advertising Congress, held in Manila in 1974. IT was opportune that the fledgling organization should sponsor the event. Appropriately the chosen theme was “A New Balance, A New Beginning.” The proceedings of the Congress were centered on the initiation and finalization of various PBA resolutions, including a representation with the Department of Information for the review of certain provisions of the proposed Code of Ethics for Advertising and Sales Promotion. From hereon, the PBA would manage and oversee all succeeding advertising congresses with the proceeds there from to constitute the main funding of the organization, aside from income generated from screening fees and membership dues. This was only fitting, since the PBA now had the support of all the sectors of the industry – advertisers, advertising agencies, media and production suppliers, aside from the government and consumer groups. The advertising congress brings together the entire industry to discuss current and relevant trends, address problems and seek solutions, and recognize the excellence of the industry’s creative product.

Indeed, the history of the Philippine Advertising Congress would run parallel with that of the PBA. The congress would become the traditional summit gathering of the advertising and marketing industry. The first Philippine Advertising Congress was held in 1969 in Cebu City. The event marked the beginning of a series of advertising industry conferences which traditionally, would convene every two years. The holding of the first congress in Cebu City was consistent with its primary objective, which was to provide technical assistance to the provincial media, making the event a significant milestone in the development of local advertising. More than 400 advertisers, agency and media leaders and representatives participated.

The congress was the first systematic effort undertaken on a national scale to upgrade professionalism in advertising and ensure the development of the industry. It was envisioned and managed by Association of Philippine Advertising Agencies (APAA), then headed by J. Modesto Ledesma. Two years later, from July 29-31, 1971, the second Philippine Advertising Congress took place in Bacolod City, at a time when there was already growing ferment in the country, with radical elements using the streets for violent rallies and demonstrations. The orientation and the theme of the second advertising congress was “Maximizing Consumer Benefits Thru Advertising.” Designed to meet the challenge of redirecting the business of advertising towards the public good, the Congress was managed by the Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA) whose then president was tasked overall Chairman, Alfredo Antonio of P&G/PMC. THE CODE OF ETHICS

On November 24, 1975, the PBA held a press conference at the Plaza Restaurant in Makati, where it officially made public copies of the document designed “to establish norms and guidelines for the advertising industry in its effort to make the profession more relevant and responsive to the developing society.” Above all, the PBA said, “the Code of Ethics is the advertising industry’s recognition of the responsibility to the consumers of the product of business and industry.” Trade Secretary Troadio T. Quiazon, who was the guest speaker, lauded the drafting and promulgation of an industry Code of Ethics: I cannot overemphasize the importance and significance of this code in the perspective of our times.” “Firstly, the advertising Code of Ethics is an eloquent manifestation of the wisdom behind the government’s basic policy of industry self-regulation. It is the government’s belief that we can best achieve the progress we desire for our society by involving all citizens in this task.

The advertising industry has shown that it is equal to this challenge. “Secondly, the advertising Code of Ethics comes at a time of growing consumer awareness about the quality of goods and services they buy. The code provides the implementing rules and regulations that will give substance to the principle of truth in advertising to guide responsible practitioners of the trade.” The launching of the PBA Code of Ethics received extensive media coverage. The Dec. 4, 1975 issue of the Evening Express devoted a full-length editorial to the code. The editorial noted that “the document is the result of the efforts of the advertising industry to put out an effective guide for those who are new and who will be involved in advertising and sales promotions.” Julie Yap Daza, of the Times Journal, wrote that “while the Code exists it cannot be fully effective if we refuse its protection and deny our commitment to its cause.” Daza warned that if “we allow it (the code) to be nothing but an exercise in idealism, we must not blame the PBA, we must blame it on ourselves for not wanting it to work.”

The late Teodoro F. Valencia, writing in his column “Over a Cup of Coffee” declared that it was good news for TV viewers and radio listeners. He urged his readers to help “by being involved and vigilant.” The “Consumers Observation Post” column of Ethel Soliven Timbol and Deedee Siytangco in Bulletin Today expressed hope that the guidelines set by the Code would redound to consumer protection. Wrote the columnists: “The PBA has set in black and white what they should and shouldn’t do in pursuit of telling the public how good a product or service is and why we should believe them.” Furthermore, they urged Secretary Quiazon to require compulsory membership of all ad agencies in the PBA to effectively implement the Code.. Dean Cleotilde G. Protomartir, president of the “Kilusan ng mga Mamimili ng Pilipinas, Ink” wrote in the “Consumers Corner” of the Daily Express her congratulations to the Philippine Board of Advertising and Sales Promotion.” She affirmed her belief that “consumers are now somewhat assured of honest and honest truthful advertising.” IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK

On February 20, 1976, the PBA was deputized by Print Media Council and the Broadcast Media Council to implement their task of “elevating the ethics and standards of excellence in the mass media.” It is to the credit of the government that the prescreening of advertising was entrusted to the industry. Advertising, after all, was something that the government was not completely knowledgeable about. Advertising was perceived as a less subversive material, less dangerous to the state. Censorship of news was already firmly in place, in the emergence of newspapers, TV and radio stations run by the dictator’s cronies.. DIRECT COMPARISON ADVERTISING

On December 27, 1976, PBA Chairman Francisco R. Floro released a memorandum informing the entire industry that the PBA has approved the recommendation of the Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA) disallowing all direct comparison advertising. Still under the chairmanship of Floro, the PBA managed the Fourth Philippine Advertising Congress which was held in Manila on October 21-23, 1976. The theme was “Bridge to the Eighties.” The hot controversial topic of the Congress, was the smoldering issue of direct comparison advertising. Based on the 20th September 1976 ruling of the PBA (which imposed a moratorium on direct comparison), the definition was amended, thus: CALL REPORT

To serve as the official “mouthpiece” of the PBA was a newly-launched publication named Call Report . The newsletter, disseminated widely to engage the active involvement of all the industry sectors, carried timely editorials that reflected the unique problems of the times. One article was headlined “How much longer do we have to put up with agencies who play it sneaky?” Lyle K. Little, president of J. Walter Thompson, wrote a column, “Pulse,” which reported on advertising groups in the U.S. and Europe. Call Report also reprinted informative articles from Advertising Age, the official publication of the U.S. advertising industry. Examples were “11 Ways to get the most out of your Ad Agency,” and a long-running series, “What is Advertising? What Does it Do?” substantial research and survey reports were also published. Among these was one prepared by Antonio R. De Joya, Oscar P. Lagman, Jr., and Pedro “Boo” Changco III, on “The State of the Television Business Today.” To wit: “The year 1975 was a struggle for survival for the television industry. While billing in 1975 increased over 1074, expenses also swelled considerably. Many live shows were suspended or even altogether scrapped. There were more taped and international programs and shows than in previous years. Other cost-cutting measures were likewise adopted by the industry as practitioners streamlined their operations in response to the generally bad business climate for the industry.”

Call Report was edited by Boo Changco, with Michael C. Grisdale as chairman of the Editorial Committee. PBA ROUNDS
Another column, “PBA Rounds”, covered the various activities of the industry – such as the election of officers of the PBA member organizations, updates in congress proceedings and resolutions, grievances from agencies and advertisers, and homages to prominent industry personages. AIDA

An urgent industry need recognized by the PBA at this time was the lack of manpower development. The issue continued to be a serious concern in the advertising and marketing industry. A consequence of this was the shortage of enough qualified advertising professionals, unrealistic salary scales, and the unabated pirating of personnel b advertising agencies, advertisers and media. The PBA acted decisively on this matter by organizing the Asian Institute for the Development of Advertising (AIDA). Elected officers were Antonio R. De Joya, Chairman of the Board and President; Oscar P. Lagman, Jr., Vice-President and Executive Director (concurrent with his position at the PBA) and Pedro A. Changco III, Assistant Secretary. The academic affairs committee was headed by Ms. Nanette Diyco and Father Alberto Ampil. In line with its objective of upgrading professional standards, AIDA launched a training program, a Basic Advertising Seminar.

This was followed by more specialized seminars. The copywriting seminar covered various topics and featured noted specialists in the field: Karl Steinbrenne (McCann Erickson) “The Copy Strategy”; Mandy Labayen (Great Wall Advertising) and Gryk Ortaleza (Ace-Compton) “Writing for Print”; Greg Macabenta (advertising and Marketing Associates.) “Writing for Radio and Television.” The seminar on Media Planning and Buying was designed to give participants a working knowledge of the various audiences, reach and cost efficiency of the different media and how they compare with one another. The speakers and their topics were: Tony Tolentino (PRC) “How Media Define Markets”; Pastor Escano (Advertising and Marketing Associates) “Distinguishing Media Capabilities”; Minda Lansang (JWT) “Media Planning”; and Eric Celis (Atlas Promotions) “Media Buying”. Slowly but surely the PBA was making its influence felt on the future leaders of the industry.

LAPPIS – Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoner na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan It may appear as a curiosity why the advertising agencies were represented in the PBA by two distinctly separate organizations: The Association of the Philippine Advertising Agencies (APAA) and the Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoner na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan (LAPPIS). Both were recognized as legitimate by the PBA. The APAA was the first association of the advertising industry in the Philippines. Organized in October 1956, its primary objective was to promote and foster the continued recognition of the social responsibilities of advertising agencies. The second, LAPPIS, was the brainchild of Antonio Cantero, who founded his own agency, The Group, in 1973. Being in its infancy, Cantero’s newly founded agency lacked the qualifications for membership in the APAA, which included all the multi-national agencies.

With only one newspaper allowed to be published during the Martial Law era, the APAA, according to Cantero, tried to corner its advertising space through a contract which would prevent non-APAA members from getting ad space. This unjust treatment provoked Cantero into forming an organization of non-APAA members. Thus was LAPPIS formed in 1975, consisting of 26 all-Filipino agencies: Cantero was elected as founding chairman and president. Other officers elected were Vic Villafuerte of Commerce, Executive Vice-President; Lucy David of Great Wall Advertising, Vice President for Internal affairs; Quintin P. Pastrana, of Asia Promotions, Vice President for Developmental Affairs; Rey David of Avellana ASSOCIATES, Secretary; Vic Francisco of Viewpoint, Treasurer; Dominador Inigo of Philconsultants, Auditor; Diego Cantero, Jr. of Adtrade, Cirilo S. Martinez of Link, and Armi Aquino of Time and Space. GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT

A letter of 1 August 1977 from Trade Secretary Quiazon formalized the explicit endorsement of the PBA by the government. It read: “This will serve to formalize our basic agreement…for a working arrangement wherein the Department of Trade will provide all the necessary assistance and support to the Philippine Board of Advertising in the screening of all advertising materials, as internal discipline with its own ranks.” THE ADBOARD STORY by : Cid Reyes

It was the worst of times, it was certainly not the best of times. On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos issued President Decree 1081. With one stroke of the pen, the dictator proclaimed emergency rule, and placed the entire country under Martial law. The proclamation was timed near the end of his second and last legal term. With the obvious intent of perpetuating himself in power, Ferdinand E. Marcos ostensibly used the engulfing menace of Communism as a reason for the imposition of Martial Law. Among other acts, the dictatorial government immediately moved to suspend media operations. Due to the mass communication nature of advertising, the government needed to control it. Television and radio stations and newspapers were closed, delivering a considerable blow to the advertising industry. Only one news paper, the crony-owned Daily Express, was allowed to operate after a one-day lapse. Media leader ABS-CBN (Channels 2 and 4) which also owned ABC (Channel 5), DZMT and DZWS, were all closed. With no media outlet available, some advertisers enterprisingly resorted to imaginative venues such as nightclub bands and entertainers singing their jingles. THE MASS MEDIA COUNCIL

Soon after, Marcos directed the formation of the Mass Media Council, supervised jointly by the Secretary of Public Information, Francisco Tatad and the Secretary of National Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile. In turn the Office of Civil Relations was assigned to coordinate all media activities, then under the charge of Colonel Noel Andaya. In January 1973, the Mass Media Council meet with the heads of all communications associations in the Philippines to develop new and updated rules for the conduct of media advertising agencies. At that time, all media and advertising agencies were loosely classified as ?mass media.? Presiding over the meeting was Andres Cristobal Cruz, director of the Bureau of Standards for Mass Media, an office of the Department of Public Information. Several councils were formed at the meeting, among which was the Council for Advertising, Public Relations, Research and Sales Promotion. It was headed by entrepreneur Francisco R. Floro of Floro Enterprises.

A sub-committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Lyle K. Little, who was then president of J. Walter Thompson. The aim was to forge a Code of Ethics as well as Rules and Regulations governing all those engaged in advertising and sales promotions. Participating in the sub-committee were representatives from the Association of Philippine Advertising Agencies, Philippine Association of National Advertisers, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoners na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan, The Outdoor and and Cinema Advertising Associations of the Philippines, Print Media Organization, the Office of Civil Relations, the Institute of Mass Communications, and the Consumer Sector. Fifteen months after the initial meeting, this Council completed the Code of Ethics in March 1974, subsequently approved and ratified by all participating organizations. It was then submitted for approval to the Secretary of Public Information. Yen Makabenta, a member of the DPI, was assigned to refine the code, and suggest appropriate changes in terms of clarity and precision. THE BIRTH OF THE PBA

The existence of a Code of Ethics made prominent the essential need for a formal organization that can unify the various sectors of the advertising industry. Thus, on May 6, 1974 the Philippine Board of Advertising (PBA) was organized, with the above-named associations comprising the founding members. The secretary of Public information released the Code on April 4, 1975. Because the Code was meant to be a living, dynamic instrument responsive and sensitive to the needs and changes of the time, additional modification would be made in succeeding years. On June 19, 1975, the PBA adopted a revised version of Code of Ethics which included certain other modifications. More significantly, the revised Code identified and confirmed the PBA as the self-regulatory body referred to in that code. FRANCISCO FLORO – FOUNDING CHAIRMAN

The PBA elected Francisco as its founding chairman. Appointed as the First Executive Director was Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.; Vice Chairman, Antonio L. Cantero; Secretary Santiago D. Olbes; Treasurer, Napoleon R. Cruz; Information Officer, Lyle K. Little. The office was located at the 2nd Floor, National Federation of Women’s Clubs Building , J. Llanes Escoda St. , Malate. Meanwhile Presidential Decree No. 756 of 9 November 1974 had created the Print Media Council and the Broadcast Media Council to replace the Media Advisory Council (successor of the Mass Media Council.) This 1974 decree stated that:

Since the abolition of the Mass Council and the creation in its stead of the Media Advisory Council, the various sectors of mass media have shown capability for self-regulation and internal discipline within their ranks, and have demonstrated responsibility for maintaining standards for professional conduct and excellence, The Print Media Group and the Broadcast Media Group are hereby authorized to organize and determine the composition of a body or council within each group, which shall be responsible for instituting and formulating systems of self-regulation as well as in the implementation and enforcement of the PBA’s decisions relative to the advertising screened… “Based on its experience so far, the Philippine Board of advertising has informed the Department of Trade that it needs a more direct involvement of the Department to more effectively coordinate all decisions made with reference to cases involving violations of the industry — promulgated Code of Ethics and other existing laws on unfair trade practices involving the use of mass-media advertising. “Pursuant, therefore to the powers vested upon me by law, I am hereby directing that:

* All cases and/ or cases of alleged violations of accepted fair-trade practices or laws involving the use of mass-media advertising brought before the Department of Trade or any of its instrumentalities be referred to the Philippine Board of advertising for proper hearing and adjudication; * The PBA be authorized to screen all advertising as may fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade. In this connection, at least senior officials of the department of Trade shall be appointed by the Secretary of trade who shall participate in the activities of the screening of the Philippine Board of advertising. * The Philippine Board of Advertising shall submit its screening procedures to the Department of trade for endorsements. * The sanctions provided for by law will be imposed by the Department of trade upon the recommendation of the Philippine Board of Advertising on parties found guilty of violating existing laws and/ or governmental rules and regulations relative to fair-trade practices in the use of mass-media advertising.

“The Department feels that the implementation of this basic agreement, which shall be covered by the necessary Department administrative Orders and Circulars, will enhance the development of the concept of self-regulation of an industry vital to the development of our national culture, in the dissemination of information and in the conduct of trade. Finally, it is understood that this agreement is being formalized pursuant to the government’s philosophy that self-regulation by an industry often serves to inculcate a greater sense of responsibility. We wish the Philippine Board of Advertising success in this endeavor.” The government’s endorsement of the original PBA Code was important in order to stress that recalcitrant advertisers would not be let unpunished. However, the progressive extension of the prescreening requirement has reduced the importance of this threat, since all broadcast commercials must now be approved in advance, thereby minimizing the likelihood of post broadcasting complaints. THE PHILIPPINE ADVERTISING CONGRESS

Coinciding the birth of the PBA was the third Advertising Congress, held in Manila in 1974. IT was opportune that the fledgling organization should sponsor the event. Appropriately the chosen theme was “A New Balance, A New Beginning.” The proceedings of the Congress were centered on the initiation and finalization of various PBA resolutions, including a representation with the Department of Information for the review of certain provisions of the proposed Code of Ethics for Advertising and Sales Promotion. From hereon, the PBA would manage and oversee all succeeding advertising congresses with the proceeds there from to constitute the main funding of the organization, aside from income generated from screening fees and membership dues. This was only fitting, since the PBA now had the support of all the sectors of the industry – advertisers, advertising agencies, media and production suppliers, aside from the government and consumer groups. The advertising congress brings together the entire industry to discuss current and relevant trends, address problems and seek solutions, and recognize the excellence of the industry’s creative product.

Indeed, the history of the Philippine Advertising Congress would run parallel with that of the PBA. The congress would become the traditional summit gathering of the advertising and marketing industry. The first Philippine Advertising Congress was held in 1969 in Cebu City. The event marked the beginning of a series of advertising industry conferences which traditionally, would convene every two years. The holding of the first congress in Cebu City was consistent with its primary objective, which was to provide technical assistance to the provincial media, making the event a significant milestone in the development of local advertising. More than 400 advertisers, agency and media leaders and representatives participated.

The congress was the first systematic effort undertaken on a national scale to upgrade professionalism in advertising and ensure the development of the industry. It was envisioned and managed by Association of Philippine Advertising Agencies (APAA), then headed by J. Modesto Ledesma. Two years later, from July 29-31, 1971, the second Philippine Advertising Congress took place in Bacolod City, at a time when there was already growing ferment in the country, with radical elements using the streets for violent rallies and demonstrations. The orientation and the theme of the second advertising congress was “Maximizing Consumer Benefits Thru Advertising.” Designed to meet the challenge of redirecting the business of advertising towards the public good, the Congress was managed by the Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA) whose then president was tasked overall Chairman, Alfredo Antonio of P&G/PMC. THE CODE OF ETHICS

On November 24, 1975, the PBA held a press conference at the Plaza Restaurant in Makati, where it officially made public copies of the document designed “to establish norms and guidelines for the advertising industry in its effort to make the profession more relevant and responsive to the developing society.” Above all, the PBA said, “the Code of Ethics is the advertising industry’s recognition of the responsibility to the consumers of the product of business and industry.” Trade Secretary Troadio T. Quiazon, who was the guest speaker, lauded the drafting and promulgation of an industry Code of Ethics: I cannot overemphasize the importance and significance of this code in the perspective of our times.” “Firstly, the advertising Code of Ethics is an eloquent manifestation of the wisdom behind the government’s basic policy of industry self-regulation. It is the government’s belief that we can best achieve the progress we desire for our society by involving all citizens in this task. The advertising industry has shown that it is equal to this challenge.

“Secondly, the advertising Code of Ethics comes at a time of growing consumer awareness about the quality of goods and services they buy. The code provides the implementing rules and regulations that will give substance to the principle of truth in advertising to guide responsible practitioners of the trade.” The launching of the PBA Code of Ethics received extensive media coverage. The Dec. 4, 1975 issue of the Evening Express devoted a full-length editorial to the code. The editorial noted that “the document is the result of the efforts of the advertising industry to put out an effective guide for those who are new and who will be involved in advertising and sales promotions.” Julie Yap Daza, of the Times Journal, wrote that “while the Code exists it cannot be fully effective if we refuse its protection and deny our commitment to its cause.” Daza warned that if “we allow it (the code) to be nothing but an exercise in idealism, we must not blame the PBA, we must blame it on ourselves for not wanting it to work.”

The late Teodoro F. Valencia, writing in his column “Over a Cup of Coffee” declared that it was good news for TV viewers and radio listeners. He urged his readers to help “by being involved and vigilant.” The “Consumers Observation Post” column of Ethel Soliven Timbol and Deedee Siytangco in Bulletin Today expressed hope that the guidelines set by the Code would redound to consumer protection. Wrote the columnists: “The PBA has set in black and white what they should and shouldn’t do in pursuit of telling the public how good a product or service is and why we should believe them.” Furthermore, they urged Secretary Quiazon to require compulsory membership of all ad agencies in the PBA to effectively implement the Code.. Dean Cleotilde G. Protomartir, president of the “Kilusan ng mga Mamimili ng Pilipinas, Ink” wrote in the “Consumers Corner” of the Daily Express her congratulations to the Philippine Board of Advertising and Sales Promotion.” She affirmed her belief that “consumers are now somewhat assured of honest and honest truthful advertising.” IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK

On February 20, 1976, the PBA was deputized by Print Media Council and the Broadcast Media Council to implement their task of “elevating the ethics and standards of excellence in the mass media.” It is to the credit of the government that the prescreening of advertising was entrusted to the industry. Advertising, after all, was something that the government was not completely knowledgeable about. Advertising was perceived as a less subversive material, less dangerous to the state. Censorship of news was already firmly in place, in the emergence of newspapers, TV and radio stations run by the dictator’s cronies.. DIRECT COMPARISON ADVERTISING

On December 27, 1976, PBA Chairman Francisco R. Floro released a memorandum informing the entire industry that the PBA has approved the recommendation of the Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA) disallowing all direct comparison advertising. Still under the chairmanship of Floro, the PBA managed the Fourth Philippine Advertising Congress which was held in Manila on October 21-23, 1976. The theme was “Bridge to the Eighties.” The hot controversial topic of the Congress, was the smoldering issue of direct comparison advertising. Based on the 20th September 1976 ruling of the PBA (which imposed a moratorium on direct comparison), the definition was amended, thus: CALL REPORT

To serve as the official “mouthpiece” of the PBA was a newly-launched publication named Call Report . The newsletter, disseminated widely to engage the active involvement of all the industry sectors, carried timely editorials that reflected the unique problems of the times. One article was headlined “How much longer do we have to put up with agencies who play it sneaky?” Lyle K. Little, president of J. Walter Thompson, wrote a column, “Pulse,” which reported on advertising groups in the U.S. and Europe. Call Report also reprinted informative articles from Advertising Age, the official publication of the U.S. advertising industry.

Examples were “11 Ways to get the most out of your Ad Agency,” and a long-running series, “What is Advertising? What Does it Do?” substantial research and survey reports were also published. Among these was one prepared by Antonio R. De Joya, Oscar P. Lagman, Jr., and Pedro “Boo” Changco III, on “The State of the Television Business Today.” To wit: “The year 1975 was a struggle for survival for the television industry. While billing in 1975 increased over 1074, expenses also swelled considerably. Many live shows were suspended or even altogether scrapped. There were more taped and international programs and shows than in previous years. Other cost-cutting measures were likewise adopted by the industry as practitioners streamlined their operations in response to the generally bad business climate for the industry.”

Call Report was edited by Boo Changco, with Michael C. Grisdale as chairman of the Editorial Committee. PBA ROUNDS
Another column, “PBA Rounds”, covered the various activities of the industry – such as the election of officers of the PBA member organizations, updates in congress proceedings and resolutions, grievances from agencies and advertisers, and homages to prominent industry personages. AIDA

An urgent industry need recognized by the PBA at this time was the lack of manpower development. The issue continued to be a serious concern in the advertising and marketing industry. A consequence of this was the shortage of enough qualified advertising professionals, unrealistic salary scales, and the unabated pirating of personnel b advertising agencies, advertisers and media. The PBA acted decisively on this matter by organizing the Asian Institute for the Development of Advertising (AIDA). Elected officers were Antonio R. De Joya, Chairman of the Board and President; Oscar P. Lagman, Jr., Vice-President and Executive Director (concurrent with his position at the PBA) and Pedro A. Changco III, Assistant Secretary. The academic affairs committee was headed by Ms. Nanette Diyco and Father Alberto Ampil. In line with its objective of upgrading professional standards, AIDA launched a training program, a Basic Advertising Seminar. This was followed by more specialized seminars.

The copywriting seminar covered various topics and featured noted specialists in the field: Karl Steinbrenne (McCann Erickson) “The Copy Strategy”; Mandy Labayen (Great Wall Advertising) and Gryk Ortaleza (Ace-Compton) “Writing for Print”; Greg Macabenta (advertising and Marketing Associates.) “Writing for Radio and Television.” The seminar on Media Planning and Buying was designed to give participants a working knowledge of the various audiences, reach and cost efficiency of the different media and how they compare with one another. The speakers and their topics were: Tony Tolentino (PRC) “How Media Define Markets”; Pastor Escano (Advertising and Marketing Associates) “Distinguishing Media Capabilities”; Minda Lansang (JWT) “Media Planning”; and Eric Celis (Atlas Promotions) “Media Buying”. Slowly but surely the PBA was making its influence felt on the future leaders of the industry.

LAPPIS – Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoner na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan It may appear as a curiosity why the advertising agencies were represented in the PBA by two distinctly separate organizations: The Association of the Philippine Advertising Agencies (APAA) and the Lapian ng mga Adbertaysing Praktisyoner na Pilipino sa Ikauunlad ng Sambayanan (LAPPIS). Both were recognized as legitimate by the PBA. The APAA was the first association of the advertising industry in the Philippines. Organized in October 1956, its primary objective was to promote and foster the continued recognition of the social responsibilities of advertising agencies. The second, LAPPIS, was the brainchild of Antonio Cantero, who founded his own agency, The Group, in 1973. Being in its infancy, Cantero’s newly founded agency lacked the qualifications for membership in the APAA, which included all the multi-national agencies.

With only one newspaper allowed to be published during the Martial Law era, the APAA, according to Cantero, tried to corner its advertising space through a contract which would prevent non-APAA members from getting ad space. This unjust treatment provoked Cantero into forming an organization of non-APAA members. Thus was LAPPIS formed in 1975, consisting of 26 all-Filipino agencies: Cantero was elected as founding chairman and president. Other officers elected were Vic Villafuerte of Commerce, Executive Vice-President; Lucy David of Great Wall Advertising, Vice President for Internal affairs; Quintin P. Pastrana, of Asia Promotions, Vice President for Developmental Affairs; Rey David of Avellana ASSOCIATES, Secretary; Vic Francisco of Viewpoint, Treasurer; Dominador Inigo of Philconsultants, Auditor; Diego Cantero, Jr. of Adtrade, Cirilo S. Martinez of Link, and Armi Aquino of Time and Space. GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT

A letter of 1 August 1977 from Trade Secretary Quiazon formalized the explicit endorsement of the PBA by the government. It read: “This will serve to formalize our basic agreement…for a working arrangement wherein the Department of Trade will provide all the necessary assistance and support to the Philippine Board of Advertising in the screening of all advertising materials, as internal discipline with its own ranks.”