The Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria, ARCON, has been in the news recently over the N1 million violation fee it slammed on a restaurateur who violated Article 148 (b) of its Act. Reading the umbrage against the regulatory agency from certain quarters, what comes to mind is Chimamanda Adichie’s admonition in her October 7, 2009 TED talk on the danger of a single story.

The single story of a N1 million fine has achieved the primary purpose of leading people to develop prejudiced ideas about ARCON as a government agency that stifles and ultimately ruins businesses, particularly small and medium scale enterprises. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, a N1 million fine is steep but it is a punishment for an infraction that, ironically, demands only a N15,000 compliance levy. So, the steepness of the fine is deliberate – to serve as a deterrent to those who run afoul of the law.

Article 148 (b) of the Act states that any person who sponsors or benefits from an advertisement without proper authorisation from ARCON, including the exposure of unauthorised advertising, is liable for a fine. The Act, which became operational on June 27, 2022, clearly states that notwithstanding the provisions in any other Act, ARCON has the exclusive power “to determine, pronounce upon, administer, monitor and enforce compliance by persons and organisations on matters relating to advertisements, advertising, and marketing communication in Nigeria, whether of a general or specific nature.”

Not only that, the primary goal of the ARCON Act was “to establish a regulatory framework for the Nigerian advertising, advertisement and marketing communications industry and for this purpose to create an effective, impartial and independent regulatory authority; ensure that all advertisement exposed and directed at the Nigerian market is legal, decent, honest, truthful, respectful, and mindful of… Nigerian culture, constitutional tenets and relevant lawful enactments; prepared with high sense of social responsibility, devoid of misinformation or disinformation in advertising and marketing communication; promote and encourage local content whilst entrenching best practices in the advertising industry in Nigeria.”

The law requires that all advert materials are handed in for vetting beforehand, which attracts N15,000 fee — a nominal charge that covers administrative costs associated with reviewing the content. The review serves common good. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, mandates pre-clearance for pharmaceutical advertisements to ensure claims about drugs are scientifically validated. The idea is to deter would-be offenders and by so doing, the system has been credited with preventing the exposure of 45 misleading drug advertisements to the public.

So, the single story which paints the picture of ARCON as an obtuse government agency, asphyxiating small businesses that are already on life support because of harsh economic environment with excessive fees is misleading.

And a regulated advertising space where sanctions are meted out to offenders is not peculiar to Nigeria. For instance, those in breach of advertising regulations in the United Kingdom risk fines as high as £500,000. It is even higher in the U.S. where breaches attract multimillion-dollar fines.

So, while the highly nuanced narrative of a restaurateur being asked to pay within seven days a violation fee of N1 million for posting about her restaurant on Instagram “without the vetting and approval certificate of the Advertising Standards Panel,” may be seductive to the uninitiated, the truth remains that such a narrative does not paint the whole picture. And the idea that the imposition of fine portrays ARCON officials as scavengers trivializes the matter.

If the argument is on the medium of advertisement, well, in this era of digital marketing, advertisement has migrated online. In 2005, Microsoft founder Bill Gates predicted that the Internet would attract $30 billion in advertising revenue annually within the next five years. But he was remarkably off the mark because barely three years thence, internet advertising leapt to $40 billion, and by 2010, it had grown to $80 billion. It was such a seismic shift that according to current market data, the value of online advertising globally in 2024 was projected at nearly $796 billion. This signifies a substantial growth in digital advertising spending, demonstrating the increasing reliance of businesses on online platforms to reach their target audiences. So, it does not matter whether the advertisement is on Tiktok or Instagram.

It will be understandable if the argument is for a reduction in the vetting fee paid by small businesses in advertising promotional materials. But to argue, as some are doing, that there is no need to vet such materials is self-serving because advertising regulation is not just a bureaucratic exercise, it is an essential mechanism for protecting consumers from misleading claims, financial scams, and public health hazards.

Globally, regulatory frameworks exist to ensure that advertisements uphold truth, transparency, and consumer safety, and no country leaves advertising unregulated because right advertising frameworks are foundational to consumer trust, market stability, and economic growth.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, enforces stringent guidelines on truth-in-advertising, and has been protecting consumers for over 100 years. For instance, in 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, fined Kim Kardashian $1.26 million for promoting a crypto currency token on Instagram without going through the statutory processes and disclosing that she was paid $250,000 for the endorsement.

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority, ASA, employs a hybrid regulatory model. While broadcast advertisements undergo pre-exposure vetting, digital and print ads are monitored post-publication, with penalties for violations. The ASA’s “CAP Code” requires all advertisments to be “legal, decent, honest, and truthful,” with fines reaching £500,000 for repeat offenders. Such regulations also abound in Europe. The idea is to protect the public from the unethical machinations of unscrupulous businessmen driven solely by quest for profit maximization.

Nigeria cannot be an exception. The need for a regulated advertising space cannot be overemphasized, taking into cognizance the country’s delicate socio-cultural and even economic sensitivities.

In a country where debilitating primordial sentiments, particularly of the religious hue, is an ever-present ticking bomb, the 2022 Sterling Bank Easter advert, which drew an insane comparison between Jesus rising from the grave and the in-oven rising of “Agege Bread” nearly set the country ablaze. Similarly, the 2024 Federal Inland Revenue Services, FIRS, advert – Christ Paid for Sins, Not Taxes – was another thoughtless advertising gimmick. Last December, a banner displayed at the gate of the Lekki Central Mosque in Lagos, with the inscription, “Jesus Christ is not God. He is a Prophet and Messenger of God!” almost set the State ablaze.

Granted, ARCON doused the sectarian fire these unhinged adverts provoked before it could gain traction and snowball into national crisis, but even at that, that was only because Christians were at the receiving end. Imagine what would have happened if the joke was on Muslims.

But all that could have been avoided if the materials were sent to ARCON for vetting as required by law. Such adverts wouldn’t have seen the light of the day. Viewed from this prism, advert regulation is a national security imperative which should not be trifled with.

Is the ARCON Act perfect? Not exactly. Which means that it could be tinkered with if need be without sacrificing its essence on the altar of the unbridled petulance of an entitled few. But to suggest as some people are doing that it should be discarded wholesale is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water. That will serve no useful purpose. What needs to be done is a more robust stakeholders’ engagement and to ensure that it does not become a tool for vendetta – business, political or otherwise.