Most of you have been watching TV, that is, international channels without advertisement/ commercials for almost two years now. Article 6 of the Advertisement (Regulations) Act, 2019 stipulates that foreign channels will have to broadcast without advertisements (clean feed) in Nepal.

The fallacy of this act is incomprehensible.

Nepal is a country which relies on imports for most of its necessary as well as luxury goods, predominantly from neighbouring India. Yet we are deprived of the core value proposition of the product, which is the basic function of advertisement: a subset of marketing.

We import shampoos, toilet paper, facewash, over the counter drugs and a host of other daily essential items, but our government does not want us to know what the manufacturer is offering us in exchange for our wallet. In essence, we are robbed of our basic prerogative of being a consumer.

What does it mean to be a consumer in a free-market capitalist system? It means that we have access to information regarding products and services in a transparent manner in order to make objective and informed decisions.

One of the ways in which manufacturers provide valuable and necessary information to a target consumer is through TV advertisement.

As such, when the government blocks access to valuable information in a market economy, then, in essence, it is rendering the system to a state of paralysis.

First, we the consumer do not know what products are there in the market.

One of the hallmarks of modern capitalism is the rapid pace at which innovation occurs and equally the rapid pace at which these innovative products come to the market and in the hands of the consumer.

This is facilitated not only by state-of-the-art supply chain management but also by vivid understanding about the products by the consumers.

Marketing and advertising play a crucial role in educating potential customers regarding the focal benefit of the product and services.

Second, advertising helps consumers choose products and services from multiple vendors, and it allows new entrants in the market to gain traction if the product is superior in quality to that of the incumbent.

When free flow of information is blocked, then it gives undue advantage to the established players, stifling competition, which will eventually lower the quality of products and services, hurting the consumer.

Moreover, due to the current law, consumers are put through the excruciating pain of watching the repeated and monotonous programmed advertisement from the channels themselves. For example, during the current edition of IPL (Indian Premier League), we had to watch the same commercial for almost two months.

The whole idea behind watching a television programme is to get a sense of serendipitous experience, which transfers as a form of entertainment, and this law seems to deliberately squash the quintessential feature of watching a manufactured entertainment.

Also, we do not watch television advertisements to just get information about products or services.

Watching a TV ad is in itself a form of entertainment.

Imagine the kind of creativity that goes into conveying a value of a product in an entertaining manner.

We are deprived of this aesthetic endeavor, which is the spirit and lifeblood of modern free market capitalism.

The purported benefit of the law is to provide impetus to Nepal's advertising market. Accordingly, this law is to grant employment opportunities to a multitude of Nepali actors, content writers, graphic designers and a host of other creative talents.

Even so, the law was executed in a precipitous manner without adequate foresight and planning. For instance, do we have enough infrastructure in place to create engaging marketable content for international brands? Are we capable of localising the content that is manufactured for a global audience? Also, do Nepali consumers want these international products or services to be marketed in a diluted manner or do they want these products to be promoted in an unadulterated form? Without gaining sufficient insight from the consumers, who are directly affected by the Act, the government seems to have hastily enacted a law that has huge repercussions on the future of the free market in Nepal.

Sceptics of the law might say that television is an obsolete form of media, and digital medium is the future. However, can we expect the same law to go into effect for digital content as well? Besides, the medium - traditional or digital - is not a major issue. We all agree that the entertainment industry is revolutionised by not only digital content but also by streaming services, like Netflix, Disney+ hotstar and the likes. The first and foremost question is: can a developing country like Nepal with weak consumer protection laws afford to suppress the vibrancy of the free market with draconian laws? When I buy a Sunsilk shampoo, I am interested not only in the alleged benefit of the product to my hair, but also what other substitutes are available out there. Also, I enjoy the fact that my favourite athlete is endorsing the product, which is a sort of reassurance to me.

Above all, when I try the product, I can match the marketed benefit with the actual benefit that I witnessed or felt. If the marketed benefit is in alignment with the actual benefit that I feel, then I will buy the product again; if there is a huge discrepancy between the promise and execution, then I will look for an alternate product.

This is how free market capitalism works. The clean feed policy seems to subvert this basic essence of participating in the free market at the expense of the consumers.

Pathak is education management consultant at Islington College

A version of this article appears in the print on June 22, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.