Unilever China rocked by Sarft banning of mainland celebrity

Tang Wei, whose reputation was cemented by her starring debut role in Ang Lee’s controversial film Lust, Caution, signed on to endorse Pond’s as part of the brand’s efforts to target mid- to high-end consumers on the mainland, in a deal worth a reputed Rmb six million (US$847,000).

A TVC created by Ogilvy & Mather was on air when mainland bloggers picked up on a leaked instruction from Sarft to television stations to cease coverage of Tang. State press office Xinhua confirmed the move, with many stations pulling the ad from airwaves.

In a bizarre twist, Unilever claims it has not been informed that the star of its costly campaign was to be taken off the airways. “We still have not got any exact reason or official reply from the Government, or Sarft, as to why Tang Wei’s Pond’s ad was banned and we are still communicating with the relevant media companies,” said Unilever China VP of external relations Zeng Xi Wen.

“The Pond’s ad totally fulfilled the Government’s censorship regulations. Our two-year advertising contract with Tang Wei is still valid. She’s still our brand ambassador and we will go ahead with a series of PR activities we have planned with her.”

Sarft’s decision to blacklist Tang Wei is linked to the actress’ controversial role in Lust, Caution, where she displayed both full frontal nudity and politically problematic allegiances.
 

”Using a star that has appeared in explicit nudity in hindsight might have been a risky thing to do.
 

Especially if it is an image defined by one movie,” says one source, adding that other celebrities might be “safe” despite their sensual images. “(Unilever endorser) Hsu Qi was involved in ‘Category Three’ movies  in the past – but it was a long time ago. Brands have been using her image for a decade. And her adult films were only in Hong Kong, not in the mainland.”

The Tang Wei ban is the second high-profile Sarft incident to hit the news in as many weeks. Tudou, one of China’s home-grown video sharing sites, was also the target of Sarft’s recent attentions, following speculation that the site would be suspended for “unhealthiness”.

Last year, meanwhile, Crown Macau had to reshoot its TVC after it was deemed to promote gambling.

Confusion reigns over Sarft remit 

Speculation that Sarft’s recent activities are the death-throes of an administrative bureau about to be sidelined have proved persistent, though the National People’s Congress has neither consolidated nor abolished its remit over mainland China’s media and culture.

Confusion around what is permissible stems from the broad and overlapping remits of key sectors of the State Council. The Ministry of Information Industry is supposedly in charge of censoring the internet, but the responsibility for governing content in the media falls to Sarft. Similarly, the General Administration of Press and Publication is in charge of regulating non-electronic communication.

However, as advertisers, such as Crown Macau will attest, Sarft’s control over CCTV is far from complete and local approval does not  equal national approval.