mr. palengke goes labandera - is it a product endorsement ad or a political ad part 1

from a PDI news article:

"Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, who once pushed the detergent brand Tide,denied doing any product endorsements: “But I didn’t endorse. I didn’t say that
the public should buy a product, nor did I hold any product. And I did not say that it was better than the others. It’s a public service announcement saying that all product sellers should be true to consumers.”

let's get this out of the way first before a discussion on the merits of senator roxas' tide tv commercial.

the above statement is an empty rationalization of the endorsement ad senator roxas did for tide detergent. it's lawyer speak that's building a wall of semantics to have some good things around it to have some things to defend something bad.

of course the tv commercial is an endorsement ad. he doesn't have to hold the product, he doesn't even have to say anything, it's enough for his face to be in the commercial and that automatically makes it an endorsement tv ad of tide detergent.

aside from that, the fact that he got several million pesos as talent fee obviously makes it an endorsement ad.

will tide detergent, a leading detergent brand pay him millions to appear in that commercial for public service? who is he kidding? tide detergent is one of the most competitive detergent brands in the market. it is manufactured by procter & gamble, the inventor of the "brand management" system and one of the savviest marketers in the world. they will NOT get mar roxas to appear in their tv commercial for reasons other than selling cases of tide detergent. not only did they pay senator mar roxas a handsome talent fee, they are spending hundreds of millions of pesos to air the tv commercial. there is nothing that tide detergent nor procter & gamble does that is not about selling more cases of its products.

next in WAWAM! - is the senator mar roxas tide detergent commercial all worth it?