By T N Ashok
In India, where film stars command a level of public trust that often exceeds that enjoyed by politicians, doctors and even religious leaders, a familiar question has resurfaced: how much responsibility should celebrities bear for the products they endorse?
The latest controversy centres on actor Anushka Sharma, whose appearance in promotional campaigns linked to homeopathic products has drawn criticism from sections of India’s medical community. Leading hepatologist Dr. Cyriac Abby Phillips, widely known for his advocacy of evidence-based medicine, has been among those urging the public to rely on scientifically validated healthcare rather than treatments lacking robust clinical evidence.
The row has reignited a debate that stretches far beyond homeopathy. It touches on the uneasy intersection of celebrity influence, commercial advertising, public health and consumer trust in a country where movie stars are not merely entertainers but cultural institutions.
For decades, India’s biggest actors have lent their faces to everything from soft drinks and smartphones to cement, cooking oil, insurance policies and financial products. Yet the question remains remarkably simple: do celebrities actually evaluate the products they promote, or do endorsements begin and end with the size of the cheque? The answer, according to advertising professionals, lies somewhere in between.
Most celebrity endorsements are negotiated through talent management firms, legal teams and brand consultants. Actors are typically briefed on the product, shown marketing material and given legal assurances from the company regarding compliance with regulations. Few stars possess the scientific expertise required to independently evaluate claims relating to pharmaceuticals, nutrition supplements or medical therapies.
In practice, many endorsements operate on a principle of commercial trust. If regulators allow a product to be sold and lawyers certify the advertising claims, celebrities often assume the product is legitimate.
That assumption, however, has repeatedly landed public figures in trouble. The biggest blow up related to James Bond star Pierce Brosnan when full page ads of his hit Indian newspapers endorsing a Pan Masala. Fans were shocked and social media was on fire accusing Brosnan of endorsing and promoting a tobacco based product determined by the medical community to cause cancer.
Brosnan was stung, pleaded ignorance about Indian Pan Masalas, and quickly withdrew from any further endorsement. Brosnan did not do his due diligence nor his team their home work. The homeopathy controversy is only the latest example of a larger phenomenon in which celebrity endorsements become lightning rods for public criticism whenever a product’s claims are questioned.
Medical professionals argue that healthcare products demand a higher standard of scrutiny than soft drinks or luxury watches. A consumer disappointed by a mobile phone advertisement may lose money; a patient persuaded to delay evidence-based treatment may lose something far more precious. That distinction explains the intensity of the reaction from doctors who believe celebrities should exercise greater caution when endorsing therapies presented as healthcare solutions.
Yet the phenomenon is hardly new. For years, Amitabh Bachchan has been perhaps India’s most visible advertising icon. He has endorsed products across sectors including finance, healthcare, food, electronics, tourism and consumer goods. His omnipresence became the subject of a widely shared internet meme in which a bewildered foreign visitor, confronted by giant billboards carrying Bachchan’s image, asks who the man is. The answer: “He sells almost everything.”
The joke resonated because it captured a uniquely Indian reality. Celebrity endorsements have become so pervasive that many consumers encounter stars more frequently in advertisements than in films.
Advertising agencies understand why. Research consistently shows that familiar faces increase consumer recall and trust. Brands are not paying for expertise; they are paying for influence. The celebrity’s role is not to explain a product scientifically but to transfer some of their credibility to the brand.
The economics are staggering. Top-tier Bollywood stars can command anywhere from ₹5 crore to ₹15 crore or more for a single advertising campaign. Some of the biggest names reportedly earn significantly higher sums through long-term brand partnerships. Shah Rukh Khan, Ranveer Singh, Deepika Padukone, Kiara Advani, Kriti Sanon and Anupam Kher remain among the most sought-after faces in Indian advertising, representing everything from luxury goods and consumer electronics to financial services and healthcare products.
The new wonder girl on the circuit is Ananya Pade, already in hot soup over her latest film where she is under flak for misinterpretation of certain bharatanatyam mudras. She is brand ambassador for the Amazon platform.
In southern India, the endorsement market is equally lucrative. Nayanthara and Samantha Ruth Prabhu rank among the most commercially valuable female celebrities, while leading male actors routinely attract multimillion-rupee contracts. Yet southern cinema also presents an intriguing counter-narrative. Many of the industry’s most revered figures historically avoided commercial endorsements altogether.
The late Sivaji Ganesan, one of India’s greatest actors, was known for his reluctance to commercialise his public image. M.G. Ramachandran, who transformed himself from film icon to chief minister, understood the extraordinary influence he wielded over ordinary people and generally maintained distance from product endorsements.
J. Jayalalithaa, despite her immense popularity as both actor and politician, never became an advertising mascot in the modern corporate sense. Rajinikanth, arguably the most worshipped film star in India, has similarly avoided the endorsement frenzy that defines many contemporary celebrities.
Kamal Haasan has long expressed reservations about indiscriminate advertising, often suggesting that celebrity influence carries moral obligations beyond financial reward. But he did endorse a popular silk store Pothys sarees as he claimed it was one time stand to avoid his bankruptcy from a film he made. Understandable. It was a harmless product either way.
Even Vijay, who recently transitioned fully into politics and is now chief minister of Tamil Nadu, was notably absent from the endorsement circuit during the peak of his acting career despite possessing enormous commercial appeal. Industry observers often attribute that restraint to concerns about credibility and political positioning.
Veteran actors from an earlier generation frequently argued that endorsing products risked exploiting the trust audiences placed in them. That philosophy now appears increasingly rare. Modern entertainment economics are dramatically different. Film revenues have become unpredictable. Streaming platforms have altered viewing habits. Advertising contracts provide stable and often substantial income streams that can rival or exceed film earnings.
The incentives are obvious. A major film requires months of shooting, promotion and uncertainty. A brand campaign may require only a few days of work while generating crores in guaranteed revenue. Small wonder, then, that endorsements have become an integral component of celebrity business models. The law has also evolved in response to growing concerns.
India’s Consumer Protection Act introduced provisions allowing action against misleading advertisements, including penalties involving celebrity endorsers who fail to exercise due diligence. The intention was clear: fame should not become a shield against accountability.
Yet enforcing such standards remains difficult. How does one determine whether an actor has exercised sufficient diligence? Is reading a legal briefing enough? Must celebrities consult independent experts? Should actors bear responsibility for scientific claims made by manufacturers?
There are no easy answers. The Anushka Sharma-homeopathy controversy illustrates the complexity of the issue. Supporters argue that celebrities cannot reasonably be expected to adjudicate scientific disputes. Critics counter that the extraordinary influence wielded by film stars demands a higher ethical threshold. And accountability for their actions should the product go south.
The broader question may not concern homeopathy alone. It concerns the nature of celebrity authority in modern India. When millions of people follow an actor’s fashion choices, fitness routines and lifestyle recommendations, the boundary between entertainment and advice begins to blur. Consumers often perceive endorsements not merely as advertisements but as implicit recommendations.
That perception creates both power and responsibility. Perhaps the lesson from the current controversy is not that celebrities should stop endorsing products. Rather, it is that they should distinguish more carefully between ordinary consumer goods and products making health-related claims.
Selling a wristwatch is one thing. Selling hope, wellness or medical outcomes is quite another. As India’s advertising industry grows ever larger and celebrity culture becomes increasingly influential, the debate is unlikely to disappear. The faces on the billboards may change. The products may evolve. The cheques will certainly continue to grow.
But one question will remain stubbornly relevant. When a movie star asks the public to buy something, are they offering a recommendation—or merely renting out their reputation? For consumers navigating an increasingly crowded marketplace, that distinction may be more important than ever. (IPA Service)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
