Industry leaders criticise OAAN’s regulatory charter pursuit, warning of duplication, bureaucracy, and harm to Nigeria’s advertising sector

As a marketing professional with years of experience in Nigeria’s advertising industry, I read with profound disappointment the recent interview in the Guardian newspaper of the President Out-of-Home Advertising Association of Nigeria (OAAN), Sola Akinsiku where he was defending the association’s pursuit of a charter. I had assumed that OAAN had seen reasons with stakeholders and discontinued this aimless pursuit. But stumbling on his arguments in the Guardian, which while appearing reasonable on the surface, shows that the OAAN is disconnected from industry realities and the potential consequences of this ill-timed pursuit.

Also read: AAAN rejects bill for separate regulation of out-of-home advertising

Before addressing Mr. Akinsiku’s points directly, it’s crucial to acknowledge that OAAN is pursuing this charter at a time when the out-of-home advertising sector faces unprecedented challenges. It is no secret that digital advertising continues to erode traditional OOH’s share of the marketing pie, yet instead of focusing on innovation and adaptation, OAAN appears fixated on creating additional bureaucratic structures.

The traditional OOH sector needs to concentrate on digital transformation, audience measurement, and proving ROI to advertisers – areas where digital platforms currently have an advantage. Creating another regulatory body does nothing to address these fundamental business challenges.

Mr. Akinsiku claims the charter “is not duplicating any known law” and “does not seek to break any known rank in the industry.” However, this assertion contradicts the evidence presented by multiple industry stakeholders. As noted by the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON) in their November 25, 2024 letter to the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service, “the entire functions of the proposed new regulatory body are similar to those of the existing Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria.” In fact, BON had urged the Senate Committee to reject the bill outrightly.

EXMAN, through its President, Tolulope Medebem, emphasized that creating another body would “fragment the industry’s laws and disrupt an ecosystem that thrives on integration”. The AAAN, through its President Lanre Adisa, explicitly characterized the proposed bill as an “unnecessary duplication.” It warned about disrupting the progress made in building a unified advertising industry.

Even MIPAN, while taking a more neutral stance, raised valid concerns about potential conflicts and this same duplication. Beyond viewing these as opinions – these are conclusions reached by organizations representing various facets of Nigeria’s advertising ecosystem.

Mr. Akinsiku’s argument that the charter would “seek professional status for the practice of OOH Media as a profession” misses a crucial point: professional status comes from industry recognition, expertise, and results – not from legislative mandates. The OOH sector already has professional status within the broader advertising industry, recognized and regulated under ARCON.

His claim that the charter would “bring together all professions relevant to OOH practice, including engineering” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. ARCON already provides mechanisms for cross-disciplinary collaboration when needed. Creating a separate body for this purpose would only complicate existing processes.

At a time where the Federal Government is actively implementing the Oronsanya report to merge or eliminate MDAs with overlapping mandates, OAAN’s push for a new regulatory body seems tone-deaf. As highlighted by economists in recent discussions, this move raises serious questions about resource allocation and efficiency. If the government must create, fund, and manage a new agency, what unique value will it bring that justifies this investment?

Even if the industry were to finance this body, as some suggest, it would result in duplication of efforts already handled effectively by ARCON, double gatekeeping that could increase costs for advertisers, additional financial burden on industry players already operating in a challenging economic environment, increased complexity in compliance and regulatory oversight, potential conflicts between different regulatory bodies, among others.

One of the most concerning aspects of this proposal is its potential impact on labour mobility within the advertising industry. Currently, professionals can move seamlessly across various subsectors – from brand advertising to creative agencies, from out-of-home to media independence. The proposed charter threatens to erect artificial barriers through additional licensing and certification requirements.

How about this: if every subsector follows OAAN’s example, a single advertising professional might need up to six different certifications just to practice. This fragmentation would not only stifle career growth but could also lead to talent isolation within specific subsectors.

The economic implications of this charter extend beyond just the advertising industry. In a period where Nigeria is focusing on ease of doing business and reducing regulatory burdens, creating another regulatory body sends the wrong message to both domestic and international investors. It suggests an industry moving toward more complexity rather than streamlining operations.

Moreover, the additional costs associated with compliance and certification would inevitably be passed on to advertisers, potentially making OOH advertising less competitive compared to other media channels. This could accelerate the shift of advertising budgets away from traditional OOH platforms.

Mr. Akinsiku’s interview notably omits discussion of the practical implications of establishing a new regulatory body. Any such organization would need to maintain a presence across Nigeria’s 36 states – mirroring ARCON’s current structure. As the saying goes, “if it isn’t broken, why fix it?” ARCON already has this infrastructure in place; duplicating it would be an exercise in wasteful spending and administrative redundancy.

Breaking down the logistics of establishing and maintaining such a presence would be enormous – setting up offices in each state, hiring and training staff, developing new procedures and protocols, creating new documentation and certification processes, establishing relationships with state and local governments and implementing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, among others.

Instead of pursuing regulatory changes, OAAN should be focusing on helping its members navigate the digital transformation of the OOH industry, strengthening collaboration within the existing ARCON framework, developing innovative solutions to maintain relevance in an increasingly digital world, working with existing stakeholders to enhance professionalism without creating new bureaucratic structures, among others.

While Mr. Akinsiku’s stated goal of promoting professionalism is laudable, the proposed means of achieving it through a new charter is fundamentally flawed. The industry doesn’t need another regulatory body; it needs stronger collaboration, innovation, and adaptation to changing market dynamics. I am strongly of the opinion that OAAN’s energy would be better spent addressing the digital disruption threatening traditional OOH advertising rather than pursuing regulatory redundancy.

ASP to hold major forum on responsible advertising in Nigeria, April 25

This is also to the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service as it continues its deliberations: I urge them to consider the overwhelming industry opposition to this bill. Creating another regulatory body won’t solve the challenges facing outdoor advertising in Nigeria – it will only compound them through unnecessary bureaucracy and resource division.