Read the following article: Ethics in Advertising
http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/speaker_pres/data/3001This article provides a synopsis of our classroom discussions, lectures and textbook readings. While some topics we have yet to discuss, such as advertising to children, this article will provide you with thoughts and ideas for upcoming ethical topics. (Links to some of the commercial examples cited within the article were not available, although you may be able to find them on online sites.)
Post your answers by Wednesday, February 25th at 12pm (noon).
Write an ethical analysis, or your takeaway, from this article.
Analysis to include areas such as:
- What thoughts, questions or issues arose will reading this article?
- The author asks some poignant questions throughout the article. Do you agree/disagree with the author's viewpoint regarding ethical issues in advertising? How would you answer those questions?
- What other areas within advertising pose ethical challenges for advertisers?
Thoughts, questions: My initial thoughts after reading this article were highly positive. This is an awesome illustration of the grey areas that exist in ethics. The content of this speech is very valuable and motivates one to think critically about where their ethical line is. The biggest issue that arose for me would be the confirmation that following ethical practices in my profession will be a constant challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe choices will not be black and white and the solutions not cut and dry. I will have to continually assess individual situations and assert my ethical code where it applies.
Authors questions: He asked so many good ones, I will narrow it down to my three favorite.
On the topic of cause related marketing:
If a company has interests that directly benefit it, even if they are a public service purposes this only means that they conducting business as business professionals. That's what business professionals do, they invest into what will produce profit. We all do this, even on the smaller scale by just going to work, we are investing our time for profitable gain. It is not creditable to accuse a company of unethical practices because their efforts were for public service and they too stand to gain.
The company who donated to Bosnians, than spent twice the amount to promote the effort gave Bosnians half a million more dollars for food that they other wise would have not had. Regardless of how the company spends to advance itself, that's the companies job, to advance financially with business endeavor.
On the topic of Smirnoff having no Vodka:
I personally was totally tricked and also had no idea that that beverage contained no vodka. This shows that Smirnoff has done an amazing job of creating a strong association with their brand. If we say Tissues, Q-tip or Band aid, and we actually think the brand name is the product itself, than the brand has done its job well and is officially successful.
On the topic of advertising condoms with wedding rings: The author asked if wedding associations should be shown with condom ads to avoid controversy. There is no point in covering up what people already know. Young adults have sex before marriage. Covering this up or pretending sex is always associated with marriage will only discredit the ad. It is more important than ever to remain realistic in order for ads to be received well by young audiences. This public service campaign would be doing itself a disservice to include content that is less relevant to its target.
Other areas of ethics: Another topic would be exactly how much a company is investing i P.R.. For example Starbucks teamed up with the RED campaign for AIDS. For a limited amount of time they donated ten cents of each grande cup of regular coffee. This promotion was advertised on their cup holders that went on ever hot beverage they passed out coffee or not.
Hardly anyone goes to a specialty coffee shop like Starbucks for just a plain coffee anymore. than the donation was narrowed even more to the size, only grandes. The donation was narrowed down further by only giving ten cents of an almost three dollar coffee. This contribution was advertised with the RED symbol on everything as if they had done something much larger, Ultimately with Starbucks being the major benefactors.
This may present areas of grey in ethics. Yes they contributed but was the contribution substantial? The public was not harmed but does Starbucks, a multimillion-dollar corporation care about their minimal contribution.
Many thoughts ran through my mind after reading examples after examples of advertisements that we see every day but don’t think thoroughly enough into to consider what makes it ethical as well as an overall acceptable ads. The take away from the reading is that ads cannot please everyone. It’s impossible to do so and substitutions need to be made to make the ad more appealing and certain things need to be tweaked to allow the ad to have a stronger backbone. The examples used, however strong and good they are, seems to be a little out dated. There HAVE been commercials in which the hard liquor have been consumed by the user and other examples, like the condom ad where it is usually a married “couple” supporting the use of condoms have been changed to just overall safer sex with people in general.
ReplyDeleteThe many questions asked is to be expected when it comes to ads and their intensions and why they substituted or “beautified” the ad just to make it stick in the viewers mind. I do agree with the author’s view point about the ethical issues in advertising, however, we do not produce bone cut dry ads because bone cut dry ads will not get attention and will be consumed to the many overwhelming advertisement clutter that already exists. Simplicity ads are another story though. If the ad showed, for example the baby diaper ad, using urine color liquid instead of blue water, it would appear to be disgusting because we know how the whole diaper system works and what to expect. The blue liquid just makes it more eye appealing. The other portion I would have to disagree with is the portion about having things we do not need because they do not do anything. Their example was the many items in our homes, such as paintings, that do nothing and were compared to cave paintings. Yes there are many things we do not need, but it provides individuality, a conversation piece, a sign of wealth, brightens up a home, etc. We purchase what we like and keep what is given because it all has meaning and not so much based on functuality.
The other ethical challenge is providing all the legal information, for example side effects, limited time only, sales only targeted towards certain items, restrictions apply etc. Ads are so limited in the time it the consumers want to view the ad. Commercials are done on time based advertising, 30 seconds. Radios is often background nose, 60 seconds. The copy written and image used in paper ads have to grab a persons attention and keep it there in just a few seconds. Then there are billboards we see often but drive by and if we miss it we miss reading it and will not go out of our way to back track just for that ad. We have to make the ad appealing, but ethical, meets the time or attention grabbing length, but still have all the important information in the ad so that nobody files a lawsuit. It has to be a balancing act in all that we do as advertisers. Not everybody in the whole world or even our target market will be 100% pleased by whatever ad comes their way, but if we can affect the larger portion or the majority in the long run, then our job is done. Code of ethics is the same on a certain level, but each to their own in their personal views and what is the most important to them and to them only. We can only do so much as advertisers.
Frankie - sorry for the lack of spacing. it was spaced out in word but for some reason it clummped here...
ReplyDelete