The Code of Ethics in advertising states that an advertising agency will not intentionally create ads with false products or price related statements. The agency will not use poorly supported product claims or distorted information from experts. Finally, the agency will not provide ads that offend public decency or minority groups(American Association of Advertising Agency). Ethics have always been an important aspect of every business activity, although the term has meant different times in different lands to different people. Nonetheless, as ethical concerns are an inseparable element of business, advertising cannot ignore them. Sadly, the advertising industry has rarely cared to look beyond immediate marketing objectives. The argument in the industry is that it is the government’s job to judge what is right and what is wrong. Shirking its own responsibility for regulation, the industry has belittled business values and agencies have harmed their balance sheets. For any business, customer is very important, and businesses attempt to communicate to all their target customers using means of communication like advertising and sales promotion. Advertising is very powerful and most commonly used tool. The term ethics in business involves “morality, organizational ethics and professional deontology” (Isaac, cited in Bergadaa, 2007). Every industry has its own guidelines for the ethical requirements. However, the principal four requirements for marketing communications are to be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Unfortunately, in a society where the course of action of the companies is determined by profit targets the use of marketing communications messages “may constitute a form of social pollution through the potentially damaging and unintended effects it may have on consumer decision making” (Hackly and Kitchen, 1999). Advertisement is considered unethical in the following situations;
• When it has degraded or underestimated the substitute or rival’s products.
• When it gives false or misleading information on the value of the product.
• When it fails to give useful information on the possible reaction or side effects of the product.
• When it is immoral. There are numerous arguments about the moral values of advertising and advertising’s effect on society. Advertising is sometimes viewed as manipulative. Manipulative advertising is portrayed as advertising that tries to favorably alter consumer’s perceptions of the advertised product by appeals to factors other than the product’s physical attributes and functional performance (Lippke, 5). Some people see this form of advertising as a necessary evil while others do not. Those for manipulative advertising, like Theodore Levitt, argue that people have deep needs for hopes, illusions and fantasies that advertising sells (Lippke, 14). Since reality is too much to bear at times, people seek products that provide them with optimistic feelings provided through the use of advertising (Lippke, 14). Without manipulative advertising, some believe that society may become more interesting since individuals will be freer to develop their own ways of doing things rather than passively accepting many of them from advertisers and marketers (Lippke, 14). One of the most important arguments over the ethics of advertising involves targeting children. The ICC claims that advertisements should not: exploit the inexperience and gullibility of children and young people, bring harm to children and young people in any way (physical or mental), and suggest that possession or use of a product alone will give the child physical, social or psychological advantages over other children (World Business Organization, 2004). What do you want to do when you grown up? This is a common question asked to children and young people. The response usually is an occupation with intrinsic appeal. However, psychological report that most of their younger clients now reply “make money” (Clay, 2000). This implies that young people feel they need to make money (the more the better) to get the things they want and that these possessions will bring them happiness. Studies have found that people who strongly value wealth and related traits tend to have higher levels of distress and lower levels of well-being, worse relationships and less connection to their communities (Clay, 2000). According to Allen Kanner, thanks to advertising, children have become convinced that they’re inferior if they don’t have an endless array of new products (Clay, 2000). It is estimated that children under 12 already spend $28 billion a year while teenagers spend $100 billion (Clay, 2000). Also, children influence another $249 billion spent by their parents (Clay, 2000). Psychologists have been quarrelling amongst each other over the use of psychology to help marketers target children more effectively. They are outraged that other psychologists are revealing little bits of information to marketers that will make children even easier targets to manipulate. Is it really ethical to manipulate children in this way (Johar, Gita)? Advertising is an effective way to give information about a good or service to a large audience. The forms available vary depending on the objective. Although there are many laws and regulations put down to hold advertisers in check, there are still many types and techniques of advertising that are questioned about the morals and motives behind them. The main concern is companies taking advantage of consumers, especially children. Manipulative advertising is seen, by some, as a threat to people and their individuality. It is difficult to determine where the line should be drawn. The practice of truthful advertising is commonplace in today’s society. Advertisers are held accountable for the message they produce. The manufacturers, whom are held accountable for their products meeting the standards set, forth by the advertisement. For the most part this is a self-regulated practice. Once an advertised product is called out for not living up to expectation, recovery of reputation and overall positive brand imaging are rarely had. The added fear of civil lawsuits pertaining to deceptive advertising coupled with penal laws which prohibit such dishonest acts, make for an industry centered on truthful intent. The Federal Trade Commission is the governing authority against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce”. Meaning false or misleading information in advertising media is punishable by judicial law. There seems to be a fine line as to what is unlawful in terms of “false” advertising. The act of being deceptive is not the same as producing deception. Illegal deception means “the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that may not realize is false or material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision”. The ethical issues of advertising include the marketing of unhealthy products. The most obvious example would be cigarettes. The tobacco industry was banned from broadcast media long ago and in 1998 most other forms of tobacco advertising were eliminated. Smoker’s still smoke and elimination of that fact remains unscathed. The media machine is over-saturated with anti-smoking campaigns; as if it were the only negatively influential product out on the market. Many products like prescription drugs, alcohol and fatty foods outweigh the adverse health effects of smoking (Richards,Jef I.).
Recently the F.T.C. exercised their authoritative power against the tobacco industry through their use of previously undefined terms such as “low tar”, “lights”, “ultra-lights: used on cigarette packaging. The terms were used to mistakenly identify varying levels of additives such as nicotine or tar for which no variance actually exist. All cigarettes contain the same basic levels of such. The difference between “lights” vs. “ultra-lights” for example, is the cigarette’s filter which varies in size and/or viscosity (Berkowitz, Erin). I think this is yet another example of a government agency “nickel and dime-ing” an already overly scrutinized industry. The F.D.A. and Surgeon General also regulate advertising practice. The “Nutrition Facts” label on the food we buy is an example of their work so too is the Surgeon General’s warning on cigarette packaging. This practice is referred to as Truth in Labeling. Essentially the concept to conveying the customer’s right to know what they are buying and the necessary information that must be clearly stated on the product label. Coca-cola is a staple of American culture; an icon of society. The marketing innovators of whom set the standard in successful advertising. Advertisers focus on selling a brand image not just the product from the brand. The best advertising campaigns to date come from soda pop manufacturers. The unadvertised truth of the product is that it is potentially lethal. Carbonated soft drinks are host to a range of potentially dangerous risks to your health. This is due to the high amount of sugar, calories and harmful additives of which contain no nutritional value. Studies have proven that soda can lead to osteoporosis, obesity, health disease and tooth decay. Soft drinks aggressively erode teeth enamel as found in laboratory tests conducted and published by the journal of General Dentistry. As is evidenced in the picture I have included with this research paper of the ravaged mouth of a frequent pop-drinker. Yet soda sales account for more than one-quarter of total beverages consumed in the United States. Do we simply not know of the side effects associated with our beloved pop? Is this an example of a product in dire need of warning labels and smear tactics? Perhaps stating more clearly the ingredients and their affects on the body will guide consumers towards healthier options. The ingredient information for a can of soda would have to read something like this:
• Phosphoric Acid- may interfere with the body’s ability to use calcium which can lead to osteoporosis or softening of teeth and bones. Phosphoric acid also neutralizes the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which can interfere with digestion, making it difficult to utilize nutrients.
• Sugar- soft drink manufacturers are the largest single user of refined sugar in the United States. It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar.
• Aspartame- this chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilepsy/seizures. Further, when aspartame is stored for long periods of time or kept in warm areas it changes to methanol, an alcohol that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, which are known carcinogens.
• Caffeine-caffeinated drinks can cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and perhaps some forms of cancer.
Here is an excerpt from www.oledm.com that perfectly illustrates the issue at hand, “Teenagers and children, who many soft drinks are marketed toward, are among the largest consumers. In the past 10 years, soft drink consumption among children has almost doubled in the United States. Teenage boys now drink, on average, three or more cans of soda per day, and 10 percent drink seven or more cans a day. The average for teenage girls is more than two cans a day, and 10 percent drink more than five cans a day. It also raises the question of how one determines a product’s caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there’s no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there’s little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line. In conclusion, advertising is an effective way to give information about a good or service to a large audience. The forms available vary depending on the objective. Although there are many laws and regulations put down to hold advertisers in check, there are still many types and techniques of advertising that are questioned about the morals and motives behind them. The main concern is companies taking advantage of consumers, especially children. Manipulative advertising is seen, by some, as a threat to people and their individuality. It is difficult to determine where the line should be drawn.
Duncan Hines is coming under fire for a cupcake ad that many are calling racist. The ad, for Duncan Hines' "Amazing Glazes," features animated vanilla cupcakes. When the unidentified woman in the ad starts putting the chocolate glaze on them, they begin to sing and beat box. Some say it looks a lot like the cupcakes are wearing blackface. Sites like Mother Jones, The Source and Racialicious all objected to the ad facing a backlash, Duncan Hines pulled the spot from YouTube.