The Social Responsibility of the Advertising Companies - Essay Example

Your ID number Advertisement Industry Should Be More Responsible It is an undeniable fact that media in the contemporary world has changed the entire face of marketing. Today, companies are optimally using various media to reach their products or services to their intended customers and entice them. Gone are the days when printed cards and fly-outs paper were used for advertising. Now, most of the advertisements are done through various popular electronic means including TV, internet, social media, and so on. As a result, it tends to have a considerable influence on the minds of the common people thereby influencing their buying habits, lifestyle, and even their mindset in different ways. However, when this influence of the advertisements starts to have adverse effects on people’s life, it is important for the business organizations and importantly their advertising companies to take key responsibilities. That is, as advertisements are persuasive to the potential audience, it needs to be non-emotional but logical, truthful, objective, impartial, accurate, avoids causing public harm, and does not dubiously target children. Otherwise, they are prone to opposition from consumers, consumer bodies, governmental agencies, and general public. The focus will be on how certain advertisements have irresponsible content and message thereby necessitating advertising industry or sector along with businesses to be more responsible while reaching and persuading its audience base. An advertisement, being a powerful medium, can effectively reach millions of people living in every nook and corner of the world. The reason for the advertisements to be a valuable communication platform is their effective persuasion and influential capabilities. However, advertising companies can seize this opportunity with a commercial motive, and so that can have many adverse effects on the viewers and the society as a whole. Advertisers seem to utilize the customers’ attitude and behavior to their discreet advantage by creating captivating images, providing inaccurate information, and misleading claims. Though it might be the free will of consumers to choose the products and brands which they want, it is a fact that advertisements can directly or subtly persuade them in doing so by creating an emotional trigger. “An ad succeeds at making us feel something—whether its good or bad—and that emotional response can have a profound effect on how we think and the choices we make” (Dachis). This clearly implies that success of any brand is solely defined by the consumers attitude towards the product or service. This consumers’ attitude is what advertisements or advertisers target and even manipulate thereby coming up with advertisements which maximally or dubiously focuses on emotions rather than logic or even balancing both. This does not mean that emotional ads are bad, but decisions made to buy a product without a right balance of emotion and logic is not always a good idea. So, ads created by advertisers on those lines can be tagged as irresponsible, and that has even led to the formation of a term called “sadvertising”. A Google ad titled “Dear Sophie”, which features an unseen dad chronicling the life and times of his daughter by using various Google products, is viewed by certain sections as one of the first ads which started the trend of “sadvertising”. “The real start of sadvertising as we know it…was in 2011, with the "Dear Sophie" commercial by Google” (“Sad Men”). This ad by Google is considered to be one of the best advertisements but its overuse of emotional aspects is being viewed negatively by certain sections. Though that ad does not boast of the usefulness of Google’s products or depict any of the potential downsides of its competitors, it simply tackles the emotional impulses of the viewers by creating a feeling that Google can emotionally impact individuals’ at various stages of their lives. Although, this perspective is not completely wrong, the fact is that emotional ads like this try to propel the viewers’ choice based on desire rather than on logical thinking. The problem with this perspective is that advertisers could force emotional aspects in their ads just to strike an emotional chord among the viewers, without focusing on the products or services’ positive and enticing aspects. “People can see through that…If you say I want to make ad that makes people cry, youre doing it wrong” (“Sad Men”). So, this form of emotion-rich ads can not only impact viewers, but also affect the advertising industry in the long-run. It is the social responsibility of the advertising companies to be truthful, objective, impartial, and as accurate as possible when they present their ads. However, this is not the way of modern marketing. Most of the advertisements are strongly persuasive and less informative, and even sometimes misleading to their audience. Even though the ways of persuading might differ, all advertisements focus on one ultimate goal – to turn viewers into consumers. Truthfulness is one of the important requirements for any socially responsible advertising company. However, the present-day advertising does not seem to be as straightforward as it appears. The factual information presented in any advertisement is either biased or manipulated and that manipulation is hidden or “sugar-coated” through enticing visuals and persuasive messages. When advertisements do not adhere to their stated claims and in addition brings adverse effects to its customers, they can be termed as mendacious and even irresponsible works. There are many instances when advertisements turned out to be deceptive. For example, if a commercial claims a product to exhibit specific standards but if it falls short of those standards then it is regarded as deceptive. This kind of tendency among the advertising agencies represents a socially irresponsible behavior that affects people. For example, South Korean car company, Hyundai through their dubious ads has claimed higher horsepower in some of its vehicles, but, they were found to be a misrepresentation of the actuality. As announced by EDA, the company has overstated its horsepower and the resulting gas mileage in a deceiving manner, and as consequently sold around 35% of the models from 2011 to 2013 based on these false claims (Weinnmann and Bhasin). “The Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation uncovered the misrepresentation, which for some models was as much as 9.6 percent more horsepower than the cars actually had” (Weinnmann and Bhasin). Finally, the company opted to reimburse its customers with a settlement that was estimated to be between $75 million and $125 million (Weinnmann and Bhasin). This problem clearly implies that companies and advertisers have to be truthful and factual while providing details about its products or services; otherwise, they can face serious repercussions. When advertisements’ social responsibility is further focused, a concern for potential harm is often debated among the public. Commercials that bring obvious harm to its consumers by promoting fallacious products and controversial aspects are often severely criticized by the public and are even banned. The advertisers who include those fallacious and controversial aspects might underestimate how much negative impacts those aspects could cause to the general public or particular sections of the population. Patrick Lee Plaisance, a well-known author and journalist validates this negative side of advertising by stating that, “most advertisers don’t set out to drive away potential customers by being harmful or insensitive; they just want to be provocative, but they may fail to fully appreciate the impact of their work” (Plaisance 105). For example, the advertising claims on the label of a brand are always questionable. Particularly, when it comes to food-products, labels with appealing words such as ‘fresh’, ‘cholesterol-free’ or ‘no fat’ can give rise to doubtful questions. Some of the companies which included wrong and controversial aspects in the labeling based ads include Taco Bell whose seasoned beef did not meet USDA standards, Dannon’s Activia brand yogurt luring customers with false nutritional benefits; British company Olay’s misrepresentation of its Definity eye cream, which was originally advertised for younger appearance but actually gave negative impacts on body (Weinnmann and Bhasin). Although, governmental agencies in many countries like USA’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are restricting, streamlining, and even punishing advertisers who include wrong and controversial aspects in product labeling, it is not being eliminated totally. From the perspective of the consumers, who tend to blame advertising for misleading them, it is important on their part that they should be bold enough to hold the marketers accountable for product labeling. However, the exception to this situation arises “when the features of the label become the focus of a 30-second TV spot.” Only then, “the responsibility switches to the ad agency, and it becomes an advertising ploy, instead of a manufacturers assertion” (Elliott). So, it becomes paramount on the part of the advertisers and companies to avoid making ads or come up with advertising labels that negatively influences and harms its prospective customers and the general public. When viewed from another perspective, government agencies and other consumer-support groups should also exhibit some kind of social responsibility and strictly oversee those ads thereby making the advertisers and companies accountable for their label and claims. The other key responsibility of the companies and advertisers is to avoid dubiously targeting children and young people. Segmenting and targeting the right audience has become an obvious approach among advertising companies to increase the brand image and brand loyalty of their client companies. Although, the trend of targeting children through advertisements has been in practice for many years, it has greatly increased in the recent times, because of the increasing media habituation among children and teenagers. It is a fact that advertising companies want to target and entice the young, fresh, and immature minds of the children thereby making them not only a “surrogate salesmen” who could persuade their parents but also catch them as their long-term customers. “Big brands want to get into kids’ heads and to stay there. They want to make kids their loyal fans forever. Of course, that vulnerability and the fact that children aren’t as ad resilient as adults is used in many wrong and unethical ways by the marketing experts” (Radunovic). The pestering power of the children makes this trend gain momentum as they turn children as their ‘surrogate salesmen’ for promoting the products. In that direction, many companies including tobacco companies in association with their advertisers are carrying out dubious advertising or advertisement placements which negatively influence children. For example, according to a study done by the Tobacco Free Network and the American Cancer Society in Central New York, “90 percent of stores featured tobacco product displays behind the cash register; 30 percent of tobacco ads appeared near toys or candies; 15 percent of stores selling tobacco were located within 1,000 feet of school” (Radunovic). So, it is obvious that problematic ads and provocative images can cause negative impacts on the children as well as the entire society. This is why it becomes essential to shield the children from ads that prey on their immaturity. When viewed from another positive perspective, it is important on the part of the advertising companies to promote positive attitudes among tomorrow’s generation as part of their social responsibility. “If a company can ally itself with universal values such as patriotism, national defense, and good health, it is likely to nurture belief in it” (Schlosser 224). Sections of the people who support these socially irresponsible advertising argue that only advertisers should not be held responsible, instead they state that people have a prominent part in allowing these advertisements to manipulate or shape their behavior. According to them, it is the responsibility of people to avoid and protect themselves from any illogical or harmful media behavior including ads. However, the fact is that it is not always possible for all the people to protect themselves from negative ads. Certain sections of people might do it. So, it is the duty of those sections to oppose such advertisements by aptly utilizing the various laws and regulations regarding advertising which have been framed by the governments of respective countries. So, people should be aware about the advertising laws and regulations and that would help them to call into question the credibility of the ads thereby making companies and advertisers to be accountable for their claims. “Societys conception of both advertising law and advertising ethics importantly involves their roles in assuring an essential aspect of social responsibility, the need to tell the truth” (Paek and Hove 27). This would probably bring a balanced sense of responsibility among both the people as well as the advertising media. Good advertising in the right context would make optimal sense, as it can entertain, elicit feelings of goodness, and importantly provide credible information. However, this is not always the matter of fact when it comes to today’s advertising. The argument of social responsibility in advertisements and among the advertisers has brought out some key insights into the significance of advertisements and their deeper role in influencing the society. Though advertisements are not inherently bad, their manipulative tactics tend to influence the viewers in various degrees, causing adverse effects. This is a truly disastrous situation and that is why advertising industry has to be more responsible. By making them accountable for their advertised-information, it is possible to bring some notable positive changes to the society. As being discussed above, it is important to create advertisements that are non-emotional but logical, truthful, objective, impartial, accurate, avoids causing public harm, and does not dubiously target children. When the companies and advertisers follow the above-mentioned standards, they can come up with effective, enticing, and importantly responsible advertisements that will not only positively influence the people but also optimize their ethical standing. Works Cited Dachis, Adam. “How Advertising Manipulates Your Choices and Spending Habits (and What to Do About It).” Lifehacker.com, 25 Jul 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. Elliott, Stuart. “The Media Business: Advertising; Are Agencies Responsible for the Claims on a Label?” New York Times. 20 May 1991. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. Paek, Hye-Jin and Thomas Hove. “Special Topics Session: Advertising as a Socially Responsible Institution.” American Academy of Advertising Conference. 2009, 27-29. Plaisance, Patrick Lee. Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice. Florida: SAGE, 2009. Radunovic, Luka. “Kids And Advertising: (Ab)using The Most Vulnerable Target Group.” Me Domain, 24 July 2014. Web. 6 Jan. 2015. “Sad Men: How Advertisers Are Selling With Emotion.” NPR, 31 May 2014. Web. 6 Jan. 2015. Schlosser, Eric. “Kid Kustomers.” Signs of Life in the USA. Eds. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 2009. 222-226. Weinmann, Karlee and Kim Bhasin. “14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions.” Business Insider, 16 Sep 2011. Web. 31 Dec 2014. Read More