Why is Deception in Advertising Wrong - Article Example

Advertising is a part of one of the four elements of the marketing mix that companies adopt in marketing their products. Advertising is defined as any paid form of non-personal presentation of ideas, goods and services by an identified sponsor (cited by Nebenzhal & Jaffe, 1998). This definition suggests that it is a paid for communication and the intended audience can identify the sponsor. The purpose of advertisement is also to persuade the individual to buy the product or service (Hornor, 1998). Hence to be effective, advertisement must be able to persuade the audience that for whatever personal or emotional reason they must buy the product or service. At times advertisements are presented as editorial messages or the source of the message is unclear. This is known as disguised advertising. Obtrusive advertising consists of messages that are background to more salient stimuli or messages (Nebenzhal & Jaffe, 1998). Such advertisements are considered unethical as they are intended to mislead the people. Deception has been defined as false or misleading claims in advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States has ruled that misleading claims may only encourage, not cause mistaken actions by consumers that may cause injury (Nebenzhal & Jaffe, 1998). An advertisement for Palmolive Rapid Shave shown on the television claimed that it would soften sandpaper sufficiently to permit shaving the sand grains from the paper. When the use of Plexiglass instead of sand paper was challenged, the advertising agency claimed that this was done to abide by the ‘technical specifications’ instructed by the television authorities. However, the FTC held that such advertisement was false and misleading, and hence deceptive. From a deontological perspective, an advertisement is potentially deceptive if it encourages misleading actions by the consumers. McDonalds, the world’s no. 1 fast food chain has been accused of deceptive advertising. According to a consultant to the World Health Organization, McDonalds are encouraging the use of a style of food that is closely associated with the risk of cancer and heart disease (Kellner, n.d.). The processed food that they serve contributes to obesity (Schröder & McEachern, 2005). They have been accused of deceptive advertising that lures people to eat with substantial frequency. They do not disclose the nutritional information for their food as well as the adverse health effects associated with the consumption of food considered to be high in cholesterol. They state that they were not violating the ‘Code of Federal Regulations’ which does not require the restaurants to list the ingredients. McDonalds targets its products at the children by using popular films and pop culture artifacts. Their intention is to attract the young consumers who would persuade their parents in to buying them that food. This is deception in advertising and is ethically and morally wrong. Glossy magazine advertisements in Boston displayed women as being anorexic (Hornor, 1998). Many products depicted women as skeletons or featured women who were starving themselves. This sends wrong signals to the women who protested in Boston and the advertisers were forced to depict true characterization of women in every day life situations. Kellog began a new campaign that substituted healthy, sports-minded models for their thin counterparts. Coca-cola stopped featuring a model nicknamed ‘Skeleton’ for their Diet Sprite. Thus, these advertisers were deceiving women into believing that starving and being slimming is perceived as beauty. The protests could convince the advertisers not to communicate a stereotypical thin beauty myth. Innumerable deceptive advertising like above can be found all over and this has given rise to ethics in business in the last two decades. Different philosophers have different views on ethics. Deontological principle focuses on whether the behavior is ethical. Kant’s Categorical Imperative states “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (Cohen, 2001). Kant gives the example of lying saying that people lie with the intention to deceive the people they are lying to. Advertisements can succeed in deceiving people only if their intended victims believe their lies. Cohen argues that the victim is likely to believe a liar only if the victim is used to people telling the truth all the time and hence will believe that the advertiser is also telling the truth. Cohen further says when lying becomes a universal law, every one knows that all are lying all the time and hence there are no victims. This is a baseless argument because deceptive advertisements are always targeted at the innocent. McDonalds, for instance, wanted to entice the children and all advertisements were directed at the children. They did not target the adults who could see through their advertisements but they especially chose to target the children who could persuade their parents into buying them that food. On the same grounds, the magazine advertisements had to change their strategy because the women could see through their deception and lying. In the case of Palmolive Rapid Shave, how could anyone watching a television commercial understand that it was not sand paper but Plexiglass that was being used? Hence in all three cases, the intention was to lie and hence unethical and deceptive. Deception is thus wrong in advertising because it plays on the minds of the innocent and ignorant people of the society. It urges them to purchase goods or services which may even be harmful for them. An advertisement for margarine emphasizes that it has no cholesterol and this is wrong according to categorical imperative. Cohen does not agree with this because the claim that it contains no cholesterol is true. The reason why this advertisement is deceptive is because margarine in any case does not contain cholesterol. Hence by using such words in the advertisement, it is meant to target those individuals that are not aware of this fact, and there by attain sale for the product. Those who are aware that margarine in any case does not contain cholesterol would not be lured by it and would buy any brand they preferred. It is meant to lure the innocent but when they realize the truth, they would feel deceived and lose faith in the company and its products. In the long run morality pays and unethical companies can reap profits only for some time. Kant’s deontological principle is based on reason, intention and duty. According to Kant firms exist for the society and have a moral obligation to satisfy the needs and deliver benefits to the society (Carrigan, Marinova & Szmigin, 2006). Hence duty cannot be associated with self-interest like rewards and pay-offs. Such an approach would reap rich dividends for the firm because it would be viewed as ethical by consumers. Kant’s theory places the customer first but all of the above companies resorted to unfair means to reap richer dividends for the company. Again, Kant believes that the moral worth of an action depends wholly on the intention. To act rightly is to act from duty. Duty cannot be imposed; it has to rise from within. Categorical imperatives, or action from duty, are moral actions. Kantianism emphasizes that if actions from duty cannot be followed by everyone as universal law, then it is not a moral act; the action is wrong (Bennett, 1980). The sense of duty, responsibility and morality has to come from within. These cannot be externally imposed or enforced. Any firm has to recognize its responsibility towards the people and the society and enforce its own laws without having to follow ‘codes of conduct’. McDonalds tried to find escape in claiming that they were not violating the ‘Code of Federal Regulations’ in not listing the ingredients. The company however failed to recognize its duty and responsibility towards the society. Through their advertisements they are deceiving the children whereas a firm exists for the society. Hence deception is wrong in advertising. In advertising for the weight loss drug Xenical, Roche Group avoided the FDA’s requirement that all full-length advertisements for pharmaceuticals must include the negative side effects (Cohen, 2001). The company avoided full-length advertisements so that they were not bound to describe the negative side effects. They brought out shorter advertisements and were thereby able to avoid mentioning the possible side effects, which included loss of control over bowel movements. Here it is evident that the intention was to deceive. The company once again wanted to act for the benefit of the society but they instead were playing against the society for personal gains. They were following the laws that were imposed from external source but ignored the action from duty, which is a moral action. All the cases mentioned above demonstrate that the sole purpose of advertising was to deceive the innocent and make them victims or lure them into buying the product. This is against the universal law and against the principles of advertising. Since the intention itself was wrong, these forms of advertising cannot be called moral. All of them were concerned with personal short-term profits but these do not pay dividends in the long run. In the long run only morality pays and hence deception in advertising is wrong. References: Bennett, J. (1980). Morality and Consequences. THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES, Delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford University Carrigan, M. Marinova, S. & Szmigin, I. (2006). Ethics and international marketing, International Marketing Review Vol. 22 No. 5, 2005 pp. 481-493 Cohen, J. (2001). Appreciating, understanding and applying universal moral principles. Journal of Consumer marketing. 18/7. pp. 578-594 Hornor, M. S. (1998). What is advertising? [Online] Available at: http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/98_fall/theory/hornor/what.htm [accessed 11 October 2008] Kellner, D. (n.d.). Theorizing/Resisting McDonaldization: A Multiperspectivist Approach [Online] Available at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell30.htm [accessed 11 October 2008] Nebenzhal, I. D. & Jaffe, E. D. (1998). Ethical Dimensions of Advertising Executions. Journal of Business Ethics. 17: 805-815 [Online] Available at: https://www.msu.edu/~leejooh2/adv465/reading/nebenzahl.pdf [accessed 11 October 2008] Schröder, M. J. A. & McEachern, M. G. (2005). Fast foods and ethical consumer value: a focus on McDonald’s and KFC. British Food Journal Vol. 107 No. 4, 2005 pp. 212-224 Read More