Choice & Manipulation - PowerPoint Presentation Example

Choice & Manipulation Oral Presentation Chapter 7 in Halbert and Ingulli pertains to the rising magnitude of the budgetary allocations associated with advertising, the proportionate rise in the influence commanded by the advertising efforts and the associated laws ethics and technology. It was in 1976 that the Supreme Court extended First Amendment Protection to advertising (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 231). The essential premise supporting this decision was a faith in the ability of the consumers to make apt purchasing decisions and the valid right of the consumer to be better educated and well informed. Since then, varied cases have come to the courts of law in the US that questioned and redefined the scope and nature of the First Amendment Protection to “commercial speech”. IMS Health Inc. Et. Al. v. Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire and Hornell Brewing Company v. State were two such epoch making cases (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 232, 239). In both these cases, the court subscribed to the line of analysis enshrined in the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n to decide on the right of the state to restrain advertising (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 235). Varied scholars like Galbraith have tried to elaborate on the ability of advertising to exploit human yearnings (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 241). This debate also puts to question the efficacy of industry self-regulation against state regulation. Chapter Summary Over the years, the money invested by the corporations on advertising has immensely increased. With the influx of new channels and media like the internet and telephony, the advertising budgets can realistically be expected to raise even higher (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 230). With the extension of the First Amendment Protection to advertising in 1976 by the Supreme Court, the academic and industry focus shifted sharply to the laws and ethics pertaining to advertising (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 231). The crux behind this privilege was the belief that consumers do have the reason to make saner choices. IMS Health Inc. Et. Al. v. Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire was an important case that decided on the right of the information providers to sell the data related to the prescribing practices of doctors to pharmaceutical companies (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010). The pharmaceutical companies used this information to streamline their detailing strategies, which were already under shadow owing to some questionable practices. The law under question was based on the reason that the pharmaceutical companies used the prescriber specific data to invade doctor privacy and to promote the sale of branded preparations, which augmented the overall cost of providing health facilities to the people (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 235). The court subscribed to the Central Hudson line of analysis to gauge the constitutionality of this law. Though, the court agreed with the AG’s premise that the restraining of health costs as envisaged by this law was a valid state interest, it felt that this in no way authentically proved that the patented drugs caused more harm as compared to generic salts or in any way interfered with the goal of promoting public health (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010). Besides, the court also concluded that the state could resort to many other institutional measures to counter balance the impact of detailing and did not need to restrain pharmaceutical companies from accessing information that they could use to make their marketing strategies more sophisticated (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 237). Hornell Brewing Company v. State was another important case that delved on the legality and ethics of advertising. Hornell named one of its products, Crazy Horse, which happened to be the name of an esteemed Native American leader (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 239). The state banned Hornell from using this name, holding that it hurt the Native American sentiments and made this community more vulnerable to alcoholism (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 239). The court ruled out this ban. It believed that though promoting the welfare of Native Americans was a relevant state interest, the argument that the brand name under question induced them to consume alcohol was not rational. Besides, the court felt that the state could always resort to education and counseling to inform the affected community about the ill effects of alcohol (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 239). Both the above mentioned cases in a way sanctified and formalized the First Amendment Protection to advertising. In the same context, Galbraith proposed that advertising challenged the fundamental assumptions that supported till now the theories of consumer demand and production (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 241). Courtesy the power of advertising, production has appropriated to itself the power of creating consumer demand (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 241). In fact, the consumer demand has become dependent upon production (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 242). This dependence Effect has shifted the crux of people’s spending power towards privately produced goods and services, thereby curtailing the expenditure on public facilities and services. This has given way to many imbalances in the contemporary society (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 243). The detractors of advertising hold that industry self-regulations being vague and unbinding, are simply not sufficient to inculcate ethics and legality in the advertizing sector. This brings to fore the role of statutory institutions and provisions like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Lanham Act that have time and again succeeded in positively regulating the advertising practices of the corporations in the interest of the consumers (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 244). Of particular interest is the FTC v. Silueta Distributors, Inc. and Stanley Klavir case where FTC do succeeded in checking false advertising and fixing the individual blame, thereby bringing relief to the duped customers (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010). In the same vein, Lanham Act many a times succeeded in rescuing corporations from the factual misrepresentation of the vested interests (Halbert & Ingulli, 2010, p. 248). Word Count: 1,005 References Halbert, T, & Ingulli, E. (2010). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment: 2010 Custom Edition (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Read More