Components of Advertising Ethics - Report Example

2. Snyder identifies three components of advertising ethics. He claims that governments should have no authority in the third component of advertising ethics, which he calls "taste and decency". Do you agree? Use current examples in your answer. Introduction Advertising is a very important activity which provides a variety of benefits to consumers, manufacturers, salesmen, distributors, the society and the economy. The success of business organizations largely depends on effective advertising since it is through advertising that they are able to inform the public and the target market about their products. In spite of the many benefits of advertising, critics of the concept have pointed out that advertisers use deceitful, misleading advertisements and that they disregard their ethical responsibility by presenting vulgar, abhorrent and indecorous advertisements (Trehan & Trehan, 2007, p. 196). Such criticism can be linked to the point that advertising ethics comprises three elements: truth, fairness, and taste and decency – according to a definition provided by Snyder (2003, cited by Nooh, 2012, p. 34). Snyder (2003) goes further to argue that of the three elements of advertising ethics, governments should have no authority in the third element, that is, taste and decency. This statement forms the subject of this essay, and the essay disagrees with the stance taken by Snyder and argues that governments should have authority to intervene to ensure that advertisers adhere to taste and decency as they produce different types of advertisements. This is because left on their own, advertisers would produce advertisements that go against the taste and decency component of advertising ethics. The taste and decency aspect of advertising ethics Taste and decency as regards advertising refers to ensuring that advertisements are not offensive to people or that they do not contain elements that are questionable by the public (Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, 2007). Taste and decency is one of the advertising principles in the United States as outlined by the American Advertising Federation (AAF). Under this principle, it is stated that “Advertising shall be free of statements, illustrations, or implications that are offensive to good taste or public decency” (Kazmi & Batra, 2009, p. 55). AAF is just one of the many bodies in the world which attempt to streamline the advertising industry with respect to taste and decency. Comparable organizations in different countries include the Advertising Federation of Australia (AFA) in Australia and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom (Green, 2011, p. 36). Australia also has the Advertising Standards Board (ASB) (Crawford & Spence-Stone, 2009, p. 1). These organizations are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that advertisements adhere to a certain code, and if this is breached, they may file a complaint (Green, 2011, p. 36). The problem with having a principle such as the one adopted by the AAF above is that it is a little vague as it does not define what exactly good taste is, nor does it describe public decency. An advertisement that does not depict ‘good taste’ can be regarded offensive. However, as Bivins (2009) points out, some people may argue that “offensive advertising” may only be in the eye of the beholder (p. 218). Bivins (2009) further indicates that many in advertising adhere to the principles of ethical subjectivism, in the belief that there is no such thing as offensive – since the concept is just a matter of taste. The fact that ‘taste and decency’ is a relative phenomenon does not imply that advertisers should be allowed to convey all manner of messages or images to the public. Akhter, Abassi and Umar (2011) define ethics as a set of moral principles that distinguish what is right from what is wrong (p. 445). If advertisers are to adhere to advertising ethics, there is no doubt that they have to produce adverts that are not perceived to be ‘wrong’ by the majority of the population. Advertising agencies may argue that their adverts target certain types of audiences, but it is inarguable that it is not possible to completely isolate one type of audience from another. For instance, it is not possible to isolate the audience that can have access to an advertisement placed on billboards. Similarly, using scantily dressed women in beer or sport advertisements aimed solely at men may be offending to women in general and those who like the beer or sport in being promoted. In addition, since most societies are multicultural and not sensitized on the use of certain language and/or images, it is advisable to use advertising messages that are not ‘offensive’ to the general audiences that can access the particular advertisements. To achieve this, there has to be some form of control or monitoring of advertisements, and this is where government agencies come in. Why governments should have authority to ensure taste and decency in advertising One major criticism of advertising is that it is often offensive and the appeals being put across are always in bad taste (O’Guinn, Allen & Semenik 2009; Shimp, 2013, p. 99). O’Guinn, Allen and Semenik (2009) also argue that the trend in many countries is to be rude, crude, and sometimes lewd, as advertisers fight to grab the attention of consumers who have learned to ignore some of the many advertising messages they come across each day. All this is done on the basis of the thinking that taste is just that, a personal and intrinsically subjective assessment. Nevertheless, as it was mentioned above, the audience targeted by a certain advertising campaign may not be the only one that has access to the advertisement. Additionally, in any given audience, not all people may be pleased with a particular audience – there is a possibility that some groups will not get the message as intended by the advertiser and will therefore be offended. Further, some groups like children and youth are likely to interpret advisements differently whether those advertisements are offensive or not. But is it apparent that without some form of monitoring, advertising agencies are likely to use their creativity to come up with advertisements that may be offensive, whether they do so intentionally or inadvertently. This issue is clearly addressed by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (2007), which indicates that the boundaries of taste and decency are not always unambiguous. The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority also points out that a commercial or an advert can arouse negative emotions and still not contravene the law. Nonetheless, the authority points out that seemingly non-injurious advertising may contain elements that require the intervention of the relevant authorities. The next section looks at some forms of offensive advertising and why the government should have authority to rein in them. In particular, the government should have authority to intervene to ensure taste and decency in advertising since governments have the obligation to protect the interests and rights of the public, especially with regard to promoting morality and decency. Offensive advertising takes different forms and includes the presentation of people in sexist or stereotypic ways, shocking advertisements and controversial advertising among others (Waller, 1999; Dürk, 2011; Javed & Zeb, 2011). These various forms will are discussed individually in the subsequent analysis. Presentation of people negatively in different advertisements According to Dürk (2011), the presentation of men and men in an advertisement in a way that is perceived to be negative can harm human dignity by offending or alienating the advertisement’s audience (p. 6). Images that express stereotypes, discriminate minority groups or even portray racism are definitively violating. One example where people are presented negatively in adverts is the use of nudity. Some advertisements contain different levels of dress of models, which authors like Reichert and Ramirez (2000, cited by Dianoux & Linhart, 2010, p. 563) argue is the attribute most likely to give a sexy nuance to an advertisement. Even though the level of dress is not always a necessary or adequate condition to connote a sexual stimulus, it remains the most distinctive identifier, since nudity makes sexual connotation more unambiguous (Dürk, 2011, p. 6). The main problem with using nudity and sexist connotations in advertisements is that women are often represented as items whose purpose is to fulfill others’ appetite for power or for pleasure. In other cases the female role as a mother or wife is depicted as something lower. A good example of an advertisement that is perceived to portray nudity is that of TOWIE star Gemma Collins in a PETA advert shown below. Source: Bull (2013) Several studies have been done on the perception of people towards negative presentation of people in advertisements. Waller (1999) found out that females tended to be more offended than males by adverts with offensive language, sexist, nudity as well as anti-social behavior (p. 293). A study by Akhter, Abassi and Umar (2011) also indicates that the use of nudity and sexist images as advertising appeals were noted to have significant correlation with the level of offensiveness of consumers (p. 444). Volkov, Harker and Harker (2005) also present a case where an Australian company placed on a billboard an advertisement that portrayed nudity without regard for the fact that as an advert for an adults-only website, it was supposed to be placed in media that could not be accessed by the general public (p. 299). Such examples show how if left on their own, advertisers would come up with all manner of advertisements that contravene the taste and decency aspect of advertising ethics in the name of trying to reach consumers in a unique way. As Dürk (2011) notes, an ethical advertisement should be decent and within existing norms, and also appropriate to its target audience as to deliver its message with efficiency and without insulting anybody (p. 6). The most plausible way through which this can be achieved is by having a government with authority to control advertisements when advertising agencies go beyond what can generally be accepted by the society. Shocking advertisements A shock advertisement is an appeal that deliberately, rather than unintentionally, startles and offends the public (Bivins, 2009, p. 220). The offensive nature of a shocking advert is created by norm violation, which can be disobedience of custom or law, going against social or moral code, or things that annoy the physical or moral senses. Examples include obscenity, sexual references, vulgarity, profanity, gratuitous violence or unappealing images (Javed & Zeb, 2011, p. 2; Yeshin, 2006, p. 309). The advert featuring Gemma Collins (above) can be regarded as a shocking appeal. While the message ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ and ‘Be comfortable with your own skin, and let animals keep theirs’ is clear as regards the need to avoid clothes made from animal fur, one would wonder why Gemma Collins had to pose naked for the photo to emphasize this message. Such an advert not only lowers the dignity of women but also portrays them as sex objects for the male audience. In addition, one can question whether Gemma Collins posed naked because of the payment involved or actually intended to fight for the protection of animals. This is the reason why government authorities need to be empowered to enforce ethics by limiting the level of nudity that can be exposed to different audiences. Controversial advertising Controversial advertising involves an appeal in which the product, service or idea being communicated is controversial (Waller, p. 293). This could include products such as undergarments, condoms, alcohol and cigarettes, and ideas that that are contentious. Controversial advertising campaigns can help generate consumer attention, but Chan (2006) found out that consumers were generally unlikely to purchase the products promoted using advertisements that they regarded offensive (p.109). Controversial advertising may also target to offend competitors as shown by a recent advert promoting the detergent Ariel manufactured by Procter & Gamble. In the TV advert, Ariel is promoted as the detergent that removes stains in ‘one wash’, thus outsmarting even the allegedly known leading detergent in the Kenyan market (Omo). Unilever, the manufacturer of Omo, went to court to stop Ariel manufacturers from airing the controversial advertisement. The court suspended the advert pending proceedings. The bone of contention is that the advert depicts Omo in bad taste since it portrays it as a detergent that cannot remove stains in one wash (Fayo, 2013). Although it is difficult to identify the advertising ethic that was breached here, it is evident that governments need to intervene in order to define what constitutes taste and decency rather than leave the whole province to advertisers to decide on what suits their appetite. Conclusion Even though the meaning of taste and decency is subjective, it is apparent from the discussion that there has to be an authority to ensure that advertisers adhere to this important component of advertising ethics. By asserting that governments should have no authority in regard to taste and decency of advertising, Snyder (2003) might have relied on the principles of ethical subjectivism which opine that nothing is offensive since being offensive is just a matter of personal taste. But as discussed in the essay, there are extremes such as use of people to create negative perceptions whether intentionally or inadvertently, shock advertising and controversial advertising, which need some monitoring to ensure that advertisements are suitable for certain audiences. In addition, the government is the protector of people’s interests and rights especially regarding morality and decency, hence the need for intervention to ensure that advertisers produce adverts that are not offensive or questionable. References Akhter, W, Abassi, A. S. & Umar, S. (2011). Ethical issues in advertising in Pakistan: An Islamic perspective. World Applied Sciences Journal, 13(3), 444-452. Bivins, T. (2009). Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and Journalism. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Bull, S. (2013). EXCLUSIVE: 'Hugh Hefner needs a bit of Gemma Collins in his life!' TOWIE star says the only way she'll pose naked again is for Playboy... as she unveils nude PETA advert. Mail Online, 10 September 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2416549/TOWIEs-Gemma-Collins-goes-nude-PETA-advert-reveals-dream-posing-Playboy.html Chan, K. (2006). Advertising and Hong Kong Society. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Crawford, R. & Spence-Stone, R. (2009). Enhancing or Inhibiting Advertising’s Sustainability: An Overview of Advertising Standards Organizations in Australia. ANZMAC 2009. Dianoux, C. & Linhart, Z. (2010). The effectiveness of female nudity in advertising in three European countries. International Marketing Review, 27(5), 562-578. Dürk, M. (2011). Ethical Claims in Advertising. GRIN Verlag. Fayo, G. (2013). Court suspends disputed Ariel advert. Business Daily, 17 September 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013, from http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Court-suspends-disputed-Ariel-advert/-/539550/1996882/-/727gjyz/-/index.html Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (2007). Information package on taste and decency Advertisers are responsible for ethics in advertising. Retrieved 26 September 2013, from http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/Page/d1bc11a7-7371-4140-8681-eb744f0400c8.aspx?groupId=13791705-07df-4de4-a35f-73b41778e092&announcementId=c29af39e-1c3e-4c6a-9055-14b532935036 Green, J. (2011). Advertising. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. Javed, M. B. & Zeb, H. (2011). Good shock or bad shock: What impact shock advertisements are creating on the mind of viewers. Annual Conference on Innovations in Business & Management, London, UK, 2011. Kazmi, S. H. H. & Batra, S. K. (2009). Advertising and Sales Promotion. New Delhi: Excel Books India. Nooh, M.N. (2012). Advertising ethics: A review. The Journal of Commerce, 4(3), 33-44. O’Guinn, T. C., Allen, C. T. & Semenik, R. J. (2009). Advertising and Integrated Brand Promotion. New York: Cengage Learning. Shimp, T. A. (2013).Advertising Promotion and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 9th ed. New York: Cengage Learning. Trehan, M. & Trehan, R. (2007). Advertising and Sales Management. New Delhi: FK Publications. Volkov. M. Harker, D. & Harker, M. (2005). Who’s complaining? Using MOSAIC to identify the profile of complainants. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(3), 296-312. Waller, D. S. (1999). Attitudes towards offensive advertising: An Australian study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 288-294. Yeshin, T. (2006). Advertising. New York: Cengage Learning EMEA. Read More