Snyder's Three Components of Avertising Ethics - Essay Example

Name: Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Answer Essay Snyder identifies three components of advertising ethics namely “truth, fairness and taste and decency” (Nooh 34). Snyder further claims that government should have no authority in the third component of advertising – i.e. taste and decency. This essay argues against Snyder’s assertions and claims that as a protector of what is right in the society, the government does indeed have authority in the taste and decency component of advertising. This essay begins by defining what taste and decency really is. In the body, the essay supports the position that the government does indeed have the authority to intervene where specific social expectations of taste and decency are not met in advertising. Finally, the essay concludes by noting that the issue of taste and decency is perceived in different way among people; however, there are issues raised in some advertisements that generally go against the principles of decency and what people consider tasteful. In such matters, the government can and should intervene. Notably, the terms taste and decency are non-absolutes in meaning. What was considered tasteful and decent media content in the 1980s for example is different from what is considered along the same benchmarks at present. Notably however, taste and decency in advertising refers to a requirement that all advertisements “should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence” (ASA Schools and College Resource 8). Decency specifically refers to a need for advertisements to uphold socially accepted values. Some of the issues that advertisers are called upon to avoid in the spirit of keeping up with taste and decency include disability, sexual orientation, sex, religion, and race (ASA Schools and College Resources 8). Adverts that mention the foregoing cited components are judged based on the prevailing standards of decency, the context, the targeted audience, the medium and the product being marketed to determine if indeed they have gone against the concept of taste and decency. Notably, advertisers have the liberty to be creative and expressive in the manner they advertise their products or services. However, they must remain cognisant of the rights of audiences to be exposed to non-offensive material. Some people may find nude bodies, swear words or violence offensive. Others may object to advertisements that mock the beliefs and/or religion of others, while generally, adverts that demean others based on age, disability, religion, race or gender would be largely considered to be in bad taste. Notably, adverts are constructed in a manner that makes them appealing and accessible to the target audience. It is thus highly unlikely that the same audience would find the same adverts distasteful. However, and considering that adverts reach the intended and unintended audiences, people other than the main targeted audience get exposure to the same adverts and they negotiate and make their own meanings from the advert content. For example, advertisements that contain adult content, though communicating vital messages to the adult audience, would be completely misplaced when placed in a billboard near a school. In all their innocence, children may negotiate their own meanings from the same advertisements and end up believing what the advert did not intend to communicate in the first place. In such cases, it would be in the children’s interest for government authorities to intervene and ask the advertisers to pull out the billboard, and maybe relocate it to a different location. In addition to being the main protector of the social values and ethics, Wilhemsson notes that governments should intervene where issues of taste and decency in advertising are contravened because , such advertisement sometimes limit “consumer’s economic freedom of choice” (96). From the foregoing, Wilhemsson opines that consumers who find an advertisement distasteful will keep away from an arguably good product or one that would have afforded them some discounts based on the content of the advertisement alone (96). Much as it is the advertiser’s prerogative to make the advertising appealing to the target market, the fact that the advertisement denies the offended group of people an equal opportunity at enjoying the economic benefits offered by the product is reason enough for the government to get involved. In some advertisements, and understandably so, the public is the best judge and often pushes advertisers to reconsider the content in their messages through voicing their discontentment with the same. In some cases however, the advertisers are not very sensitive, and it is during such times that the regulatory authorities should come in. A counterargument to the position taken by this essay would argue that no government interference is needed where matters of taste are concerned because different people have different tastes. While this might be a justified argument, it is important to note that advertisers are part of a society which needs to be defended from injury. For example, a country does not want to have a generation of young women who believe that drunken women offer sex as suggested in the Malta advertisement in figure 1 below. The state paternalism concept as indicated by (Daniel 4) suggests that governments should protect the society from injury, and if state intervention will impact positively on the values of future generations, then such a government is justified to intervene whenever necessary. Figure 1: A Beck's beer advertisement which is said to portray drunken women as givers of sex. It was placed on Melbourne's bus terminals Source: Alcohol Alert (n.pag). An example of strict government regulation in matters of taste and decency is evident in China, where the Advertising Law of China prohibits offensive, terrifying, superstitious violent or pornographic content in advertisement (Gao and Zhang 75). In 2005, the Chinese regulator asked McDonald’s to withdraw a commercial which showed a man of Chinese origin kneeling and begging a vendor to accept a coupon that has expired. Much as the Chinese understood the message conveyed by the advertisement, most of them perceived the depiction of the Chinese man as insulting to the entire Chinese population (Xinhua News 4). The China State Administration of Radio, Film and Television also reports that in reaction to complaints from consumers, the Chinese regulator had banned the airing of advertisements of such items as athlete’s foot, haemorrhoid medication and hygiene pads during meal times in China (3). The foregoing is an indication that the Chinese government, fully aware that advertisers would want to place advertisements at prime time (when people are possibly seated for meals), took the prerogative to control what could be aired at such a time. Perhaps the most important point in the Chinese regulator’s intervention was that the action was prompted by complaints from the public. In the US however, government refrains from regulating taste and decency issues, because as Gao and Zhang note, such would be tantamount to infringing on the freedom of commercial speech, and as such, would be perceived as censorship (75). US regulators however, backed by law, have the mandate to regulate indecent, profane and indecent advertising content. In 2009 for example, Eggerton indicates that a bill banning the airing of erectile dysfunction advertisements was being deliberated in the legislature (18). A more issue-based argument by Soling suggests that advertising is nothing else but salesmanship hosted in paid time and space in the mass media (24). As such, the government should not allow people and institutions focused on attaining maximal sales for their own self-interests to injure the sensibilities of the larger public. While taste is subjective, and the government may sometimes find it hard to regulate on issues related to taste, decency matters are arguably well cut out. In Britain for example, the government through the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) indicates that “no advertisement may offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public feeling and no advertisement should prejudice respect for human dignity” (Cronnin n.pag.). In matters of taste and decency however, the British regulator admits that it relies on public sensibilities as expressed through complaints. The ASA however admits that in most cases, benchmarking taste and decency depends on the judgement and interpretation of individuals and the regulatory bodies (Cronnin n. pag.). In Australia, matters of taste and decency are addressed in the Advertiser Code of Ethics. As such, matters of taste and decency are not regulated by the government, but advertisers are required to self-regulate. In issues like alcohol advertisements however, there have been concerns that government intervention should be used to resolve some of the insensitive content aired in such advertisements (Alcohol Alert n.pag.). Ryan also notes that in Australia, part of the benchmarks of taste and decency indicate that advertisements should reflect “mature and responsible behaviour” (p. 21 Cited by Alcohol Alert n.pag.). Yet, Australia had been bombarded with a series of advertisements that some considered being immature and irresponsible. One such advertisement was by Carlton United Breweries, where a couple was portrayed in a seemingly sexual act in what appeared like a washroom booth (Figure 2). While the advertiser is cited as having denied that the portrayed couple was acting frivolously rather than having sex, it was the placement of the advertisement in bus shelters and other public places, where people of all ages were exposed to it, that seemed to ruffle the sensibilities of some Australians as indicated by O’Neill (15 cited by Alcohol Alert n.pag). Figure 2: A controversial advert by Carlton United Breweries Source(Alcohol Alert n.pag.). In response to the apparent insufficient self-regulation by Australian alcohol advertisers in matters related to taste and decency in the early 2000, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy revised the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) in an apparent attempt to enhance self-regulation by industry players. However, and in an apparent failure to self-regulate effectively, Jones, Hall and Munro (29) found out that 8 out of 14 advertisements reviewed were in breach of the ABAC. Jones et al., also found out that the Advertising Standards Board (ASB), which was supposed to adjudicate on complaints forwarded to it regarding content that went against the taste and decency standards of the society, was not adequately representing the standards set by the community (29). Unlike its predecessor, the ASC, ASB does not have the mandate to adjudicate on matters related to taste and decency. The ASB advocates for self-regulation as indicated in figure 3 below. According to Canning (4), the lack of mandate was a deliberate omission by the framers of the guiding framework for ASB because there was consensus at the time that taste and decency should not be regulated. Yet, public complaints regarding the same issues continue reaching ASB, and as indicated in 2003, the ASB has been criticised because “its powers do not include judgement on the basis of that vague yet important issue of taste” (ASB 9 cited by Jones et al, 29). It would therefore seem that the very thing that the public is requesting from the government body is the same thing that is lacking. Arguably therefore, and based on the demand from the public alone, Australia should consider adopting regulations for use in matters relating to taste and decency. The public hue and cry should be an indication that self-regulation has failed to work, and as such, the government should take up the role of protecting the public from distasteful and/or indecent advertisement content. Figure 3: The self-regulation approach as suggested by ASB Source: ASB Governments should especially consider regulating broadcast advertisements because as a US court ruled, broadcast material is “uniquely accessible to children” (Ruschman 88). Ideally, advertisements that have content with sexual overtones or other ‘adult content’ should be guided by regulation that requires them to be aired when children should ideally be asleep. Presiding in a US court, Justice William Brennan described such time as “hours when young people were unlikely to be listening” (Ruschmann 88). In his judgement, Justice Brennan observed that the State has an interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of all its citizenry (Ruschmann 89). The government specifically has an obligation to help parents shield their children from content that can corrupt their morals. Ruschmann nevertheless notes that the ever-changing public attitudes are always changing the definition of what is tasteful and decent (89). Regardless of the fluidity in definitions and public expectations however, Ruschmann notes that governments should rely on public sentiments and attitudes to determine what is tasteful, but rely on set societal values and ethos to draw the lines of decency (90). To avoid contravening the rights of free speech and expression, Hoffman-Riem suggests that governments should adopt soft laws, which act as guidelines in the advertising sector (327). In conclusion, the main reasons why this essay disagrees with Snyder’s position that government should have no authority to regulate on taste and decency issues in advertising include: the society and the government in particular, need to protect the young people and other vulnerable groups from the self-seeking nature of (some) advertisers. Additionally, the government needs to ensure a level economic playing ground for all consumers, especially considering that some consumers may be unwilling to purchase (and access the benefits) of a product whose advertisements have gone against their sense of taste and decency. Finally, the government should have the mandate to regulate on matters of taste and decency, because when left to self-regulate, advertisers flout the code of ethics. Understandably, Snyder and those who support his argument argue that a government supervisory authority should not have the mandate to steer social change, even on a moral standpoint in relation to matters of taste and decency. However, government cannot ignore its administrative role of setting some minimum standards for all. Additionally, the government has a role to protect the consumers and citizen, some whom have no way to fight back, or stand against advertising content that portrays them negatively. Government also has a role to ensure that negative stereotypes are not entrenched further or carried into future generations through reckless advertising content. Notably, taste and decency has and will always be controversial. Yet, this controversy should not keep the government away from what needs to be done, especially if, and when, lines of decency have been crossed, and sensibilities abused. After all, the government has a role to protect its citizenry (and especially the vulnerable groups such as children, the minorities, the physically challenged, and the sick) from being ridiculed, or being exposed in bad light through advertising content. The example cited elsewhere in this essay, where a Chinese regulator asked McDonald’s to withdraw an advertisement that portrayed the Chinese people in bad light, is a reflection of what objective and good regulation can do. Ideally, advertisers should self-regulate; however, and considering the economic self-interest that underlies every advertising campaign, advertisers are likely to go beyond what public taste and decency allows them. The major problem as indicated in this essay is that while an advertisement may not contravene the ethics or morals of decency to a specific group, it may be insensitive to the plight of another group. Children are for example not mature enough to decipher and correctly interpret the contents of figures 1 and 2 above. Advertisers may argue that the advertisements were not targeted at children, but their positioning in public places is a further indication that the advertisers are at times insensitive to the values and ethos of their host communities. In such cases, the government needs to intervene because it has the capacity to act and convince the advertiser to abide by the set standards. Yet, and as seen in the Australian and US scenarios, such regulation can only be effective if and when backed by legislation. Works Cited Alcohol Alert. “A Decade of Failure- Self- Regulation of Alcohol Advertising in Australia.” Alcohol Alert 2 (2005). http://www.ias.org.uk/What-we-do/Publication-archive/Alcohol-Alert/Issue-2-2005/A-decade-of-failure-Self-regulation-of-alcohol-advertising-in-Australia.aspx. 24 Sept. 2013. ASA Schools and College Resource. “Taste and Decency.” (2005): 1-65. China State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. “Methods of the Administration of Broadcast Advertising.” Beijing, 2009. Cronnin, Anne. Advertising Myths: The Strange Half-Lives of Images and Commodities. London: Routledge, 2012. Print. Daniel, Stephen, H. “Political Philosophy/Social Philosophy: J.S. Mill and Karl Marx.” 2000. http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/politic3.html. 24 Sept. 2013. Eggerton, John. “Cialis doesn’t Live Here Anymore.” Broadcasting & Cable. 139.19 (2009): 16-20. Gao, Zhihonh, and Hongxia Zhang. “A Comparative Study of Chinese and US Consumers’ Attitudes toward Advertising Regulation.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 23.1 (2011): 72-90. Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfang. Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries. London: Guilford Press, 1996. Print. Jones, SC., D. Hall, & G. Munro. “How effective is the Revised Regulatory Code of Alcohol Advertising in Australia?” Drug and Alcohol Review 27.1 (2008): 29-38. Nooh, Mohammad Noorizzuddin. “Advertising Ethics: a Review.” The Journal of Commerce 4 .3 (2012): 33-44. O’Neill, Peter. “Sex Used to Sell Alcohol to Young.” Herald-Sun. Feb. 2004. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. Ruschmann, Paul. Regulating violence in entertainment. Boston, MA: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. Soling, Mann. “The Economic, Social, and Regulatory Aspects of Advertising.” Chapter 3. 1-63. 2006. http://www.aef.com/pdf/arens_ch03.pdf. 24 Sept. 2013. Wilhelmsson, Thomas. European Fair Trading Law: The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. London: Ashgate Publishing, 2006. Print. Xinhua News. “McDonald’s Ad Banned due to Insulting Plot.” China Daily. 23 Jun. 2009. http://english.people.com.cn/200506/23/eng20050623_191899.html24. Sept. 2013. Read More