Defend your view of the ethical obligations of advertisers to consumers - Essay Example

The above advertisement includes the facts supporting the above argument. Because of these facts, it is suggested that bottled water should not be advertised as better than the tap water, since there is no such case, as proved through the figures provided through the above advertisement. In the particular advertisement reference is made to all aspects of bottled water aiming to show that bottled water is worse than tap water; explanations are given by referring to each particular phrase used for advertising bottled water.

In general, in terms of quality, bottled water cannot be characterized as better for human health compared to the tap water. The phrase that bottled water ‘is better for you’ as used by advertisers for promoting the specific product is not valid; this view can be based on the following facts, as presented through the particular advertisement: In accordance with the case study, bottled water is checked as of its quality just once a week – under the existing legislation, as monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency – while the tap water is checked about 100 times a month.

Moreover, it is noted that the country’s municipal water systems – estimated to about 55,000 – have to pass a thorough quality test every 3 months. Through this procedure, it is ensured that the quality standards of the tap water are higher compared to the bottled water. This view has been proved in practice in the case of the Fiji bottled water. More specifically, in an advertisement of Fiji water (as included in the case study) consumers are asked to prefer Fiji just because ‘it is not bottled in Cleveland’ (part 2 of the case study).

In the research made as of the quality for Fiji water, the above bottled water was found to include arsenic (6.3 micrograms/ liter) while in the tap water of Cleveland no such ingredient was identified. In accordance with the above, tap water can be characterized as better for consumers, compared to the bottled water. The advertisements based on the argument that bottled water is better for consumers compared to tap water should be rejected as invalid. Another common argument used by advertisers promoting the bottled water is that the water of this type ‘smells better’; however, no such case exists, a fact, which is proved through the findings of the research provided in the advertisement.

From this point of view also, the advertisement of bottled water is unethical. In the case study reference is made to a blind taste conducted in 2001 in Good Morning America regarding the taste of water; the tap water of New York gathered a percentage of 45% of the votes of the participants – compared to well known bottled water brands, such as Evian (12%) and Poland Springs (24%) (part 2 of case study). Reference is also made to another study – conducted in Yorkshire among 2800 people – where the 60% of the participants were not able to distinguish between the tap water and the bottled water brands used in the research (part 2 of the case study).

The experiment conducted during an episode of the television series Penn & Teller: Bullshit, has also proved that bottled water does not have better taste than tap water. In the above experiment, tap water was served as bottled water to the customers of a restaurant; customers, thinking that it is bottled water, highlighted its exceptional taste and freshness of the bottled water, while, in fact the water