1:13pmNov 4 at 1:13pm
Manage Discussion EntryHello Class!
David Ogilvy's statement that advertising is only as evil as what it markets is a relative statement depending on the individuals reviewing the advertisement. What might seem like an evil advertisement to me may not be the case for someone else. For example, I may think that vaping promotion is bad because it targets young kids. On the other hand, a teenager may not deem the same commercial wrong in any way. Hence, it is subjective based on opinion.
However, based on Hartman et al. (2021), to determine that an advertisement is unethical, one needs to consider consumer vulnerability, which asserts that an individual is unable to make an informed decision due to intellectual challenges, maturity, experience, and psychological capacity. Using the vaping example from above, an advertisement targeting teens uses various arousal prompts such as people who look like cool teenagers, appealing vape flavors, varying pen styles, and vibrant colors schemes is wrong from an ethical standpoint. While some tweens and teens may be mature for their age, most lack maturity and will not likely have done the research. Therefore, they cannot make an informed decision about the long-term effects of vaping, like causing diseases like cancer or precursor to addiction. CDC (2021) states that e-cigarettes contain nicotine. The brand JUUL had high levels of nicotine, which was more addictive. In my opinion, this would not be an ethically responsible advertisement.
Interestingly, the tobacco industry finds loopholes to market new products to a similar demographic, as they did 30+ years ago. My mother started smoking when she was 14 years old and smoked for 30 years after; they have gotten fancier with the ads.
References:
CDC. (2021, September 30).Quick facts on the risks of E-cigarettes for kids, teens, and young adults. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html
Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2021).Business Ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility(5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
5:33pmNov 4 at 5:33pm
Manage Discussion EntryThis discussion prompt immediately reminded me of a TED Talk I first watched years ago, in which author Dan Pallotta speaks about the ethics of advertising. His point has always stuck with me, which is that no one bats an eye when Coca-Cola spends millions on an advertising campaign, but critics are willing to crucify a nonprofit if it does the same -- even though the end goal may be to feed hungry children vs. selling soda. It’s ironic, really, that we put so much pressure on charitable organizations to carefully manage their overhead (including marketing) when their end goal is to help people. I am often a fan of the for-profit business model, especially after spending the first 3 years of my career working for nonprofits. I saw firsthand the ways we could have pursued our mission and goals so much easier if we had more resources, including stronger leadership (which comes with a price tag).
I suppose in some ways I agree with the quote that advertising is only evil when it advertises evil things. But, who defines what’s evil? Going back to Coca-Cola -- could you say that health concerns over sugar intake makes their product dangerous and therefore evil? I don’t think I would. The evil is usually found in the wealthiest ranks and board rooms of any given company, which could be part of any innocuous product or service. Coca-Cola targets nostalgic brand lovers across all ages, and even with diabetes running in my family, I don’t consider their advertising inherently evil. Sure -- too much of their product can harm people, including people I’m related to (or me, if I’m not careful, due to genetic predisposition). Perhaps this is because I don’t view their core beverage as inherently harmful -- it depends on how it’s consumed. On the other hand, take Juul -- the popular e-cigarette company that targeted teenagers in the past few years. The science is well established that their product can cause serious health issues for any user, including addiction, and Juul actively ignored evidence that their product hooked teens: “its nicotine blend was so potent, engineers devised a kill switch to limit the dosage – but the idea was shelved” (Kirkham, 2019, para. 1). In this case, I do consider their marketing to be careless of the health and well-being of their users (a vulnerable population at that), which to me is an evil practice.
References
Kirkham, C. (2019, November 5).Juul disregarded early evidence it was hooking teens. Reuters.https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/juul-ecigarette/(Links to an external site.)
Pallotta, D. (2013, March).The way we think about charity is dead wrong[video]. TED Conferences.https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong