1

Advertising the Modern Family in an only HalfModern World

Brittany Ventriglio Lindsey Marshall Lyndsey Kay Sara Kane PUR 4203: PR/Advertising Ethics and Law 11/15/2013

Introduction It is estimated that Americans can be exposed to up to 3,000 advertising messages a day, yet only about half of them are actually internalized or processed. It would be impossible for us to personally analyze and judge all of those 3,000 messages daily. (Lamoureux). While impossible to do so, one major controversial topic in advertising that has been highly noticed, analyzed as well as criticized is the issue of how family roles are depicted. What are family roles, anyway? Why are they important to consider? The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the ethical concerns dealing with the portrayal of the modern family in advertising and how it is perceived. To begin, there is no one definition that can truly define family. The famous Merriam-Webster dictionary has five different definitions for the term (aside from scientific and mathematical meanings, of course). One definition says a family is a group of individuals living under one room and usually under one head, while the other defines the term as a group of persons of common ancestry. (Marriam-Webster) The first definition can refer to the more traditional-type family that includes a mother, father and children that live in one, single home. The second can allude to a family of related persons based on genes and ancestry, which may include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Nowadays, though, it is very common to see families living under one roof that do not just include the typical, nuclear family of a mother, father, and children. It is now common to see gay couples raising children or a home with grandparents residing in the same house as their grandchildren. It is also becoming more common to see

3 interracial couples and families as well, or households of single individuals. With all of these varieties and changes within families, the roles of these members are also shifting. It is not always the male who is the breadwinner these days. Nor is it the mother who is always the one to stay home and take care of the kids and keep the house clean. Sometimes, there is no mother figure at all. According a recent article published September 2013 by Marketing Charts, a research corporation that studies media statistics, the percentage of households that are made up of married couples is declining while other household types have grown more common. They are increasingly limited to a single individual: last year, more than one-quarter of households were either men or women living alone. (Marketing Charts Staff) More interestingly, the number of households with children under 18 who had at least one unemployed parent grew from 2.4 million in 2005 to 3.2 million in 2011. In addition, according to the Los Angeles Times, married or unmarried, interracial couples were more than twice as common in 2012 than in 2000. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that four in 10 households with children under eighteen now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family. (Rampell) This clearly shows that the once common family model with a mother, father, and children that was once always accepted is no longer the norm, and neither are their respected roles. For most people, family is as huge part of our lives and can make a great impact on our wellbeing. Our particular roles in that family play even bigger parts in our lives. They help define our responsibilities and in turn, help define who we are as a person and how we interact with others. For example, because of deaths in the family or other unfortunate circumstances, an oldest child, even as a young boy or girl, may be forced to

4 take on the role of a parent. This can include taking care of younger siblings or providing for the rest of the family in other ways. Playing the role of a common parent at a young age can help mold his or her personality to become more dominant or can help the child mature rather quickly. Because our family and our roles help define us so greatly, it should be a topic that is always addressed and considered in the advertising industry - but not only to portray the typical family that I described earlier. It is important to portray all types of families regardless of the races, colors or genders of the families. This is not a new theme in advertising, though. The portrayal of families in different types of advertisements has been around since advertising and mass media have come about. A more recent advertisement that portrays a contemporary family is the Cheerios commercial that features a Caucasian mother, African American father with a mixed-race child. This commercial has produced so much controversy simply because of the races of those in it. The show The View has discussed the advertisement, along with the Huffington Post, ABC and many other media outlets. The reason for so much publicity regarding this commercial is because there are still so many companies and advertising agencies that do not portray nontraditional families. While certain companies are OK with this new modern family idea, some are still not. For example, a print advertisement made in 2013 by Brinks Security includes a man carrying a suitcase and a briefcase while a woman has her hands full with groceries and laundry. Regardless of the exact product or service this advertisement is promoting, the implied gender roles are obvious and are too similar of the sexist ads that were more prominent in the 1950s and 60s.

5 While the U.S. is continuing to shift and gay marriage is now being legalized in some states, there are some companies who still oppose a nontraditional family. The chairman of Barilla Group (pasta company) said in September of 2013, We wont include gays in our ads because we like the traditional family. If gays dont like it, they can eat another brand of pasta. Everyone is free to do what they want, provided it doesnt bother anyone else. (Sieczowski) Although this did not generate as much publicity as the Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy of 2012, it is apparent that while some companies are embracing certain changes of the modern family, some companies strongly oppose. So what does this say about Americas advertising industry and our society as a whole? Many argue that societys values are what influences what we see in advertising, while some think it is the other way around. According to one family encyclopedia, the term role behavior is defined as influenced by role expectations for appropriate behavior in that position, and changes in role behavior occur through an iterative process of role sending and role receiving. (Barker) In other words, this definition argues that our roles depend on what we receive from others as appropriate examples, while others base their roles on what they see around them. It is a give-and-take process. So if modern-day consumers notice that the majority of advertisements they encounter include only traditional families, it is likely that others with different family structures will be offended. This can include mixed-race couples, gays, adults with no children, single parents or even adults living independently. When producing works that are placed in all sorts of mediums all over the world, it can be risky for an advertiser to portray something, such as family, that is so close to

6 peoples hearts. It also seems that almost anyone can be offended by almost any advertisement they see. It is nearly impossible to please everyone while working in the industry. With that being said, which companies are doing the right thing toward most people? Which advertisers are the ethical ones? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term ethical is defined as involving questions of right or wrong behavior. (Merriam-Webster). So if, for example, the head chairman of the Barilla Group and Chick-fil-A oppose gay couples or marriages, are they being unethical? Should they drop their views of same-sex marriages just so that their company will have positive public relations within their company and with their consumers? This is a question that is raised every day by many in the industry and consumers because there are so many stakeholders and viewpoints involved. It is not always consumers or the corporations are at stake, financially or emotionally, though, when dealing with this controversial theme of family roles in advertising. It is sometimes not even the critics, special interest groups or paired associations. Children, although they may not realize it, are influenced as well. In a study conducted by the College of Business at the University of Nebraska in 2012, it was found that children can more easily identify traditional families than those that are not traditional in composition. (Johansen). When shown pictures of traditional and nontraditional families, children from first to fourth grade answered with responses like That is definitely a family! or That is not a family! or There are only boys in this picture; the girls must be shopping. More surprisingly, a first grade student answered, after seeing a photo of a mixed-race couple, with How can a black boy marry a white

7 girl? With responses like those coming from elementary-school students, it is clear to see that gender and family role stereotyping still exist today. As consumers and young adults who are ready to enter the fields of advertising and public relations, our group felt that the topic of family roles in advertising is an under-researched one that deserved some attention. When researching this topic, we realized that there are so many stakeholders and viewpoints that are affected by advertisements that try to portray the traditional family. Should advertisers take this into account? Who is ethical and what is right? Should advertisers adapt to these new modern families that are becoming increasingly more common? As the paper continues, we begin to discuss these issues. Stakeholders As is the case with most ethical and legal issues, there are many stakeholders to consider. It is important when developing an advertising strategy to conduct an SOCS analysis (Gower 13-17). This is when one considers the stakeholders, options, consequences, and strategy to determine the consequences on your publics. When discussing the ethical and legal implications of advertising the modern American family, we must consider the following stakeholders: corporations/organizations, advertising and public relations industry associates, advertising and public relations industry practitioners, the government, mass media, consumers, and special interest groups/potential critics. Obviously corporations and organizations advertising their product/service want to appeal to a certain audience. They want as many people as possible in this target audience to relate to their advertisement, and therefore relate to the brand. When people

8 relate to a brand and its users (the actors in the commercial, models in the print ad, voices broadcast, etc.), they are more likely to purchase and use the product themselves. From this perspective, it makes most sense business-wise to include the majority, not the minority, in the ads for their product. However, this becomes an issue when minorities feel underrepresented and these corporations are clearly ignoring a particular demographic. Is it unethical to target a certain type of consumer if it is best for your business needs? Professionals in our industry also have a stake in the issue. They want to make sure that we as professionals are constantly being represented in a positive light to the public. As Gower states, one of the goals of the Public Relations Society of Americas Code of Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations is to distinguish public relations professionals from those individuals who use the title but are perceived as giving the profession a bad name (Gower 13-17). Therefore, if advertising/public relations practitioners are acting in a way that does not reflect our industry in the appropriate way, associates will want to change that behavior. This may be the case with unethical underrepresentation or misrepresentation of minority families. Just because one professional feels a certain way about a certain lifestyle does not mean it should be reflective of the industry as a whole. The situation is similar with advertising/public relations practitioners. The two main goals as a practitioner are to make the client happy by promoting their product/service effectively while never breaking our code of ethics. Depending on the individual/agency, one of these goals may be more important than the other. If a practitioner puts ethics aside in order to be more financially successful at their job, they

9 risk long-term damage to their professional, and possibly personal, reputation. Companies may not choose to work with a practitioner that they know has a certain personal agenda or viewpoint that will interfere with their companys image. The government comes into play as the legislative body in charge of regulating such behavior in the advertising/public relations industry. Governmental bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) exist to monitor the behavior of advertisers and take action when necessary. They pass legislation to prevent unethical advertising, respond to complaints from consumers and competitors about certain advertisements, and analyze the ethical implications of each individual case and adjust the law accordingly. Commercial speech does have some protection under the First Amendment when it is not false or misleading (Sheehan 53-61). This is where the gray line is drawn because advertising can be true and not deceptive, but still unethical. Unfortunately, the government does not have much power to respond to concerns of strictly unethical advertising and this is one of the main criticisms of bodies such as the FCC and FTC. The advertising industry does have a specific entity in place, the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) designed to help self-regulate the practice of advertising and this is based on professional codes of ethics (Sheehan 5361). Next we must consider the mass media. Media people are always looking for controversy, so if they find that the public is outraged about a certain unethical advertisement, they will be sure to use it as a story. Big corporations especially fall victim to media spotlight because of their reputation and wealth, so they must be extra cautious of this. Not only does the mass media have an obligation to society to report

10 newsworthy stories, but these stories and the way they are presented have a profound impact on cultural perceptions of various issues. Whether they like it or not, members of the media have a big say in how society as a whole feels about something. This is increasingly important as the U.S. population becomes more diverse. To stray from advertising for a moment, we can acknowledge that the media neglecting minorities is an issue in other mediums such as entertainment programs and employment. Advertisements and entertainment go hand in hand when we realize that if people are portrayed one way in advertisements, that is likely how they will be portrayed in TV shows, movies, etc. and that will only reinforce minority stereotypes. Therefore, the mass media must be extremely cognizant of their obligation to represent all races, genders, sexual orientations and other classifications of people in a fair and respectful manner. This discussion of the mass media leads us to consider special interest groups. They will also often look for a story that will progress the goals of their group. So for example, a group whose purpose is to promote equality for the LGBTQ community will likely criticize a company that never uses gay/lesbian couples in their advertisements. On the same note, this group will likely praise and draw positive public attention to a company that does use gay/lesbian couples in their advertisements. Special interest groups are looking for stories and exposure, but we must also remember that these groups are made up of consumers. As individual consumers, their purchasing decisions are likely to be affected by advertisements and by the publicity certain companies receive and what other special interest groups have to say about them. Similarly, critics draw a lot of public attention with their sometimes brutally honest advertising reviews. As Terry George, a screenwriter and director, stated in an article about movie critics, the films fate is in the

11 hands of the press and this holds true for advertisements as well (Wright). If critics can persuade a moviegoer to see or not see a movie based on their review, one can be sure that they can also persuade a consumer to buy or not buy a product based on their review of not only the product itself but also the advertisement and how it reflects that companys values. Lastly we must consider one of the most important groups of all, the consumers. Advertisers must be wary of the intended and unintended consequences with their target audience. By representing the typical modern family as a man, woman, and child(ren) all of the same race, they are sure to connect with a large group of people that will be likely to buy their product or service. However, any consumer that does not fit this mold, which nowadays is also a large number, will not be likely to buy the brand because they have no personal connection to it. Even worse, they may boycott the company if they feel that the company is purposefully not representing a certain type of person or family. What makes it difficult for advertisers and companies trying to promote themselves to the public is that the same is true vice versa. If a company tries to be progressive and represent a non-typical family (two women and children, a single dad and child, mixed race family, etc.) they will most certainly grab the attention of any consumer that can personally relate and immediately create a very strong brand loyalty. However, conservative consumers that may not agree with this type of lifestyle may be radically opposed to purchasing that, or any, product or service from this company and could cause public controversy.

12 Advertisings Three Roles in Society According to Sheehan, the American society would prefer prosperity rather than penury (Sheehan 4). The basis behind prosperity is that it helps creates a want for the public to identify with. Earlier in advertising, this was utilized by showing advertisements with classic family styles. A mother who knows how to clean and cook, a father who supports his family with a smile on his face, and usually two children who are happy to be near their parents. This was an easy sell to America because that was the ideal, traditional family setting that people were accustomed to or wanted to believe was the norm. Advertisers need to adapt to the continuous changes in society because they are aiming to sell to the individuals in that society. By relating to prospective consumers through mirroring their personal lifestyles they can better achieve this goal. The changes that are being seen among American families through advertising today consist of interracial marriages, adopted children, same-sex parenting, etc. Advertising aids consumers with their purchase decisions by presenting them with the necessary information. Sheehan explains that there are several factors that determines the amount of information processing a consumer needs to go through based on certain products, and one that stands out to me is previous consumer experience with the product category (Sheehan 5). The key word in that would be previous consumer experience, meaning if the advertiser or company that is advertising would like to maintain a positive relationship with their consuming audience- then they should aim to relate to that audience. The United States Census Bureau proves that the number of interracially married couples has increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 2,340,000 in 2008 (Census). This is just a tiny amount of evidence that supports the idea that America is changing, the

13 cookie-cutter family image we once held to our hearts is slowly dissipating and we are beginning to accept it. There is also the idea that through the use of new family systems in advertising, advertisers are actually helping embed the ideas and make them the new norm. As of 2007, the average American family was exposed to 1,518 advertisements a day (AAAA), which means that the family styles displayed in these ads are becoming consistent with our everyday lives. Perhaps this is why so many people are finally progressing towards to acceptance of change. Although it is obvious that advertisings main goal is to sell a product, it does not do so bluntly. Instead, it aims to sell an idea, usually with entertainment. Among the 41 campaigns surveyed in 2001 by USA today, men and women agreed that the best liked commercials were the advertisements that entertained them (Sheehan 6). Advertisements that contain stories or witty puns are always entertaining, and utilizing relatable family scenarios helps reach out to potential consumers. The idea of transformational advertising deals with advertisements that focus on selling the way that the product will make the consumer feel. Taking a step back from the advertisers perspective, I want to look through the consumers. During the late months of summer, all of the commercials transform into back-to-school ads. From my personal experience, I would watch the cool and confident little girl wearing JC Pennys clothes and believed that if I bought that outfit, I would also have a fantastic social life during my school year. Of course this was never the case, clothes are just clothes and have no power to turn a quiet child into an outgoing one. What sold me was that this actress was so relatable to me; the same age, race, and gender. I noticed those comparisons and assumed

14 everything else will fall into place because all that I was missing was JC Pennys clothing. An advertisement needs to be identifiable to its audience to maximize the potential of gaining that consumer. This means that if Wal-Mart would like to market their easy family dinners, they need to be aware of what the new family is. The TARES tests helps in identifying the five principles for ethical persuasion, the concepts that make up this test are: truthfulness of the message, authenticity of the persuader, respect for the persuadee, equity of the appeal, and social responsibility for the common good. The elements in this assessment that I would like to analyze in relation with our topic are authenticity, respect, and social responsibility. Authenticity deals with a combination of integrity and personal virtue in action and motivation; genuineness and sincerity in promoting particular products and services to particular persuadees; loyalty to appropriate persons, causes, duties, and institutions and moral independence and commitment to principle (Baker and Martinson). This definition provides additional evidence in my previous notion that in order to properly appeal to a society, the advertiser must display genuine acceptance of the society as a whole. One controversial issue that American society seems to finally be somewhat accepting to deals with gay rights. Www.AdRespect.org is an entire website that follows which companies demonstrate and therefore promote LGBT equality through advertising. Swedish home furnishing company Ikea is a profound example of this; they have been using same-sex couples in their ads since 1994. Mona Liss, an Ikea spokeswoman, states that Home is the most important place in the world, its the place where we grow our families, however we define family (Wilke). When the first Ikea ad appeared with a white male couple in

15 1994, it was intended to be a part of a series of non-traditional families. The ad was aired only once before being pulled because one of the U.S. stores received a bomb threat. They didnt attempt the same-sex ads again until twelve years later, when society had began to accept the new definition of family. Kathy Delaney, President/Chief Creative Officer of the agency handling the campaigns said that there wasnt even a debate when using a male couple came up the second time, it became a no brainer, gays are a part of the world we live in (Wilke). The standard behind respect for the persuadee deals with the principle that individuals are perfectly capable of making their own decisions on how to conduct their lives according to their own personal priorities. For a company to decide to exclude advertising the diversities of American families, they are discretely demonstrating to their audience that they dont agree with these changes. Although this may not have an effect on most, some people who feel loyalties to a certain brand or company could potentially adopt those morals. Dan Cathy is the president of Chic-fil-a, a fast food chain that is never open on Sundays for religious reasons. Cathy openly spoke out against gay marriage in 2012 and in return has gained a lot of backlash towards the company. Blending this example into the concept of social responsibility for the common good, which focuses on the need for professional advertisers to remain sensitive to and concerned about the wider public interest or common good (Baker and Martinson). By voicing his personal opinion while representing the well-known franchise, Cathy automatically correlated Chic-fil-a with anti-gay rights. Not to mention this was during a very prominent time for the gay rights movement, which many members of society are strongly standing behind. When majority

16 of the public want to see progress in a controversial topic, it is not in interest to the common good to openly shut that movement down. The goal in this part of the ethics model is to appeal to responsibility to community over (raw) self-interest, profit, or careerism (Baker and Martinson). Consequences and Recommendations With the changing face of the average family in advertising, it is important to realize that both the older and modern portrayals of family have intended and unintended consequences. Every advertisement comes with consequences, whether they match up with the goals of the advertiser or not. With a shift in something as vital and prominent in advertising as the family unit, brands and advertisers had a plan of how this shift would affect audiences. Even with the best of planning, advertising always has affects that no one plans or expects, unintended consequences, which can be good or bad. Families looked very different in advertising sixty years ago than they do today and advertisers knew what intended consequences they wanted. In the 1940s and 1950s advertisers aimed their sights on white men. Since they targeted such a specific individual, advertisements catered to this profile by featuring white men often in a place of power, never showing other ethnicities, and putting women down regularly. Advertisers wanted to reach the decision-maker in the house and felt that making men feel important and better would make them want to buy certain products. They also wanted to reflect the typical middle-class family at the time, which was predominantly white families, with a stay-at-home wife, and a strong male presence. At that time, women rarely worked, even by 1970 only 46% of women 16 and older were in the work force, and minorities often lived poor. They wanted to make families sitting at home, who

17 were able to buy their products, feel represented and give them a sense of belonging with the product. Along with the intended consequences of vintage advertising, came the unintended. These vintage advertisements alienated both women and minorities taking out a large chunk of their possible audience. Studies done on 1970s magazine ads found that advertisements made it look as if women do not make important decisions or do important things and that a womans place is in the home. (Gary L. Sullivan) One 1950s advertisement by Chase and Sandborn went as far as to show a man about to spank his wife for not testing his coffee for freshness. The copy reads If he discovers youre still taking chances on getting flat, stale coffeewoe be unto you! What woman would want to purchase a product portraying women as weak, childish and controllable? Even though advertisers had not planned on affecting females at all, it translated into alienating their female audience. And with the lack of minorities in ads, families of different backgrounds couldnt relate to the products. single-parent families were also swept under the rug. Advertisers completely left them out making a huge portion of consumers feeling ignored and discriminated against. They also characterized the American family as unaccepting and rigid, which could have reinforced the misguided ways that society lived on delaying monumental changes such as suffrage and the end of racism. Over the years, advertisers have tried their best to change with society and therefore needed to change the face of the average family in their ads. Culture shifted towards diversity, more single-parent homes, women as the decision makers in the household, and men who are softer and much less in-charge. Advertisers intend to represent the average family as it looks today, using different ethnicities and therefore

18 connecting with every family in that way. They wanted to reach out and recognize the change of the familial structure. According to the 2012 Census, the population younger than 5 stood at 49.9 percent minority and it also showed a great deal of growth in minority populations since the previous year. (Kayne) They also intended to reflect the accepting nature and ideals that most of society has adopted. They began using same-sex couples in ads and single-parent homes as a norm. People are doing this family thing different than they were sixty years ago and advertisers are attempting to make people feel as if theyre as open to different ways of living as society is. The advertising industry as a whole also seems to try preparing people for the world around them. They want to help growth in shadowy areas of our society such as racism and other hot societal topics. This shift in familial representation also brought with it unintended consequences. For one as progressive as our society is, there are still numerous groups of consumers that havent really changed with the times. Therefore, ads exhibiting mixed race families and LGBT couples or families tend to alienate buyers who havent changed with the times. Advertisers also didnt realize that in choosing not to reflect the change in the family structure, they would set their brand up for doom. Barilla pasta chose to come out and say they would never use a same-sex couple in their advertising campaigns and lost countless customers who either were involved in such a relationship or supported it. By claiming they would only portray the classic family in advertisements, the brand suffered an intense boycott and a great deal of bad press. (Davies) One of the good unintended consequences was the help in changing prejudice. When people begin seeing the modern

19 family structures on a regular basis all around them, they will begin to get used to the idea. It will calm social tensions in our society. There were also unintended consequences in other countries when their face of advertising began to change. This shift to a general acceptance of diversity in ads intended to make consumers feel included and represented in all brands, but instead the new advertising made a lot of consumers feel cheated. They found the diversity frustrating. One such case was with a womens clothing brand, Bayo, which primarily catered to Philippino women. The Philippino brand featured an advertising campaign showing women of mixed races as beautiful and soon women began discussing how they felt it implied that just being Philippino wasnt good enough. (Consunji) They about like a brand that identified with their culture had chosen to abandon them. They liked the face of advertising as it looked before. How companies and brands are handling these familial changes really goes back to what classical theory of ethics they run their business by. Barilla plays an interesting game, because they originally chose to use deontology, claiming that they stood firmly against same-sex couples and felt anyone who did not agree should purchase a different brand of pasta. Then, once they started to really lose a great deal of business, Barilla abandoned their ethics and changed their story. Many companies seem to choose going down the route of using the golden mean theory. They find the happy medium between an all-white boring family and a married gay couple with a baby. Often, companies use minorities and try to make families racially mixed or just include couples that can represent the different ethnicities.

20 Classic ethics theories are also present in the way the advertising family used to look and how they look and are now. In the 1950s and 1960s advertisers seemed to play by the ethical rules of egoism. They didnt worry about how their target audience would affect society. Targeting only white men with money was the perfect way to make their profit, but advertisers didnt consider how their portrayals of family could affect society. Would suffrage have started sooner had women not been discouraged and belittled by advertising? Would racism have disappeared by now if advertising had stopped shoving this idea of the classic family down peoples throats? The advertisers did not concern themselves at all with these questions, because they only cared about their bottom line and themselves. By making this shift toward a modern family representation, the advertising industry as a whole chose to use both the utilitarianism theory and the distributive justice theory. In a way, the advertisers seem focused on the greater task at hand, the representation of a generation beginning to forget racism, classic family structures and prejudice. Companies dont seem as worried about how they are going to go about introducing these campaigns. They are much more interested in how well the shift will turn out for both themselves and society. They want the greater good for everyone involved, including the customers, the brand, the investors, and the business. But they also strive to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity in advertising. They often put every kind of ethnicity in a commercial and try to accommodate both their new-school consumers and their old-school consumers. People also get to see one-parent households pretty often and they do their best to make every family, whatever color, whatever size and whatever structure, comfortable and prevalent. Theyve done away with only one

21 kind of family and now use infinite combinations in their journey through the changing definition of a family. One of the trickiest parts of this change lies with this awkward point in American society where people still consider race and sexual preference taboo topics. Many companies probably struggle with how they will handle this awkward point. If they stick with a more dated family ideal, they may follow their own thoughts on such a controversial topic, but they are also telling society that they are not ready for where society is going. This alone could take a company down in the tumultuous times of today. But advertising the new familial structure and not believing in it would be considered unethical. At that point, the public feels tricked because the company only did what the consumers cried out for. Since advertising is such a pervasive practice, it is important that advertisers pay attention to how the public feels about this change in familial structure. There seems to be a pretty torn opinion among the public between the younger generation feeling open and normal about the change and older generations typically holding on to the old-school family. Therefore, the advertisers must do their best to use the golden mean theory of ethics in order to make everyone happy. Slowly weaning the public off the traditional family will give people time to adapt while also catering to the changing view of what a family looks like in todays society. Probably the best plan of action is to advertise both traditional families and modern families making everyone feel included and slowly include more modern families and fewer traditional ones. Eventually all advertising will feature modern families, but the process will have progressed so slowly that few will realize the change.

22 On the topic of ethics, companies must pay attention to their stand on things as a corporate entity. Are they for or against gay families? What about gay families with children? How do they feel about mixed race couples and people? In a perfect world everyone would accept everyone and race and sexual preference would never be a problem. Until then, the only ethical way to go about things, from a corporate platform, is to advertise in a way that is in-line with a companys belief system. Dont advertise the modern familial structure if you are only doing so in order to give the people what they want and in turn keep your company successful. Practice what you preach. If people dont like a companys views of the world, they should have the option to stop buying from or supporting them. Conclusion The changing view of what a modern family resembles will continue to change and raise issues of ethical concern among our society. After completing our analysis of this topic and conducting our research, we have realized that there are many things to consider when making such prominent changes in the advertising industry. Because of the pervasive nature of the industry, it is vital that advertisers take into account different viewpoints and cultures of their audiences. As our society continues to evolve, advertisers should consider our societys views while catering to their own while being sure to realize that the right way to advertise will never be static.

23 Works Cited Alpert, Emily. "Interracial Couples Increasingly Common." Los Angeles Times. N.p., 31 Aug. 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 3013. Baker, Sherry, and David L. Martinson. "The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical Persuasion." MyWeb. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , n.d. Web. 10 Nov 2013. <http://www.myweb.wwu.edu/karlberg/498/readings/TARES.pdf>. Barker, Robert. "Role Theory." N.p., 1 Sept. 2001. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. Cavan Sieczowski. "Barilla Pasta Won't Feature Gay Families in Ads." Huffington Post. N.p., 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. Consunji, Bianca. "Twitter Users Upset Over Mixed Race Fashion Campaign." Mashable. N.p., 05 Jun 2012. Web. 13 Nov 2013. race-ad-campaign/>.

<http://mashable.com/2012/06/05/bayo-mixed-

Davies, Lizzy. "Pasta firm Barilla boycotted over 'classic famil'y remarks." theguardian. The Guardian, 26 Sep 2013. Web. 13 Nov 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/pasta-firm-barilla-boycottgay>. Gary L. Sullivan, P.J. O'Connor. n. page. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00287788 Gower, Karla. Legal and Ethical Considerations for Public Relations. 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. , 2008. 13-17. Print.

"HOW MANY ADVERTISEMENTS IS A PERSON EXPOSED TO IN A DAY?." ams.aaa. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Nov 2013.

<https://ams.aaaa.org//eweb/upload/FAQs/adexposures.pdf>.

24 Kayne, Eric. "Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043." http://usnews.nbcnews.com/. NBC News, 13 Jun 2013. Web. 13 Nov 2013.

<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-whitemajority-in-usgone-by-2043>.

Michael, Wilke. "Ikea Revisits Gay Couples, While Southwest Airlines, Sears and Spring Enter Market." AdRespect . Ad Respect Advertising Education Program , n.d. Web. 10 Nov 2013.

<http://www.adrespect.org/common/news/reports/detail.cfm?Classification=new s&QID=3577&ClientID=11064&BrowseFlag=1&Keyword=&StartRow=1&Topi cID=4 04&subnav=adcolumn&subsection=adcolumn>. "Newsroom: 2010 Census Shows Interracial and Interethnic Married Couples Grew by 28 Percent over Decade." U.S. Census Bureau. N.p., 06 september 2013. Web. 4 Nov 2013. <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb1268.html>. Sheehan, Kim. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004. 53-61. Print. "The Changing Nature of the American Household." N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2013. "The Free Dictionary." The Free Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2013. Wright, Kevin. "The Critics on the Critics: How Influential Are Their Opinions Anyway?" Web. Record-Eagle.com. Traverse City Record-Eagle, 03 Aug. 2007.

25