Promotion is one of the market mix elements or features, and a term used frequently in marketing.

The specification of five promotional mix or promotional plan. These elements are personal selling, [1] advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing, and publicity. A promotional mix specifies how much attention to pay to each of the five subcategories, and how much money to budget for each. A promotional plan can have a wide range of objectives, including: sales increases, new product acceptance, creation of brand equity, positioning, competitive retaliations, or creation of acorporate [2] image. Fundamentally, however there are three basic objectives of promotion. These are: 1. To present information to consumers as well as others. 2. To increase demand. 3. To differentiate a product. There are different ways to promote a product in different areas of media. Promoters use internet advertisement, special events, endorsements, and newspapers to advertise their product. Many times with the purchase of a product there is an incentive like discounts, free items, or a contest. This is to increase the sales of a given product.

As a key marketing element, promotion comprises communications tactics used to educate consumers, increase demand, and differentiate brands.
KEY POINTS

A promotional plan identifies where, when, and how advertising, personal selling, PR, sales promotion, anddirect marketing tactics will be used to support sales and branding objectives.

Promotional tools are used to increase sales, build brand value and recognition, strengthen marketpositioning, and launch new products. Online banner advertisements, store rebates, contests, events, and media placement are all examples ofcommunications tactics used in the promotional mix.

Ethics of Advertising Nature of Advertising

(#2) a public notice meant (a) to convey information and (b) invite patronage or some other response. Inform and persuade ("stimulate demand"). From a marketing context, advertising could be defined as "a paid form of nonpersonal communication about an organization and/or its products that is transmitted to a target audience through a mass medium." Therefore one kind of promotional activity, separate from publicity (free), sales promotion (not forms of communication), and personal selling (not impersonal nor through a mass medium). Morally neutral: neither in itself good nor bad. Reason: Advertising is a tool.

Main Objections to Advertising

Advertising is deceptivein whole or in part. Advertising weakens or undermines personal autonomy; that some kinds of advertising are immoral. Advertising plays on human desires for security, acceptance, self-esteem to influence consumer choices. John Kenneth Galbraiths: the Dependence Effect industrial production turns out goods to satisfy wants, and at the same time creates the wants. Ex: mouthwash, anti-persperant, So production is no long justifiable, the market is no longer selfcorrecting, and human autonomy is undermined. F.A. von Hayek: almost all wants beyond primitive needs for food, shelter, and sex are the result of cultural influences. Desires for art, music, and literature are created by painters, musicians and novelists. Non sequitur to hold that wants created by the forces that also satisfy them are less urgent or less important. Worth of a want cannot depend on its source, but on some other criterion. Advertising should not cynically exploit deep-seated emotions or short-circuit logical thought processes. Good advertising appeals on many grounds, aesthetic, intellectual, humorous, heart-warming. But it shouldnt deprive of freedom of choice. Advertising promotes consumption as way of life (Christopher Lasch); it empties communication of its content, destroys credence in the written or spoken word (Robert Heilbroner); it is (often) tasteless and irritating, and lowers culture in general [Economic objection] Advertising is a waste of resources (adds nothing to the value of consumer products and diverts resources from the production of more valuable goods) and inefficient (enables large firms with well-established brand-name products to create and maintain monopoly conditions), largely a nonproductive activity that stifles competition. Which would mean that it actually harms the system in general. advertising increases value of a product by creating buyers of the product, creates an expanding market, and actually has been shown to lower prices. And there is no guarantee that dollars saved on advertising could be utilized more efficiently, especially in a surplus economy

Ethical Principles especially relevant to Advertising

General
Principles of the moral order must be applied to the domain of media Human freedom has a purpose: making an authentic moral response. All attempts to inform and persuade must respect the purposes of human freedom if they are to be moral. Morally good advertising therefore is that advertising that seeks to move people to choose and act rationally in morally good ways; morally evil advertising seeks to move people to do evil deeds that are self-destructive and destructive of authentic community Means and techniques of advertising must also be considered: manipulative, exploitative, corrupt and corrupting methods of persuasion and motivation

Three Specific Moral Principles

RESPECT TRUTHFULNESS (deception objection) Never directly intend to deceive Never use simply untrue advertising Do not distort the truth by implying things that are not so or withholding relevant facts "Puffery" is acceptable where it is consonant with recognized and accepted rhetorical and symbolic practice RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF EACH HUMAN PERSON (attacks autonomy objection)

Do not exploit our "lower inclinations" to compromise our capacity to reflect or decide either through its content or through its impact: using appeals to lust, vanity, envy and greed, and other human weakness. Give special care to the weak and vulnerable: children, young people, the elderly, the poor, and the culturally disadvantaged RESPECT SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES (promotes consumption, empties communication, objections) Example: Concern for the ecologyadvertising should not favor a lavish lifestyle which wastes resources and despoils the environment Example: Advertising should not reduce human progress to acquiring material goods and cultivating a lavish lifestyle

Benefits of Advertising
Economic: useful tool for sustaining honest and ethically responsible competition by informing people of the availability of rationally desirable new products and services and improvements in existing ones Political: helps counteract tendencies toward the monopolization of power by informing people of the ideas and policy proposals of parties and candidates Cultural: can exert a positive influence on decisions about media content; contribute the betterment of society by uplifting and inspiring people and motivating them to act in ways that benefit themselves and others. Importance of witty, tasteful and entertaining advertising, even to the point of becoming art.1 Moral and Religious: communicate messages of faith, patriotism, tolerance, compassion and neighborly service, charity, health, education

Harms of Advertising
Economic: misrepresent and without relevant facts; subvert the media by pressure not to treat of questions that are embarrassing and inconvenient; tout harmful or useless goods; move people based on non-rational decisions; become a tool of "consumerism"; particularly harmful in economically less developed countries Political: costs of advertising can limit political competition to wealthy candidates or to those willing to compromise their integrity; distorts the views and records of opponents Cultural: corrupt culture and cultural values by contradicting sound traditional values; can create superficiality, tawdriness, and moral squalor; ignore educational and social needs of certain segments of the audience; contributes to stereotyping of particular groups Moral and religious harms: deliberate appeals to motives of envy, status seeking, and lust creates vulgar and morally degrading advertising; treat of religion in obnoxious and offensive manners; can promote morally suspect or perverse products and practices

1.

This is an interesting point. Art is good, as are tasty, witty, entertaining things, as opposed to tawdry, superficial things, full of moral squalor. But can we believe an advertiser has a moral duty to provide such things?? I think so: by this argument.

1. We all have the moral duty to do good when reasonable and to avoid evil when possible. 2. Advertisements (and media in general) that are tasty, witty, entertaining does good for our culture, making it more pleasant and humane, while tawdriness, superficiality, and moral squalor harms the culture. 3. Advertising has a great effect on our culture in general, making this moral duty is all the more serious.

Therefore, advertisers have a moral duty to create tasty, witty, entertaining advertisements when this is reasonable, and to avoid tawdry, superficial and morally squalid advertising when that can be avoided. The burden of proof would be upon the advertisers to show why in any particular case the demand to make advertising tasty, witty, and entertaining was an unreasonable demand, or why tawdry and superficial advertisings couldn't have been avoided.

Advertising, Marketing and the Truth

Contents
[hide]

1 Introduction 2 Obligation to the Truth

o o

2.1 Nature and Purpose of Advertising 2.2 Ethical Frameworks and the Truth

2.2.1 Case Study: Anheuser-Busch

2.2.1.1 A Kantian Perspective 2.2.1.2 A Utilitarian Reaction

2.2.2 Case Study: GlaxoSmithKlines Paroxetine

2.2.2.1 A Kantian Perspective 2.2.2.2 A Rawlsian Reaction

2.3 Possible Ethical Approach

3 Obligation to your Consumers' Psychological and Emotional Well-being

3.1 Preying on One's Desire for Love, Intimacy and Romance

3.1.1 Case Study: Carl's Junior Ad

3.1.1.1 A Kantian Perspective 3.1.1.2 A Milton Friedman Perspective

3.1.2 Possible Ethical Approach

3.2 Preying on One's Inability to Make Rational Decisions

3.2.1 Case Study: MacDonald Ad

3.2.1.1 A Kantian Perspective 3.2.1.2 A Utilitarian Perspective 3.2.1.3 A Milton Friedman View

3.2.2 Possible Ethical Approach

4 Obligation to Society and Culture

o o

4.1 Ethical Frameworks and The Obligation 4.2 Racial Discrimination

4.2.1 Case Study: India's Fair and Lovely Skin-Whitening Ad

4.2.1.1 A Kantian Perspective 4.2.1.2 Rawl's Principles of Justice 4.2.1.3 Another Kantian Perspective

4.2.2 Possible Ethical Approach

4.3 Gender Discrimination

4.3.1 Sex in Advertising

4.3.1.1 A Kantian Critique 4.3.1.2 A Virtue Ethics Perspective

4.3.2 Possible Ethical Approach

5 Obligation to Competitors

o o o

5.1 Growing trend of comparative advertising 5.2 Why does an obligation exist? 5.3 Illustrations

5.3.1 Case Study: Audi vs BMW

5.3.1.1 A Kantian Perspective

5.3.2 Case Study: Pepsi Vs Coke

5.3.2.1 A Kantian Perspective

5.4 Conclusion

6 Green Labeling: New Challenges in This Current Era

6.1 Issues Faced

o o

6.1.1 Green Labelling 6.1.2 Green Washing

6.2 New Challenges in This Current Era 6.3 Ethical Frameworks and The Obligations

6.3.1 Case Study: General Electrics ecomagination Advertisement for Clean Coal

6.3.1.1 A Milton Friedman Perspective 6.3.1.2 A Utilitarian Perspective, and Obligation to the Consumers' Psychological and emotional wellbeing

6.3.1.3 A Kantian Perspective, and Obligation to the Truth and Consumer's Psychological and emotional well-being

6.4 Conclusion

7 Overall Conclusion

7.1 Regulation?

8 References

Introduction
According to Robert Solomon: The bottom line of the Aristotelean approach to business ethics is that we have to get away from "bottom line" thinking and conceive of buisness as an essential part of good life, living well, getting along with others, having a sense of self-respect, and being part of something one can be proud of.[1] In this day and age, it is not possible to avoid the innumerable effects and influences of advertising media. Commercial advertising is the de-facto means for many corporations to spread the word about their products or services. It is currently the most effective means of getting a message across to a large audience across the world, and advertising aids the link between the actual production of a good or service and its consumption by consumers. Because of the significance of advertising, the average person is exposed to up to 5,000 ad messages per day.[2] Any form of space, even the walls in public toilet cubicles, has the potential to be used for advertising. This is especially pertinent coupled with the advent of the Internet, making advertisements all the more accessible (illustrated by video-sharing websites like YouTube), regardless of which part in the world the advertisement is aired. Corporations recognize this fact, thus an ever-increasing importance on advertising. Because of this widespread pervasion of advertising, the medium wields a tremendous amount of influence. For people who rely on advertising to gain knowledge about certain products or services, advertising has the potential to be an educator. In this regard, does the responsibility of advertising lie in telling the truth to the consumer who seeks knowledge, or to the corporation that wants to increase sales of its product or service being advertised? For example, in this age where environmentally-friendly "green" products are all the rage, can companies misleadingly brand their products as being "green" simply to boost sales? Or do they owe the consumer the absolute truth? Where do we draw the line? Advertising does not only serve to inform the consumer, but also to persuade. As mentioned above, because of advertising's widespread nature, it yields a huge amount of influence over society as a whole. However, it is also in the corporation's best interests to have an ad that directly results in increased sales for their product or service. How far can this persuasion go before it is deemed unethical? How far can the use of sex as a persuasive tool in advertising go? What about advertising to children who do not have the required maturity to make truly rational decisions? Is it alright to prey on people's fears, uncertainties and doubts as a form of persuasion? With increasing globalisation, it is strategic for corporations that sell their products or services across differing regions worldwide to have targeted advertising in each specific one. However, different cultures have different moral standards and ethical values, some of which can be offensive and even morally degrading to those who are not exposed to said culture. Should companies, in advertising to these regions, commit moral "adultery" and have different moral standards based on which culture they are advertising to? For example, in advertising to cultures still replete with rampant sexism, should companies also include elements of sexism in their ads to "identify" with the people?

Do companies have an obligation to behave ethically in terms of interacting with their competitors? Just as most people would believe it is ethical to accord respect to fellow human beings, regardless of whether they are enemies or friends, should companies adopt this same moral ground with competing companies? More specifically, should companies produce ads that attack their competitors, and if so, to what extent is that allowed before it is deemed unethical? What is the yardstick to determine if a company's advertising techniques have become unethical? We will be examining various notable advertisement campaigns, on major advertising media such as television, billboards and the Internet, and attempt to answer these questions in the following sections.

Obligation to the Truth

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "truth" can be defined as "The state of being the case", or something that is a fact.[3]. Businesses are legally obliged to be truthful within the framework of industry codes, but while the law and morality both advocate truth-telling, the parameters which define the obligation to the truth vary. Before we examine the ethical risks that the truth, or lack thereof, pose in advertising, we must first further examine the fundamental nature of it so as to better understand how these risks arise.

Nature and Purpose of Advertising

For Information Sharing

In its most basic and economic sense, advertising is the means through which a corporation informs its customers about its products. This provision of information to the free market aids the consumer in making a rational choice in consumption. If this were the sole purpose of advertising - to provide information about a product - then according to Robert Bartels, all advertisers would be obliged to provide complete truthful facts about a product in the interest of the economic ideal of perfect information[4]. The information informs the customers, who then make a rational choice to purchase. As Subankhar Dam explains: "(This) justification stems from the fact that it facilitates transactions in the marketplace that is presumably both in the interests of the buyer and seller."[2] Hence from an economic point of view, advertising would in no way be an ethical issue because it is merely the provision of truthful statements to aid in the purchase of a product, which facilitates the convenient and efficient commercial transactions that our economy is based upon. It results in the greatest good for the greatest people (assuming you believe in the good of the free market economy), and advocates truth-telling.

To Persuade consumers to Purchase

In reality, however, marketing and advertising are much more than mere information-provision. They function as a means for the corporation to gain a competitive advantage over other products by persuading and influencing the customer to choose their product over the rest. The main ethical issues that arise in the

area of advertising thus largely relate to information disclosure and distortion[5], the reduced autonomy of the consumer as a result of persuasion, and the harm that informational asymmetry may cause.

Ethical Frameworks and the Truth

Case Study: Anheuser-Busch
In 1991, one of Anheuser-Buschs advertisements for Bud Light portrayed pictures of two women who came to life after two truck drivers drank the beer. A man from Michigan, subsequently sued the company for false advertising that resulted in emotional distress, mental injury and financial loss because pictures of beautiful women did not come to life after he drank the beer [6].

A Anheuser-Busch advertisement for Bud Light.

A Kantian Perspective
In Kantian ethics, a person is ultimately ethical if they are motivated by a moral obligation as determined by a set of universal laws. Kants principle of the Categorical Imperative allows for no exceptions to a prescribed moral rule[1]. One of his examples of a categorical imperative was Do not lie. Hence, the Kantian framework is relatively straightforward in dealing with the advertisers obligation to the truth they are to tell the truth and anything less than the truth constitutes a moral wrongdoing. This advertisement is clearly a non-truth, and would be unacceptable to a Kantian. But this advertisement would be deemed b y most people to be a humorous and creative fictional advertisement. The application of this theory to all advertising would likely be met with great resistance from the advertising community.

A Utilitarian Reaction
Under this consequentialist school of thought, actions are held to be moral or immoral based on the overall measure of human welfare or detriment respectively[2]. Under this framework, deception in advertisements is morally permissible should the outcome result in greater overall happiness. Hence the advertisement in

this case, acknowledged by most as a humourous way of selling a product, creates more overall happiness in the masses than in the individual who sued the company. However, this outright deception is instinctively something that people would reject, as the possibility of rampant lying in advertisements then becomes a concern. In the article Whats Wrong With Dece ptive Advertising, Daniel Attas uses the example of a cheese that is advertised to have 5 ounces of milk, when it really has 3.5 ounces[7]. In such a case, if the 1.5 ounce difference has no impact on consumer behavior, the act utilitarian would deem it to be non-ethically contentious.

Case Study: GlaxoSmithKlines Paroxetine

In 2001, the World Health Organisation published a report stating that paroxetine, an anti-depressant drug marketed by GlaxoSmithKline as Paxil, was a habit forming drug[8], and that it also had the created the worst withdrawal problems in its users. As GSK had been falsely marketing the product as non -habit forming for a decade prior to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration found GSK guilty of misleading the public. Our instinctive ethical objections to these advertisements would generally be more clear cut than the previous case study. Using the Kantian and Rawlsian frameworks, we will look at how our ethical objections arise.

A Kantian Perspective
The false nature of the claims in the advertisement clearly violate the categorical imperative of do not lie. Also, by using false claims, GSK was also using people as means rather than ends. By misleading their opinions about the product, GSK was trying to boost its sales without regard for the consequences to the individual consumers of the medicine. Under Kantian ethics, this is simply wrong.

A Rawlsian Reaction
Rawlsian Ethics is based upon two principles of justice. The first being that each person is to hav e an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. And the second being Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society. With regard to advertising and the truth, what this would suggest is that advertisers first take into account the Veil of Ignorance and determine if lying or creating a fictional portrayal of a product would be fair to all who view it. Secondly, it would ask advertisers to take into account the expectations and knowledge of the audience and provide truths accordingly. Hence, in the case of medical advertising, advertisers such as GlaxoSmithKline should have taken into consideration the knowledge levels of everyone viewing the product and behaved in a way that would benefit those with the least knowledge. However, one problem with a blanket application of this theory however is the aspect of benefitting the least well-off. In an advertising context, this would mean that in a situation where an advertisement is

meant to be humorous or tongue- in-cheek, as long as one individual believes it to be true, the advertisement would be deemed unethical.

Possible Ethical Approach

What we suggest for judging ethical obligations truth in advertisements is a framework that combines the Theory of Justice with elements of Act Utilitarianism. In this way, while advertisers would be expected to present the truth, non-truths in the form of outright lies of what a product contains or does would be prevented, whilst obviously humorous or fictional portrayals of a product would be allowed. This would correspond to the reality of the advertising world where creative devices are often employed in advertisements to an entertaining effect. According to Robert Bartels in his article "A Model for Ethics in Marketing", Simply to make an untrue statement about a product is in itself not unethical, nor to make a shoddy product that may be bad management, but it is not necessarily unethical. Neither is it unethical to make the false statement to a person who does not expect to be told the truth that may be the level of trade practice. However, if a customer expects to receive truthful information and a product of a specified quality, and if he does not, and if his expectation is a general expectation sanctioned by society, failure of the other party to fulfill these expectations is an unethical act. Furthermore, if a particular customer expects little or does not know what he is entitled to expect, and it society makes this determination for him, such a failure is also unethical.[4] What this suggests is that the ethics of truthfulness in an advertisement is premised upon what the audience knows or expects. The advertiser is expected neither to take advantage of ignorance in a viewer, nor to fall short of a customer's expectation of "truthful information". The aspects of Act Utilitarianism would be employed in the instances where a true negligible minority of audience fails to understand the entertainment aspects of a non-truth element in advertising. This would be permissible, because ultimately the greatest pleasure is still being provided for the greatest number, and the harm is negligible.

Obligation to your Consumers' Psychological and Emotional Well-being

As mentioned earlier, businesses grounded in business ethics should be concerned not just with its self-interest but also with the potential effects on its targeted consumers as well. Following the need for marketers to ensure truth and eradicate deception, it is also important for marketers to determine the needs, wants, and interests of their consumers in order to deliver satisfaction and value to them.

Preying on One's Desire for Love, Intimacy and Romance

Case Study: Carl's Junior Ad

A Carls Junior ad featuring Paris Hilton.

The ad features Paris Hilton in a revealing one-piece swim suit washing a car while posing provocatively. The focus of the ad was clear-cut, with the camera emphasising Hilton's seductive body movements. It is only much later in the advert that Hilton whips out a Carl's Junior burger with the camera still zooming in on her impeccably oiled-up skin.

A Kantian Perspective
The advertisement which featured and focused on a scantily clad Paris Hilton had an overt sexual tone aimed at those who desired romance, sex and intimacy. Under Kant's duty of ethics, a possible interpretation would be that the marketers behind the advertisement created this advert based on their self-interest of maximising profit and increasing viewership. They aim to exploit the inner wants and needs of consumers, which may at the same time act as a distraction from the product itself. As such, profit maximisation objective would still have been met regardless of the quality of the burger being advertised. Such an act goes against Kants ethics where one must act from a moral duty instead of his inclinations or interest.

A Milton Friedman Perspective

The business of business is to maximise profits. Inevitably, the business of advertisers would be to maximise its viewership. Given that the use of sex appeal has proven to be very useful and effective in drawing attention, Friedman would argue that the use of sex appeal combined with a celebrity icon like Paris Hilton is merely just the use of an effective marketing strategy. Therefore, there is nothing ethically wrong about it.

Possible Ethical Approach

While we agree with Friedman that there is nothing legally or principally wrong with having sexual connotations in advertisements, our group however regconises that such practice is only acceptable for businesses that sell products with s strong association with sensuality. For example, the use of provocatively clad models for lingerie and perfume advertisements have been a longstanding and commonly accepted practice. It can be argued that the features of these products can only be brought out through sexy portrayals of it. What is wrong however is when sex is used to advertise daily consumer products such as burgers as in the case of the Carls Junior ad. In such cases, sex advertising will escalate into immorality when it has no relation to the product and is used solely to exploit the inner desires and needs of the consumers. In addition, social issues have to be considered when taking into account the use of sex prints. The method of using a womans or a mans body to draw the attention of the opposite sex is inherently wrong as under the Kantian framework, humans should not be treated as means but as ends in themselves. In addition, under Community virtue in business ethics, the corporation is a member of a larger community and thus has a duty to the choice of people being used and portrayed in its advertisements [2].This is closely related to the negative social issues that could arise as a result of portraying women in varying stereotypes which will be further discussed in the next section.

Preying on One's Inability to Make Rational Decisions

Case Study: MacDonald Ad
The ad depicts the inital disappointment a boy faces when he opens his lunch box only to realise it is empty. His friends on the same table cast pitying looks on him, knowing the boy's parents have probably forgotten about getting him lunch. However,all of this is changed when the boy's father appears with a MacDonald's meal in his hands. Instantly, all the children became envious of the boy for having such a "thoughtful and loving" father.

A Kantian Perspective
The act of trying to make children believe that having a MacDonalds meal from a parent is representative of their love and care, and that it will draw envy from others is in itself an act of exploiting the innocence and naivety of children. This advertisement uses the sadness of children as a means for MacDonald to attract the adults who have the purchasing power, to increase their profits. In this case, children are being used as means to achieving profit maximising objectives.

A Utilitarian Perspective
A utilitarian would argue that whether the act is right or wrong, is dependent on the actual consequences resulting an action. In this case, advertisers are aware that children lack the full of understanding of the commercial world and are hence, unable to make rational decisions. As such, the decision to persuade parents into buying MacDonalds is done so without proper and rational decision making. Such marketing communications that talk to children only at their level of

actual development result in negative consequences through the exploitation of the innocence and naivety of the childrens mind.[9]

A Milton Friedman View

Similar to above, Friedmans belief that the marketers role is to make profits for the shareholders of the business by creating maximum awareness. Therefore, given the large influence children have over the adults purchases of MacDonalds meals, it can be argued that advertisers in an increasing competitive fast food industry should not ignore the children in their market. Therefore, advertisements targeted to children that tucks into their basic social needs such as love and concern from parents would seem to be the most natural course of route to take in order to evoke emotions and response from them. This will ultimately force parents into buying the products and finally, increasing MacDonalds market share.

Possible Ethical Approach

As proposed by ethics of care, special care should be given to children who are susceptible to influence due to their early stage of development. Therefore, a framework that combines Kantian and Utilitarian ethics is necessary to ensure that children who are targetted by advertisers will not suffer any possible negative repercussions.While Friedman may argue that marketers are merely communicating to their target consumers, it is necessary for advertisers to pay special attention to how the messages are being communicated. Advertisments that talk to children at the edge of their development rather than at their level of development prevents the exploitation of a childs inability to make rational decisions.[9]

Obligation to Society and Culture

Although advertising and marketing's primary aim is to "get us to buy",[1] it also has the power to shape cultural norms and construct consumption patterns. For example, an intimate kissing scene between two females as part of a music video was taken off the air and the cable operator showing this music video was fined because of the message that was portrayed regarding samesex love. In another case, there was a huge outcry in India over an ad for a skin whitening cream that implied that women with whiter skin were more successful than women with darker skin tones.[2]

Ethical Frameworks and The Obligation

Human beings are unique, yet we thrive best in groups and not in insolation. This is why societies and families exist. The various moral and ethical frameworks also exemplify this. For example, Rawl's Theory of Justice and Fairness gives weight to an individual via compensatory justice. If a person is wronged in some way, he or she should be brought back to his or her original position before the wrongdoing occurred. Most Eastern ethical frameworks like Confucianism advocate the

importance of duties and relationships to other human beings. These two ethical theories demonstrate the significance of the individual, as well as the society in which that individual exists in. The problem arises when advertising and marketing specifically target the individual as a group while undermining the uniqueness of each individual. In the case of the skin-whitening ad in India, the message brought across was that one had to have fair skin to be successful in life, because that is what society believes. It undermines the uniqueness of an individual, specifically women with dark skin, because the ad sets a benchmark for fair skin color, rendering dark-skinned females undesirable, with a "need for improvement".[2] Advertising also tends to objectify people, as human bodies are used as a platform to advertise products from shampoo to jewelry to cars. This goes against the Kantian categorical imperative that prohibits using people as a means to an end, which, in this case, is increased sales for that particular product or service advertised. These "platforms" are portrayed as an idealised state, and as a result, adolescent girls grow up with self-image problems as they invariably compare their own imperfect bodies to the models shown in ads. Teenage boys believe that to be manly, one must have a measure of "ruthlessness, even brutality".[10]

Racial Discrimination
Case Study: India's Fair and Lovely Skin-Whitening Ad
The Fair and Lovely Ad[11] depicts an elderly father lamenting to his dark-skinned daughter about how he does not have a son to provide for him. The daughter, accompanied by her father, decides to go and apply for a job as an air stewardess at an airline, only to be turned away by the receptionist who crudely comments on her disadvantaged skin colour. The father, upon hearing this, goes home grimly, and accompanied by a dramatic musical score, marches to a secret chamber in the house and concocts up a cream which turns his daughter's skin fairer. The daughter goes back to the airline company and the receptionist stares at her, mouth agape in shock, while an executive who happens to walk past decides to hire her on the spot. The girl's fortunes are reversed, she becomes immensely popular (and fair,) and makes her father happy.

India's Fair and Lovely ad

A Kantian Perspective
This ad, which was shown in India, understandably preys on that society's stereotype of darkskinned people as inferior to fair-skinned ones. It further reinforces the notion that to be successful, you have to change your skin colour (most preferably with Fair and Lovely). Should advertisers be allowed to make use of societal stereotypes to sell their products? A Kantian would think about how dark-skinned Indians would react to this. If dark-skinned Indians were made to feel inferior as a side effect of increased sales of Fair and Lovely, then it should not be done. Fairskinned Indians would not feel good if some other race negatively stereotyped them instead. Also, Kant would never condone using a person's physical attributes (in this case, the woman's skin colour) as a means to sell more Fair and Lovely cream.

Rawl's Principles of Justice

Advertisers could argue[12] that the ad they created was merely mirroring existing societal norms in India. It is generally true that most Indians do believe that being fair-skinned increases your chances of success. There is no problem with creating an ad that even Indians themselves accept to be true. From this perspective, the interests of a unique individual align with societal norms. In other words, the ad simply mirrors what society believes. However, this stereotype often leads to an inequality of opportunity for these dark-skinned females in Indian society. This goes against Rawl's second Principle of Justice, which advocates fair equality of opportunity so that every person can manifest their full capacities. Although culture is a significant consideration in this case, the more basic right of every person should be considered first even before culture.

Another Kantian Perspective

Advertisers argue[12] that by increasing awareness about this skin-whitening cream, they are actually helping dark-skinned Indians to break out of their notion of being disadvantaged by attacking the problem at the root: changing their skin colour. As Kant would say, even though in the process of watching that ad, some dark-skinned Indians would be displeased, ultimately Fair and Lovely would be helping these same dark-skinned Indians be successful in life through modifying their skin colour. From this perspective, dark-skinned Indians are not being used as a means, but the makers of Fair and Lovely are concerned with their success in life as the end result. However, as noble as their intentions might be, the advertisers are still enforcing the stereotype of the group that being dark-skinned is inferior, bypassing the uniqueness of each individual. This, in our opinion, is still morally unethical.

Possible Ethical Approach

The ethical dilemma arises due to the fact that although such a stereotype is present and accepted in India, our vantage point as foreigners lead us to believe that people should not be judged based on skin color. In other words, whether advertisers have such an obligation to society and culture depends very much on the culture of the ad's targeted audience. We can avoid bringing in culture by using Rawl's ethical framework, which advocates for fair equality of opportunity for every person regardless of their physical attributes. Therefore, as long as the advertisement and its context can fulfill the two broad rules, which is to take into consideration and not undermine the uniqueness of an individual while advertising from a societal or group point of view, and it does not use people or their characteristics as a means to an end, then the advertisement can be said to have fulfilled its obligation to society and culture.

Gender Discrimination
Sex in Advertising
As mentioned in the previous section, ads that prey on an individual's feelings and emotions, especially those that involve sexuality, can transform an otherwise mundane ad into a highly successful one. The women in the ad had full knowledge of what they were expected of in the making of the ad, hence they were not exploited in any way. Also, such ads could be seen as being sensual without being outrightly pornographic. For example, a TV ad by Axe shows a man, after wearing a fragrance by Axe, seemingly having the power to undress and "touch" women remotely[13]. Such ads could be seen as creatively sensual without being outrightly pornographic. They are also extremely effective in heightening Axe's brand awareness, which leads to increased sales and revenue. Hence, what is wrong with such advertising?

A Kantian Critique
By using women as sex objects in ads to directly appeal to men's emotional core, the ad taps into a primal desire of human beings to procreate. It bypasses the moral constraints society has ingrained into its members, mirrored as one of Kant's categorical imperatives, that prohibits using people, in this case women, as a means to achieve an end. It is these two internal opposing forces that trouble people when they are confronted with such ads. In reality, the women in such ads are most probably treated fairly and not exploited, but the internal battle between our basic instincts and moral intuitions do not consider this. We struggle with the primal desire to procreate, versus our moral intuitions that we should treat women as human beings with equality of rights rather than viewing them as objects to satisfy some internal, primal lust. In the Axe ad, this is represented by the man having the power to manipulate, in the physical sense, the women around him while the reverse is not true. In society, this would represent a regression in the form of moral degradation if women are not treated with equality and are unfairly taken advantage of. It goes against the Rawl's Justice of Fairness, in which women, who were unfairly treated in the past, be

given more compensation in society now. The act of portraying women as sex objects is replete with disgust, and it harkens back to a time where social liberties and rights were not as developed as they are today.

A Virtue Ethics Perspective

Aristotle defines virtue as a set of means. Virtue Ethics is more concerned with the imbuing of good characteristics and moral values as compared to the specific actions of an individual. In this case, to be virtuous means to strike a balance between an excess of lust and a deficiency of pleasure. As society learns to be more virtuous, it gets closer and closer to achieving the mean. In the case of the Axe ad (and many other ads they have), they portray a seemingly innocuous scene with intense sexual undertones. This creates a tension between being virtuous on the surface, but being "naughty" underneath. Sexually charged ads invoke an emotional response in people that deviates from the mean. In this case, the mean refers to a moderation between excess lust and the absence of desire. Although the emotional response very often simply stays as an emotional response without any outward action, it affects our inner moral values as the mind begins to process these images. For a moment, we get sexually aroused, and this deviation from the mean causes our moral alarm bells to go off.

Possible Ethical Approach

Although sex in advertising can range from outright showing of flesh and sexuality, like the Paris Hilton Carls' Jr ad or seemingly innocuous ones like the Axe ad, such ads are generally detrimental to society as it represents, in Kant's line of thinking, a regression of societal morals as we begin to think of women as objects of pleasure in general. It also goes against the notion of virtue ethics as such ads introduce the tension of an individual deviating from the virtuous mean for a moment of pleasure.

Obligation to Competitors
Growing trend of comparative advertising
Advertising has primarily been used to promote a companys products by emphasizing its strengths or creating a lifestyle associated with the brand. Its ultimate objective is to encourage customer purchase of the product or service. In many industries, especially ones dominated by several large corporations, advertising wars often break out, where companies make use of advertising media to put forth veiled criticism of each other. Although this does not constitute as a direct infringement of intellectual rights, nor is it strictly slander or libel, this behaviour is still undesirable and is not ethical. Comparative advertising is a form of advertising technique that puts two products or brands into comparison. It has gained immense popularity in recent times as it has proven to be very successful in capturing the attention of consumers, through generating sensationalism with controversial advertising media. Advertisements of this kind tend to favour the brand/product belonging to the company putting out the advertisement by either a) portraying the

competing product in a negative light or b) showing how their own products certain characteristics make it superior to the other product. This can take an implied, subtle form or it can be a blatant declaration. When advertisements include competitor products, it increases the propensity for it to lead consumers into making a purchase decision.[14] There are two main types of comparative advertising:[15]

Comparative approach advertisements that play on emotion of consumers (sensationalism) to highlight strength

Positional approach advertisements that show a products positioning relative to that of the competitors and showing consumers the benefits of that positioning (for example: Avis is number two we try harder)

Comparative advertising has been banned in many countries (it is illegal to use the names of competing brands in the same advertisement) but is widespread in its use in the USA.

Why does an obligation exist?

We propose that the company carrying out advertising campaigns has an obligation to competing firms. An obligation to competing firms exists because advertising campaigns can be an anticompetitive tool that undermines the integrity of competing products and firms. In almost every country, there are laws that protect individuals against defamation and libel. Applying the same principle, it is not ethical for advertisements to be a direct transgression on the integrity of a rival company or product. This seems to be a very clear yardstick to determine if a company's advertisements are ethically correct or not. However, in reality, the line between creating hype by simply poking fun at competitors and actually meaning to discredit competitors is blurred. This portion of the report will assess several cases of advertising and determine if a firm has crossed the line with its over-aggressive advertising methods.

Illustrations
Case Study: Audi vs BMW
At the start of 2009, Audi put up a billboard along Santa Monica Boulevard, California that shows the newly launched Audi A4 sedan with the words Your move, BMW emblazoned across the poster. In April 2009, BMW eventually responded to this direct challenge by erecting a much bigger billboard across the street that displayed the BMW M3 automobile with the word Checkmate.[16] This billboard exchange became tremendously popular, especially among netizens and was one of the most talked about advertising campaigns in 2009. The general sentiment was that Audi was the losing party in this battle and consumers were entertained by BMWs witty comeback, albeit at Audis expense. The response from the consumers was overwhelmingly positive, lauding the creativity of the advertisers and uniqueness of the advertising content.

Comparative advertising between BMW and Audi

A Kantian Perspective
Is there anything ethically wrong about this illustration of comparative advertising? The majority sentiment of the consumers was that of amusement and most did not think there was anything wrong with it. However, under Kantian theory, this advertising campaign would directly violate the Principle of Universality[2]. In this case, Audi has born the brunt of detrimental effects of the campaign (negative publicity, damaged reputation) but it is the result of Audis challenge in the first billboard that provoked such a response. Audis intention was to achieve a superior position in the market with the launch of their new model of automobile and they wanted to portray their product as superior to that of their closest competitor, BMW. This plan backfired on an epic scale. Audi should not have put forth such an advertisement if they did not want this to become an international norm. If this type of aggressive marketing became a global norm, a great disparity will be created in the playing field as only large, wealthy firms like BMW and Audi would be able to participate fully in the ensuing advertising wars. The playing field would not be 'level' for smaller firms and they would be greatly disadvantaged. Furthermore, applying Kant's Categorical Imperative that humans should never be used solely as a means, Audi's advertising campaign would be deemed as unethical too. Companies can be viewed similarly to humans in this respect, because they are a group of human coworkers working towards an economic objective. By making use of BMW's name solely to generate publicity, Audi is using BMW as a means to achieve a personal vested interest.

Case Study: Pepsi Vs Coke

In 1975, PepsiCo launched the Pepsi Challenge a blind sip-test to determine consumers preference for either Coke or Pepsi. Majority of tasters indicated that they preferred Pepsi over Coke and PepsiCo gleefully published their results using a variety of advertising media. They proclaimed that Pepsi is superior in taste to Coke and backed it up with findings from their research.[17] At first glance, this example may seem extremely similar to the previous one.

However, the intention of this advertising blitz by PepsiCo was intrinsically different from that of Audis and BMWs.

Comparative advertising between Pepsi and Coke

A Kantian Perspective
In this case, PepsiCo was trying to publish genuine results from research that they funded, trying to prove that their product is superior in taste. They did not attempt to discredit their competitor by playing on emotions of the public or creating sensationalism. Audis billboard offered no justification as to why its sedan would be superior to BMWs offering but instead instantly concluded that theirs was superior, thus "throwing down the gauntlet". This is an unprovoked and unverifiable criticism of another entity's integrity. This, in itself, is already considered by many to be unethical. Under the same Kantian framework, PepsiCos methods seem to be legitimate. It would not be unethical if it became a universal maxim under Kants Principle of Universality.

Conclusion
As established, not all forms of comparative advertising are ethically unacceptable. As analyzed under the various ethical frameworks, the intention of the firm when undertaking advertising is the deciding factor in determining if a company's marketing campaign is ethical and if it has fulfilled its obligation to other competitors. We have established a clear dichotomy between malicious advertising and comparative advertising that solely seeks to pique interest through creative forms of advertisements. With that said, should there be governmental legislation to limit the extent of comparative advertising among corporations? There is a vast difference in how different governments operate. Countries like Singapore and New Zealand have imposed blanket bans on comparative advertising, allowing no mention of other competitors in advertisements. However, countries like USA have openly allowed comparative advertisements and most of the highly-rated advertisements, for example SuperBowl advertisements, do draw comparisons with competitors.

In an ideal situation, comparative advertising should be allowed and corporations should be selfregulated by their obligation to competitors. This would result in freedom of creative expression for firms who are advertising, yet establish a clear yardstick for firms so that they do not become malicious. Laws should also be in place as a reactionary measure, as an avenue for victims of unethical comparative advertising to seek redress.

Green Labeling: New Challenges in This Current Era

Issues Faced
Green Labelling
Green Labelling (or eco-labelling) refers to a scheme which awards environment-friendly products with eco-labels. Many consumer products in the market, through their manufacturing processes, usage, or disposal, have a direct or indirect impact on our environment. They may cause pollution or deplete our natural resources. However, there are products which have less undesirable effects on our environment. For example, recycled paper or appliances which conserve energy. Labelling these environment-friendly products helps consumers identify and select them from those which are less so when they make their purchases.

Green Washing
Greenwashing (green whitewash) is the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, for example by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources[1]. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term "green sheen" has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.

New Challenges in This Current Era

With increasing awareness of global warming, many countries and corporations are actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly products to tackle the situation. However, driven to boost their sales, companies often use the words environmentally-friendly, eco-friendly and green to create a positive impression about their products and induce unsuspecting consumers to purchase them without receiving official and reliable green labels from governmental or private bodies. There are different standards for green labels for different products, making it harder to regulate and inspect the green labels. More importantly, many companies nowadays are disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly by presenting cost reductions in use of resources; hence, they practice deceptive green marketing. Such deceptive marketing campaigns are ethically questionable if they are overly selective about information they communicate to the audience and if it does affect the societys well -being adversely.

Ethical Frameworks and The Obligations

Case Study: General Electrics ecomagination Advertisement for Clean Coal
In 2006, General Electric, one of worlds leading electronics company, started producing a series of advertisements entitled ecomagination in their attempt to use green marketing. One of its advertisements promoted the use of coal by using physically attractive models to portray normal miners and glamorized the entire process of coal mining and the product itself, coal. [18]

A Milton Friedman Perspective

From Milton Friedmans perspective, it is clearly stated there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game in his book Capitalism and Freedom. Hence, in his perspective, this advertisement is ethical because it plays an effective role in maximizing profit for General Electric and therefore will benefit its shareholders. To survive in the competitive energy market and meet the market trend of green consumerism, it would be only ethical for General Electric to use most effective advertisement method regardless of possible consequences on the environment.

A Utilitarian Perspective, and Obligation to the Consumers' Psychological and emotional well-being
However, if we take a utilitarian point of view, this is deceptive marketing used by General Electric. Act utilitarianism conveys the idea that the rightness of actions is determined solely by its consequences. In this case, the General Electric ad is largely unethical because despite the positive short-term impacts to the economy, the increased sales of coal would result in greater and far-reaching negative consequences. For example,the escalation of greenhouse gases released will disrupt the environment and result in climatic disasters, causing distress to the society at large. As seen earlier, advertisers have an obligation to the consumers psychological and emotional well-being.The creation of a less desirable living environment will certainly have an impact on the consumers' well-being.

A Kantian Perspective, and Obligation to the Truth and Consumer's Psychological and emotional well-being
The advertisement used physically attractive models as coal miners to glamorize coal mining as sexy industry and most importantly, showed scenes where coals are dug out from coal mine whereas majority of the coal nowadays comes from open pit mining, that is also known as mountain top removal mining. Hence, the advertisement clearly shows selective, glamorous and untruthful sides about coal mining.

We can apply Robert Bartel's model, as espoused in the section above on Obligation to the Truth, here. An advertiser is expected neither to take advantage of ignorance in a viewer, nor to fall short of a customers expectation of truthful information. In this case, the advertiser, General Electric clearly was misleading viewers to believe that coal mining in these modern times was clean and safe, glamorous, even. Although it would be ludicrous to expect General Electric to produce an ad exposing all the dangers and environmental damage its coal-mining business has brought about, they should not, at the very least, mislead consumers with an ad about coal mining that is untrue. Although the target audience of this wiki will be knowledgeable enough to know about the detriments of coal, there are many more who watch the ad on TV who might be ignorant and treat the subject matter of the ad as true. Consequently, such advertisements may take advantage of uninformed consumers who have a strong desire to do their part for the environment.The exploitation of consumers' inability to make informed decisions due to their lack of expertise or their strong desire for acceptance is deemed unethical as advertisers do have an obligation to consumers' psychological and emotional wellbeing.

Conclusion
With the increasing awareness on the changing climate and natural disasters, advertisers should ensure that its advertisements do not contradict the efforts to create a green environment. Therefore, advertisers who use green marketing have an obligation to tell the truth about the specific details of their products such as their green labels. They have an obligation to communicate various consequences at which their production resulted and avoid glamorizing the production process excessively to advertisement viewers as most customers do not have access to the information and doing so would be essential in both Utilitarian and Kantian perspective. In addition, advertisers have an obligation to their targeted viewers' well-being. All in all, it is crucial that advertisers do not exploit the minds of consumers who are keen in going the extra miles to save the environment and not take advantage of customers lack of knowledge and current tread of green consumerism.

Overall Conclusion
Advertising and marketing are ethically problematic issues anything dealing with persuasion to action for ones own benefit will never be an ethically clear-cut situation. However we have attempted to shed light on the situation and demonstrate that one framework alone cannot be used to judge the morality of an advertisement due to the many parties involved, and the real-life characteristics of the advertising and marketing industry. We have thus suggested criteria for the different facets of an advertisement: the extent, and situations, in which the advertiser has an obligation to the truth, to the individuals emotional and psychological well-being, to society and to its competitors.

Regulation?
Some have suggested that clear regulation and guidelines ought to be put in place to keep a close watch on the industry, and to prevent the manipulation, exploitation, or degradation of both customers and competitors. While there does exist the ICC International Code of Advertising Practice, with clearly spelled out guidelines that list fundamental principles that advertisers should abide by, these are not enforceable. The code also has somewhat ambiguous wording in some articles. For example: "Article 1: All advertising should be legal, decent, honest and truthful"[2] The parameters within which an advertisement can be considered "decent" and "honest" are not clearly defined. Also, most countries have a board that oversees regulation in the advertising industry (in Singapore, the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore deals with such issues)[2], and adopt some form of the ICC International Code of Advertising Practice, but calls have been made for clearer guidelines. However, the nature of advertising in both its art of persuasion and its creative content suggest that strict guidelines would in fact be detrimental to the industry as a whole. Strict guidelines and codes would merely drive the industry away from the creative and colourful ads that we know, and towards a more descriptive process. But to allow advertisers and marketers free reign without any ethical or moral standard also poses a risk as great harm could potentially be inflicted on consumers, competitors, and society at large. Thus we believe that tighter regulations are not in fact the solution, but rather ethical frameworks such as the ones we have proposed should guide the industry members in creating the advertisements, so as to avoid great harm to others. Self-regulation is a much stronger form of check and balance for unethical practices in the advertising industry, and it is through the implementation and consideration of the proposed ethical frameworks that selfregulation be carried out.

References
1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Boatright, J. R. (2008), Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 6th Ed., Prentice Hall 2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Chan, G. & Shenoy, G. (eds) (2009), Ethics & Social Responsibility: Asian & Western Perspectives, McGraw Hill 3. 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth 4.0 4.1 Bartels, R., "Model for Ethics in Marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol 31, Jan 1967.

5.

Beauchamp T.L. & Bowie, N. E.(2003), Ethical Theory and Business, 7th Ed, Pearson Prentice Hall

6. 7.

From http://www.uphaa.com/blog/index.php/law-lawsuits. Attas, D., Whats Wrong With Deceptive Advertising, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 21 No 1 Aug 1999 pg 49-59

8.

Associated Press (20 Aug 2002), Judge: Paxil ads can't say it isn't habit-forming, USA Today, , Retrieved from:http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-08-20paxil-ads_x.htm

9.

9.0 9.1 http://www.adliterate.com/archives/2005/03/the_ethics_of_m_1.html

10. Kilbourne, Jean, Jesus is a Brand of Jeans, New Internationalist, Issue 393. Taken from http://www.newint.org/features/2006/09/01/culture/ 11. Hindustan Unilever (2007) [Web] Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9tcXpW1DE 12. 12.0 12.1 Karnani, A. (2007). Doing well by doing good case study: fair & lovely whitening cream. Michigan Ross School of Business, Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/esa/coordination/DWDG.Fair.Lovely.SMJ.pdf 13. Axe (Company). (2007). New formula touch. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq1msTZamJE 14. Miskolczi-Bodnr, P. "DEFINITION OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING". from http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:ILNBxAPeqoMJ:www.unimiskolc.hu/uni/ res/kozlemenyek/2004/DEFINITION.doc+what+is+comparative+advertising&cd=7&h l=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg 15. (31 Oct 2008). Retrieved 20 March, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising. 16. Horatiu.B (2009). "Billboards War: BMW vs Audi." from http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/04/13/billboards-war-bmw-vs-audi/. 17. . "Battle of the brands: Pepsi vs Coke Advertisements "from http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/battle-of-the-brands-pepsi-vs-cokeadvertisements/. 18. Hoythudson (2006). Model Miners - GE.

Log in

Page Discussion Read View source View history

Go Search

Navigation

Main Page Course information Project Groups Student Pages Recent changes Terms of use Wiki Policy Intellectual Property Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Special pages Printable version Permanent link
This page was last modified on 29 March 2010, at 16:41. This page has been accessed 13,286 times. Privacy policy About Ethics and Social Responsibility Disclaimers

Preetttttttttttttt////////////////////link. https://wiki.smu.edu.sg/0910t2lgst001g4/Advertising,_Marketing_and_the_Truth#Case_Study:_Ma cDonald_Ad

Ethics Alarms
SKIP TO CONTENT

HO M E ABO U T

CO M M EN T CO N CEP TS

P O LICIES AN D SP ECIAL TER M S

Introducing The Hollinger Awardsand the First Recipient, Susan Cole Comment of the Day: Ethics Quiz: Holders Brainwash Comment
MARCH 22, 2012 12:59 PM

Jump to Comments

Unethical Advertising Slogan of the Month: Reebok

You read that right: the slogan, which Rebok printed up for use by an affiliated gym in Germany and which quickly went viral on the web, is CHEAT ON YOUR GIRLFRIEND, NOT ON YOUR WORKOUT! As blatantly unethical exhortations in pursuit of commerce go, this one is pretty spectacular. Consider:

It is disrespectful of women. It advocates betrayal, dishonesty, disloyalty, infidelity, promiscuity andcheating. It designates a higher priority to narcissistic self-maintenance over love, commitment, and stable relationships. It represents an athletic equipment company giving the stamp of approval to cheating.

Thats a remarkable amount of bad ethics in just eight words. A masterpiece of economical cultural poison. Bravo! Cheaterville.com, a website that could be fairly called the anti-Ashley Madisonas it discourages adulterers and relationship cheaters by outing them online, sent Reebok a letter of protest that read

This form of advertising shows a dishonest and disrespectful attitude towards women and your company should be ashamed to have even placed this ad in various places thinking it would be perceived in any other way. I think thats a fair assessment. Reebok, recognizing terrible publicity when it saw it if not a terrible slogan, quickly pulled the signs and related materials and apologized through a spokesman, saying, The signs were removed as soon as we were made aware of them. I can assure you that Reebok does not condone this message or cheating in any way. We apologize for the offensive nature of these materials, and are disappointed that they appeared at all. Now thats one dishonest apology! Come on. Are we to believe that a Reebok promotion was released without the approval or knowledge of the company? I doubt it. If Reebok doesnt condone cheating, why did it approve a slogan that encourages cheating? How can it be disappointed that its own promotional materials appeared at all? Is Reebok laboring under the delusion that the Ethics Elves protect companies from embarrassingly unethical messages by making them vanish before they see the light of day? If Reebok didnt condone the message, is disappointed that the signs appeared, and wasnt even aware of the campaign, why does it feel it has to apologize at all? Unethical slogan+Unethical apology = Untrustworthy company But we already knew that.
Share this:

Related

Twitter9 Digg StumbleUpon LinkedIn Facebook26 Reddit Print Email

Unethical Web Site of the Month: Essay EmperorIn "Business & Commercial" Writers Writing About Ethics, Without AnyIn "Around the World" Unethical Quote of the Week: Adam DachisIn "Arts & Entertainment" 11 Comments Filed under Around the World, Business & Commercial,Marketing and Advertising, Sports Tagged as adultery, apologies, betrayal, cheating, ethics, Germany,Reebok, responsibility, slogans

11 responses to Unethical Advertising Slogan of the Month: Reebok

1. tgt
March 22, 2012 at 1:20 pm

I dont see the same problems with the apology you do. Its not like all marketing materials are going to go by the executive board. Major commercials? Yes. Something for an individual gym? I highly doubt it. That said, I think this apology is missing something. No matter who in the company was involved with this particular marketing campaign, Reebok should take the mantle of responsibility. They failed, be it by approving this slogan, hiring bad people for marketing, or not reviewing marketing materials. They messed up, and acting like innocent bystanders is inappropriate. Reply

Jack Marshall
March 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm

A proper and accurate refinement of my remarks, tgt. The tone of the apology appears to disclaim all responsibility. Its a little like Ken Lay claiming he had no idea Enron was a sham. In corporate law, if you run it, you own it, and you also own the misconduct of the boobs you hire and delegate to. Reply

2.

Eeyoure
March 22, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Could the German connection have anything to do with Reeboks gaffe? I mean, as might happen due to a language barrier or mis-translation. Is it possible that someone meant for the sign to say instead, Cheating on Your Workout Cheats Your Girlfriend -? Reply

Jack Marshall
March 22, 2012 at 6:39 pm

All I can say is that when I read that motto, it seemed completely consistent with the ethos of the industry, and could have just as easily been the brainchild of Nike. And youd think if it was a translation error, Reebok would have said so, no? Reply

Eeyoure
March 22, 2012 at 6:49 pm

Yes it does look like Reebok tripped-up and trapped themselves so badly, they practically denied themselves any ethical way out. Reply

3.

Eeyoure
March 22, 2012 at 6:55 pm

One more possible angle: the ads appeared as a product of an advertising business that Reebok outsourced to. The outsourcing arrangement could have been so loose (trusting, on Reeboks part?) that the ad provider did not even obtain a prior OK from anyone in Reebok, before posting the ads. That could explain plausibly why the spokesman said that Reebok is disappointed that they appeared at all. Reply

4.

Steven Mark Pilling

March 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm

A company- like an individual- has to take responsibility for what they say or endorse. If it was the doing of some lower echelon executive or of a foreign subsidiary (and this DOES happen with large firms, BTW) Reebok should have made that clear with their apology along with assuring its clientele that steps are being made to prevent a re-occurrance. Reply

5. Pingback: Cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout. WaitWhat?! | raibelyuhn 6. Pingback: Cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout. WaitWhat?! | raibelyuhn

7.

Michael Belk @ethical behavior

November 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm

This is most blatant form of irresponsible advertising I have ever seen. This reflects the erosion of our society. If a company thinks it is better to promote their tennis shoes than a successful relationship, we have a big problem. I hope the Germans feel the same way as many Americans. I do not wear Reebok because they are ugly compared to Nike. Reply

Dalton Burns
June 30, 2013 at 9:20 am

Nike though is unethical in its forms of labor though, theyre infamous for underpaying their labor and for using child labor. Reply

Leave a Reply

Search
Search for:
Search

Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Join 2,592 other followers

Sign me up!

Rule Book
Comment Policies Alarm Blockers: Non-Ethical Considerations Ben Franklins Two Daily Questions and 13 Virtues Edward Everetts Credo Ethical Decision-Making Tools Gene Autrys Cowboy Code George Washingtons 110 Rules The Apology Scale The Boy Scout Law The Ethics Alarms Heroes Hall Of Honor Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions Virtues, Values, and Duties

RSS Feed

Add this URL to your feed reader: http://www.ethicsalarms.com/feed/

Recent Posts
Ethics Rant: Here Is The Smoking Gun Proof That The Government Doesnt Care How Much Money It Wastes, Or, In The Alternative, That It Isnt Run By Sufficiently Competent People To Be Trusted To Spend What It Does Ethics Diagnosis: #SueyParkisanirresponsiblepowerhungrypoliticalcorrectnessbully Legal, Unethical, and Despicable: The Seattle Mariners Contract Squeeze Play On Randy Wolf Privacy, Facebook, And School Abuse of Power OK, OK, He Steals Our Money Too. But I Still Hear Eric Holders One Hell Of A Guy.

Archives
March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012

March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009

Categories
Animals Around the World Arts & Entertainment Bioethics Business & Commercial Character Citizenship Comment of the Day Daily Life Education Environment Ethics Alarms Award Nominee Ethics Dunces Ethics Heroes Ethics Quotes Ethics Scoreboard classics Ethics Train Wrecks Etiquette and manners Family Finance

Gender and Sex Government & Politics Health and Medicine History Humor and Satire Incompetent Elected Officials Journalism & Media Jumbo Kaboom! Law & Law Enforcement Leadership Literature Love Marketing and Advertising Popular Culture Professions Public Service, Philanthropy, Charity Quizzes Quotes Race Religion and Philosophy Research and Scholarship Rights Romance and Relationships Science & Technology Sports The Internet U.S. Society Uncategorized Unethical Blog Post Unethical Tweet Unethical Websites War and the Military Workplace

Blogroll
ACLU Rights Blog Alas, A Blog All-Swagga Amitai Etzioni Arthur Dobrin's Weblog Best of the Web Curmudgeon Central Democratic Thinker Drugmonkey Ethics Bob Evil HR Lady John Stossel's Take KeyTLaw Language Log Law and the Multiverse Less Wrong

Popehat Religion Clause The Ethics Guru The Juggle The Legal Ethics Forum The Mudflats The Volokh Conspiracy Threat Level Windy Pundit Writer Beware!

Ethics Websites
Big Questions City Ethics Conflicts of Interest Blog Ethics Beyond Compliance Ethics Partnerships Ethics Resource Center Ethics Sage Fairness.com Institute for Global Ethics Josephson Institute Research Ethics Blog Sonia Jaspal's Risk Board The Business Ethics Blog The Ethical Spectacle The Food Ethics Blog The Modern Knight What Will Matter

Inspiration
"A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens "Alumnus Football" by Grantland Rice "If" by Rudyard Kipling Eight Inspirational Football Locker Room Speeches Five Lessons on How to Treat People Ryne Sandberg's Acceptance Speech for the Hall of Fame

Of Interest
32 Keys A Minor Consideration A Philosopher's Take Carolyn Hax

Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington Climate Asylum Consumerist Fallacy Files Footnoted Freakonomics Free Range Kids Guernica Magazine Lippman Would Roll Maverick Philosopher

National Legal and Policy Center Open Secrets Pardon Power PolitiFact Bias Public Shaming Public Square Raptitude Reason Magazine Res Ipsa Loquitur Scienceblogs Snopes The Business Insider Law Review The Crime Report The Edge The Fire The Lucifer Effect The Museum of Hoaxes The Soap Box Rantings The TSA Abuse Blog Think Big Trust Across America

ProEthics
Ethics Seminars, CLE, Training and Consulting The Ethics Scoreboard

Follow Us on Twitter
Ethics Rant: Here Is The Smoking Gun Proof That The Government Doesnt Care How Much Money It Wastes, Or, In Thewp.me/pF3R1-5B4 12 hours ago Ethics Diagnosis:#SueyParkisanirresponsiblepowerhungrypoliticalcorrectnessbullywp.me/pF3R15AW 19 hours ago Legal, Unethical, and Despicable: The Seattle Mariners Contract Squeeze Play On Randy Wolfwp.me/pF3R15AT 21 hours ago Privacy, Facebook, And School Abuse of Power wp.me/pF3R1-5AQ 1 day ago OK, OK, He Steals Our Money Too. But I Still Hear Eric Holders One Hell Of A Guy. wp.me/pF3R15AM 1 day ago

Contact
Jack Marshall Ethics Alarms An ethics commentary blog on current events and issues Blog at WordPress.com. The Pilcrow Theme.

Follow

Follow Ethics Alarms

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 2,592 other followers
Sign me up

Powered by WordPress.com

Linkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk////////////////////////////////////////////http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/03/ 22/unethical-advertising-slogan-of-the-month-reebok/