The ethics of advertising? Let the disadvantaged children speak for themselves
| Autor | Lissens, Silke - Bauwens, Joke |
| Páginas | 659-676 |
Page 659
For some advertising is one of the mechanisms instigating and guiding life politics with spare time and effort left for ethical consideration of and moral obligation and responsibility towards others. It is central to the liquid modern consumption society where there is little to win out of the relationships with others and, in creating desires and needs through means of seduction it causes human behavior to become ever more individualized (Bauman, 2008). Advertising ethics in this line of thinking summons remarks as the ultimate oxymoron (Beltramini, 2003), a paradox (Pratt & James,
Page 660
1994) and metaphors as the moral degradation of postmodern life (Hackley, 1999). For others, however, advertising might be exactly the field of study and practice where ethics could or should flourish -anew-.
First of ali, it is omnipresent and highly visible (Beltramini, 2003; Nwachukwu et al., 1997) and therefore utterly impressionable to public and political scrutiny. Secondly, it responds to people's emotions and wishes, which influences the moral rational and behavioral development in society (Gustafson, 2001). Thirdly, it functions as an important semiotic tool in identity construction and social interaction. Thus, advertising does not simply impose its messages upon the consumere, it 'is the matrix or context within which we understand ourselves and the world' (Gustafson, 2001: 205); brands, branded producís and advertising quotes act as building blocks for personal identities, self-branding, and interpersonal communication (Quart, 2004). According to Waide (1987), though, advertising should be contemplated negatively since it overly focuses on the acquisition of immaterial statuses like happiness through material goods. It derives people from developing immaterial ways, social skills, to achieve those same goals. Either way, advertising composes an important area to consider on the account of its centrality to people's (a)social lives. Fourthly, internationalization and globalization tendencies within the advertising industry have brought along questions of responsibility and accountability concerning unethical behavior that are complex to answer (Drumwright & Murphy, 2009). Lastly, the internet has opened up a whole new range of opportunities that challenge traditional concepts, characteristics and features of advertising and the ethical dimensions thereof. For one, the speed in which this diversification proceeds is challenging; it requires a constant renegotiation or revisión of what precisely has to be seen as ethical or moral concerns (Freestone & Mitchell, 2004; Hackley, 1999). A similar assignment appears in the altered relationship between advertisers and consumers; online advertising allows for a more selective,pulled exposure to advertising than traditional advertising (Schlosser, Shavitt & Kanfer, 1999; Wolin & Korgaonkar, 2003). To conclude, online advertising delivers increasingly interactive, immersive configurations that make it harder to detect that advertising is at stake in general (Martin & Smith, 2008; Nairn & Drew, 2007) and what precisely constitutes informational content on the one hand and entertainment on the other.
Ali these aspects have turned advertising ethics into an inviting as well as pressing, daunting task to be dealt with for regulators, policy makers, advertising professionals and academics alike.
The argumentation in this paper draws particular attention to the last group and criticizes academic efforts concerning advertising and ethics for often omitting to take on proper ethical stances themselves. In first instance a quick view will be given on how advertising and ethics is generally dealt with in the industry and in research. Part of the claim is that although extended attention is given to those regarded as vulnerable in the advertising context, children, this rarely incorporates their moral evaluation of advertising practices and them being targeted as consumers. This might be due to discrepancies in expectations and portrayals of moral capacities on the one hand and the dominance of quantitative research on the other. Furthermore, arguments are listed to include the socio-economic status (SES) of respondents and to focus on children coming from low SES backgrounds since they occupy the most disadvantaged positions in a money-driven, consumerist society.
Page 661
Leaving the juridical and regulatory fields aside, the line of reasoning in this paper focuses on advertising and ethics relating to two main stakeholders in the advertising process: the advertising industry and the consumere. The former to a certain degree spontaneously seems to agree that advertising to young children (Grimm, 2004; Krueger, 1998; Nwachukwu et al., 1997; Preston, 2005), and notably the advertising of harmful producís such as alcohol and cigarettes present cases of unethical advertising (Hunt & Chunko, 1987; Nwachukwu et al., 1997). Often however, (future) professionals hide behind the idea of children as savvy consumers (Drumwright & Murphy, 2004; Fullerton, Kendrick & Melton Mckinnon, 2013) who cannot easily be targeted and who push the industry to créate more innovative, immersive and intrusive commercial messages. Or the responsibility is shaken off and passed on to regulatory and/or legislative institutions (Drumwright & Murphy, 2004; Krueger, 1998) and the social circles of family and friends (Drumwright & Murphy, 2004). Playing along government rules or industry based ethical codes of conduct appears to be in function of safeguarding a good image of professionalism (Keith, Pettijohn & Burnett, 2008; Krueger, 1998; Pratt & James, 1994) and standing up against high profile international criticai consumer organizations (Carrigan & Attala, 2001) in order to prevent governments from intervening (Grimm, 2004). Or ethical conduct is pursued in the relationships with customers, clients (Drumwright & Murphy, 2004; Hunt & Chonko, 1997) as to not damage business deals and endanger the existence of the company in times of increased competitiveness and struggle for survival. Consequentially, ethical advertising behavior might be more a matter of self-protectionism than serving the social good(s).
Advertising ethics in relation to the latter group of stakeholders, the consumers, is questioned on a number of leveis. The first one scrutinizes the nature of the advertised producís. Similarly to the professionals' view just mentioned, ethical objections emerge in context of sin products (Treise et al., 1994). Though not always portrayed as an ethical concern as such, motivations for research might equally arise from moral panics or actual health problems, the advertising of alcohol (Austin, Chen & Grube, 2006), cigarettes (Bansal, John & Ling, 2005; Barbeau et al., 2005; Durkin, Biener & Wayfield, 2009; Niederdeppe et al., 2011) and drugs, fa(s)t food (Henderson & Kelly, 2005; Settle, Cameron & Thornton, 2014) andpolitical (Kaid, 1991) advertising cause fundamental concern in academic, political and public debate. In the case of minors, the increasing number of obese children (Cárter et al., 2011; Folta et al., 2006; Livingstone & Helsper, 2006; Roberts & Pettigrew, 2007; Weber, Story & Harnck, 2006) as well as the food category's dominance in children's advertising (Byrd-Bredbenner, 2002) account for numerous studies on -unhealthy- food advertising.
The second levei of criticai remarks is related to the advertised content. The use of fear (Hastings, Stead and Webb, 2004; Henthorne, Latour & Nataraajan, 1993) and/or sex appeals (Gould, 1994; Latour & Henthorne, 1994; Maciejewski, 2004 & 2005), for example, forms a motive for examination. Put differently, scholars are interested in how moral it is to use frightening messages and images when advertising on topics such as disease prevention and health improvement is at stake. Or to what extent it is justifiable to hint at sex(ual) activities to promote products. Is it really merely about the end justifying the means and drawing the line at particular products, judged so by
Page 662
severa! advertisers (Maciejewski, 2005)? Gender stereotyping constitutes another topic of concern (Browne, 1998; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2002; Robinson, Gustafson & Popovich, 2008; Johnson & Young, 2002; Smith, 1994). Advertising, as any other media text, is criticized for portraying women and men or girls and boys in stereotypical role patterns or advertising gender differentiated producís with corresponding stereotyped associations. A third level refers to the advertising techniques that are used. Stealth marketing is considered an unethical, exploitative advertising practice. It uses people's social contacts to instígate word-of-mouth promotion by acquaintances, which in the long run might result in the erosión of social interaction since nobody knows whether this interaction is commercialized or not (Martin & Smith, 2008). In addition, advertising directed at children is denounced when using celebrity endorsement: (Roberts & Pettigrew, 2007; Rozendaal, Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2011) and offering premiums (Byrd-Bredbenner, 2002; Roberts & Pettigrew, 2007; Rozendaal, Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2011) for giving away free gadgets is very appealing to children and the appearance of popular characters makes it harder for them to identify the commercial nature of the messages. A last level of ethical concern, on several occasions alluded to in this text, is linked to a particular consumer segment: children. Cognitive development-based theories state that the younger children are, the less...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba