Critical Issue Analysis:
Issue Eleven
Barb Bray
GEN102
Instructor: Ron Siddell
Workshop V, March 14, 2001
Issue Eleven
Are
Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive?
Foley,
John P., �Ethics in Advertising: A Look at the Report by the Pontifical
Council for Social Communications�
Laczniak,
Gene R., �Reflections on the 1997 Vatican Statements Regarding Ethics in
Advertising�
One of the two main facts given by Foley in
support of the Pro side of the topic covering ethics in advertising is that
advertising can be presented in a dishonest and misleading way. The second
central fact that supports the Pro side is that, at times, advertising
encourages consumers to desire to purchase material goods and live beyond
their lifestyle or means. One of the facts presented by Laczniak that
supports the Con side of the argument is that the Report by the Pontifical
Council is written strictly from a scriptural perspective with mostly biased
bibliographic citations to support the findings. A second fact stated from
the Con perspective is that �branding� enables consumers to quickly recognize
a product and compare its quality to that of other products within the same
line.
With regard to personal opinions brought forth in
his thesis, Foley states that brand names cause consumers to act irrationally
when making purchases. He also voices his belief that voluntary ethical codes
need to be established in order to control advertising content and methods.
As part of his second belief, he goes on to indicate that government
regulations are advisable if proposed voluntary ethical codes do not meet
expectations. In Laczniak�s opinion, there is no empirical evidence provided
in the Report by the Pontifical Council to support many of the statements it
makes. Furthermore, Laczniak points out three specific principles given in
the report that oversimplify the complexities of marketing and advertising in
the current times.
Basically,
Foley�s viewpoint aligns with the Report by the Pontifical Council;
therefore, the comments made in this report will be about his discourse as it
relates to the Pontifical report in general. The biggest problem in Foley�s
point of view is that it does not include evidence of empirical data or
studies that support many of the implied facts and stated opinions given in
the Pontifical Report. The first example is the statement; �advertising has a
profound impact on how people understand life, the world and themselves in
regard to their values and their ways of choosing and behaving.� Another
statement that the report presents as fact is that �branding� causes
consumers to be irrational and compulsive when they purchase products.
Additionally, the report states, �Among the economic harms of advertising,
the council includes deceptive advertising, improper use of influence on
media editorial content by advertisers and the implicit promotion of a
lifestyle built on unbridled consumption.� The report indicates that these
factors harm the community as a whole, however, there are no studies cited in
the report that support these arguments. Furthermore, the report does not
give quantifiable data or statistics to support the assumptions it makes, nor
does it explore the possibility that other influencing factors could have a
baring.
Following are
points that are made in the report for the Pro argument that are, essentially,
ethnocentric in nature. One statement expresses that the media are �gifts
from God� and that the media can essentially be used to meet God�s divine
objectives. These viewpoints are clearly biased, and are reflective of a
specific religious belief system. The same problem can be found where the
report states that advertising �can deliver �messages of faith, of
patriotism, of tolerance, compassion and neighborly service� as well as
others.� Considering the diversity of belief and religious systems throughout
the United States as well as globally, the attributes noted are not basic
values or beliefs of the community or world as a whole.
The final
problem of note in the Pro argument is the use of fallacies, assumptions,
selective sampling and worst-case scenarios that are not representative of
advertising overall. This is evidenced where the report refers to �cultural
injury done to those nations and their peoples by advertising whose content
and methods, reflecting those prevalent in the first world, are at war with
the sound traditional values in indigenous cultures.� Another example is the
statement �that the moral and religious harms of advertising include �appeals
to such motives as envy, status seeking and lust.�� A third example of
selective sampling is the comment Foley makes about a billboard using a
person�s image, without permission, for advertising. What he is referring to
is an isolated incident.
Foley also
mentions that commercials and entertainment programs are indistinguishable as
to when the commercial ends and the program starts. Again, this blanket
statement is not supported by facts in his thesis. Comments such as these are
overstated and overly dramatic. More importantly, however, the report does
not reference statistical analysis or research data to support the fact that
these practices are widespread in the advertising world. Nor does the report
mention that laws currently on the books already address dishonest and
misrepresentations in advertising.
The arguments
presented by Laczniak in support of the Con side of� �Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive� are
thoughtful and less emotional than the rationale given by Foley. Laczniak�s
discourse breaks down some of the principles in the Pontifical Report and
analyzes them individually. The information presented by Laczniak is
objective as well as thoughtful. Furthermore, Laczniak points out that the
report, and Foley�s support of it, lacks empirical or quantifiable research
documentation. Laczniak further adds that even though some of the arguments
in the report are valid, the reader is negatively biased from the onset due
to the lack of objective documentation and information to support Foley�s
postulate. The one problem with Laczniak�s thesis is that, although it supports
marketing objectives overall, it does not provide supporting evidence that
proves advertising is ethical for the most part. His paper is basically a
successful rebuttal of statements presented in the Pontifical Report.
Propaganda
techniques used in the Pro argument to support the Report by the Pontifical
Council for Social Communications include generalizations and blanket
statements, about damage or harm done by advertising, without supporting
evidence. The paper fails to bring to light the fact that there are laws in
place that currently address dishonest advertising. The attack on political
advertising is sensationalized and it is questionable whether it is
appropriate to include this subject in the argument. I say this because
politics are a tangent of advertising that could be addressed under separate
cover. Furthermore, there are laws already in place that protect political
advertising. While a person might not agree with the tactical negativism that
currently exists in politics, it is an area that is addressed under the
constitution.
There are
several errors of perspective with Foley�s argument. Specifically, general
assumptions are made throughout the thesis that support the particular view
of one organization. The generalizations made in the report are not
representative of all cultures or of all consumers in general. In supporting
the Pontifical Report, Foley assumes that the world�s moral views are based
on the same assumptions and values, that everyone perceives ethical
responsibilities from the same viewpoint, and that all persons agree that
they are individually responsible for the welfare of others. He goes on to
imply that advertising has the responsibility of meeting everyone�s ethical
expectations, that political competition must follow a particular structure
of values and rules (outside the constitutional law) and that people in other
nations generally suffer as a result of advertising. However, he does not
provide supportive evidence.
John Foley, an
archbishop in the Catholic Dioceses and an author, is credible in his moral
beliefs. However, he does not have the expertise required in order to
objectively explore the dynamics of business ethics and to understand the
vast complexities associated with marketing and advertising. Gene Laczniak is
an author, a lecturer and a marketing professor. He is very credible and
knowledgeable in his approach to this business ethics issue. Although I agree
with several points made by John Foley in his arguments, I am disappointed
that he does not include substantial supporting documentation. Many of the
issues presented in the Pontifical Report are not factual, but instead, are
supported solely by biblical sources. Unfortunately, due to lack of objective
analysis in the report, some of the valid arguments are discredited as well.
On the other hand, Laczniak is objective in his analysis and agrees with
several points made by Foley. In my opinion, too many assumptions were made
on the Pro side of this issue, and the facts are not well presented,
documented or supported.
Although both
writers are Catholic, my thoughts are that Foley approaches the topic from a
subjective and emotional point of view; one could say his argument frequently
falls into the �mine is best� category. Whereas Laczniak provides a clear and
fair analysis of the issues presented. While it is true that Laczniak agrees
with some of Foley�s views, he is quick to point out where there are errors
or misconceptions. Laczniak provides empirical data that discredits much of
what is stated in the Report by the Pontifical Council for Social
Communications. In my opinion, Laczniak covered the material in a thorough
and objective manner.
Personally, I do
not have a high opinion of advertising. However, my thoughts are that if the
content is within legal guidelines, it is up to me whether or not I watch the
commercial or choose whether or not to support the ad by buying the product.
Rather than using the federal government to further regulate advertising, my
thoughts are that consumers have a good deal of control by making choices in
their purchases, boycotting products if they dislike the advertisement, and
organizing protests if they think it is necessary. In summary, I agree with
Laczniak�s final postulation about three key principles in the Pontifical Report.
These principles are truthfulness without deliberate deceit, not exploiting
human dignity and the principle of social responsibility. I prefer not to
support a company or organization that is not respectful of others. The three
principles cited, in my opinion, reflect important values that are of benefit
to all cultures and consumers alike.
References
Ford, M.M. &
Newton, L. H. (Eds.). (2000). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business
Ethics and Society. Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Ruggiero, V.R.
(Ed.). (1998). Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking.
California: Mayfield.