I have mentioned before that there are “no ethics
in advertising.” I have been told this fact far before I even decided on
studying it in college.
“Aren’t advertisements exaggerated?”
“All advertisements try to
do is persuade you, despite if it’s truthful or not.”
“Advertising just makes
people buy things they do not need.”
Anyone in advertising could tell you these accusations are
all false. Advertisements do persuade
you by nature, but they also inform and educate you over product and service
benefits. People can use their own free will to decide whether or not to
actually purchase these said products or services. After all, it’s not like
advertising agencies are complete evil masterminds. They simply act as the
middle man in the act of meeting marketing objectives in a creative fashion.
However,
the public does have a point. Consumers simply do not trust advertising
commercials. In fact, Nielsen reports that people are
more than likely to trust word of mouth recommendations rather than traditional
advertising.
This is a common
fact for anyone in the world of marketing and beyond, but the question is why.
Why don’t consumers trust the nature of advertising?
This
question leads us back to the quote “there are no ethics in advertising.” Now
our question isn’t about trusting, but why consumers think the way they do.
To
understand why consumers believe there are no ethical advertising surroundings,
we must observe that nature and very definition of the words “slander” and
“libel.”
Slander vs. Libel
Consumers,
according to Huffington Post, believe product claims are misleading and
generally untruthful. These beliefs
usually stem from false statements. If one of these false statements happened
to result in a bad opinion of someone or something, it is considered
defamation.
Traverselegal
states that in order for something to be defamatory in nature, the following
conditions must be met:
- The statement must be a fact and not an opinion.
- The statement must harm reputation.
- The false statement must be made without due
diligence. In other words, the statement must be made with full knowledge of
its falsity.
- If the statement involves someone in the public
eye, malice must be proven.
This is where we get into slander
and libel:
- Libel
is where this defamation is written, such as on a blog like mine.
- Slander is
where this defamation is spoken, such as on commercial advertisements.
According
to US Legal, Advertising does not exactly follow defamation “rules” to a
tee. The biggest rule it
needs to follow is if these “statements” in fact are inaccurate enough to lead
to consumer deception and harms a competitor.
However, for this blog, we are referring to humans and not product
advertisements. Thus, the statements above remain in play.
Political “Product” Claims
Anyone who knows me personally knows
I am not a fan of politics. I have my views and beliefs like every other person
do, but I keep it to myself. I do not enjoy the banter and hate that surround
political debates and things of that nature and I generally try to avoid
subjects that relate to them.
I am not the only one who
disagrees with the ways politicians act.
The
Washington Post states that 71% of all Americans have negative views of
politicians, despite what party they’re from.
If we relate what we know to why regular consumers do not trust advertising, we
can easily see why political consumers feel the same. They both do not trust
the “product” claims.
The unfortunate fact of that
matter is that political speech is protected by the First Amendment as long as
it is not defamatory in nature. However, it is my guess that consumers may not
know the difference between deceptive politics and general political
commentary. Thus, the distrust of politicians remains prominent.
The fact of the manner is that
politicians want to convince us to trust them. These same politicians know that
competitive advertising is one of the most powerful marketing tools available
to them. As consumers of these political “products,” we know that this
competitive nature can sometimes get out of hand in the form of baseless
accusations and assertions.
- John McCain thinks Latinos are dumb.
- Barack Obama wants toddlers to watch porn.
Luckily for the politicians who
originally said these things, they are protected from defamation laws because
they are, according to
Dana
Radcliffe “excellent examples of [advertisements] that…might be factually
defensible, but overall…misleading."
Many political claims like the
ones used in the examples take certain remarks or statements out of context and
put it into a scenario that gives it an entirely new meaning. It is similar to
a loophole in political defamation. You can also say things that may be true,
but lack evidence and other deceptive statements of that nature.
These kinds of misrepresented
facts are unfortunately protected by the First Amendment. In my opinion, this
unstable system is the core of the reason of why people do not trust
politicians and feels as negatively about it as I do.
Where is the Truth in Advertising?
People do not trust
advertisements, whether they are for a product, service, or politician. It’s
hard to distinguish what is truth, what is exaggeration, or what is a fact
taken out of context and skewed in such a way that it’s no longer recognizable.
We have laws to protect the knowledge we are force-fed, but when there are so
many loopholes in those said laws, is it even worth having them in place?
It is no wonder people think
there is no ethics in advertising.