Ethics in Advertising

I have been told there is no ethics in advertising.

Those in the industry argue otherwise. There are several ethical steps someone has to take in order to put an advertisement out there in the media realm! However, those outside the industry might argue otherwise.

Advertising and Children - Mommyish

If there are ethics in advertising, why were cigarette ads so prominent for a number of years? If advertising things that are bad for you is considered unethical, why do we still see alcohol related commercials on the air? Junk food? Heck, arguably almost anything?

If there are ethics in advertising, why are there so many untruthful ads out there? If there are these regulations to follow before the ad hits a television screen or magazine page, why do we always hear of class action lawsuits surrounding advertisements that did not live up to their promise?

Whether you are in the industry or not, most can agree that the world of ethics in advertising is hardly black and white. There are many gray areas that cloud the term for the entire industry. The example I will use in this post is advertising towards the demographic of ages under 17, otherwise known as children.

Childhood Obesity and Advertising

One of the most argued cases in the power of advertising and the target of children is the case of childhood obesity. According to The Guardian, the following facts are true about fast food related advertising towards the younger demographic:

•         Children under the age of six see an average of three fast food advertisements daily.
•         Teenagers ages 12-17 see almost five fast food advertisements a day.

So, we can assume that the multiple advertisements children see compel them to eat food that is not good for them, eventually leading to obesity.

In another Guardian article, they offer a valid argument against advertising towards children:

“Advertising…is harmful to children,” Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, states. “Marketing targets emotions, not intellect. It trains children to choose products not for the actual value of the product, but because of the celebrity or what is on the package. It undermines critical thinking and promotes impulse buying.”

If I am interpreting Linn’s message correctly, the emotional appeal aspect of certain advertisements brainwashes children into buying things that make them happy. Of course, this is an awful direction for marketers because things that make children happy obviously cannot coincide as intellectually stimulating. Also, we simply can’t have the children of America doing things that actually give them joy.

I’m half kidding.

Even if Linn is completely in the right and there is no flaw with her thought process, I have to wonder about the steps involved of this “force fed” capitalism.

•     First, children see the advertisements.
•     Second, they like the commercials they watch and want whatever they advertise.
•   Finally, they go to the store or restaurant to purchase these products or services. 
  

Lather, rinse, repeat.

This seems logical, but there is a key component that is missing from this equation.

Wake up, America. The problem is not the advertisements, the industry, social construct, or even the children themselves. The problem are the parents. Advertising towards children is a large concern for a lot of parents, and yet they are the ones who control the spending in the majority of situations.

Whenever a parent and a child go to the grocery store together, what happens? The child gazes at a sugary cereal or soft drink they want. They may ask for the parent(s) to purchase it. Heck, they may even BEG the parents for them because they NEED them or “that is what everyone else is eating!”

As a parent, they have a choice to say no. They have the chance to grab a healthier cereal for their children to eat and they have the option to place juice in the cart instead of giving in to the demands for carbonated beverages. Parents have the opportunity to make that choice for their children, who may be perceptible to flashy advertisements, but do not make the purchasing decisions. If parents do not say no, then they are the victim of giving complying with the child and you cannot blame advertisers for that sort of weakness.

There is the issue of school lunches and vending machines, where a parent does not have as much control, but several are taking hold of that situation. According to NY Daily News, Michelle Obama recently announced advertising regulations in schools towards the issue of junk foods and soft drinks. This has caused several marketers to switch to healthier options to accommodate for the change.

However, when children are not at school, the parents are the ones pay the bills and they have control over what their kids eat. Better yet, they have the power to teach their kids why they do not need the potato chips that promise popularity or the fruit snack that makes you taste, hear, and smell colors.

The power is in the hands of the parents out there, not the advertisers.

People still smoke. They still drink alcohol. America does all of the dangerous stuff that advertisers are banned from trying to market to you. Society will do what they want to do, whether you tell them it is bad for them or try to regulate them from seeing that product’s advertising or not.

So, instead of giving in to children’s plea for McDonalds because they have toys from their favorite movie or buying them whatever they please next grocery visit, say no. In the end, parents need to regulate their children, not any marketer or advertiser out there.