Political Fadvertising: What NOT to do in Human Brand Persuasion

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.

Freedom of Speech- Tundra Tabloids

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.

For example, according to Amy Sullivan of TIME:

•       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.