Why the Government Should Have Authority in the Taste and Decency Component of Advertising Ethics - Essay Example

Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Why the government should have authority in the taste and decency component of advertising ethics  Snyder identifies three components of advertising ethics: truth, fairness and taste and decency. According to Snyder, there is no need for governments to be involved in regulating taste and decency in advertisements. This is because of the fact that since the ethical codes and self-regulation that define taste and decency in advertising are a reflection of the present cultural and social environment, they serve the role of defining ethically acceptable conduct and thus override the need for the government’s regulation. By discussing the ethical consequences of advertising, avoiding using stereotypes and developing internal guidelines, advertisers can ensure that taste and decency is observed in their marketing communication and this avoids the need for regulation. Although this assertion holds true in certain circumstances, its truth in practice remains to be verified. Recent instances of violation of ethical codes and standards have indicated that self-regulation alone cannot be depended upon to ensure taste and decency in advertising. The implication is that as much as governmental authority is necessary to ensure that advertising satisfies the ethical components of truth and fairness, the same is true for the case of the component of taste and decency. By comparing examples from different countries, this paper discusses the reasons as to why governments should have authority in enforcing the taste and decency component of advertising ethics. To start with, it is important to look at the general definition of ethical advertising and its related concepts. In general, ethics can be defined as a discipline that is concerned with the principles and measures of human behaviour and intentions. According to Young, ethics, which is a standard of behaviour according to which individuals actions are judged, is a subject of constant changes (33). These changes occur in the course of time, place and in accordance with the social and material development of the society in which it operates. This implies that since every particular culture has different values which are subjected to constant change as well, ethical norms vary in terms of geography and time (Schlegelmilch 92). In the context of advertising, ethical advertising entails doing what is considered by the advertisers and peers to be morally right in a given situation. Since many rules and regulations leave a lot of leeway in defining what advertisers can and cannot do in terms of fulfilling their economic functions in the society, advertising ethics combines with social responsibility to fill the gaps left by regulation (Ogilvy 54). This means that ethics and social responsibility are viewed as the moral obligation of advertisers to avoid violating economic assumptions even in a situation where there are no legal regulations requiring them not to do so. Lack of decency and taste in advertisements creates advertisements that are regarded as offensive in the society. Offensive advertising can be categorised into two broad classes: offensive matter advertising and offensive manner advertising (Grivec 25). Offensive matter advertising entails advertisements that feature products and services which a significant part of the society considers to be harmful, embarrassing and unacceptable (Grivec 26). For reasons of delicacy, decency and morality, such products and services are regarded disgusting when mentioned or depicted in the media (Waller 193). On the other hand, an advertisement may be regarded as being offensive as a result of the manner in which the message and content are executed (Prendergast, Cheung and West 8). For reasons of taste, members of the society find such advertisements offensive because they insult their intelligence, are distasteful and overtly sexual (Prendergast, Cheung and West 10). It has already been stated that ethical advertising entails doing what is considered by the advertisers and peers to be morally right in a given situation. This means that self-regulation is considered to be of paramount importance in ensuring that advertisers do not breach the standards of taste and decency that have been established by the society. Whereas this is an important aspect of ensuring that advertising satisfies the moral and social responsibility obligations, it has been shown that time and again, the process of self-regulation has failed in its functions (Schlegelmilch 212). For instance, Chan, Li, Diehl and Terlutter observe that the current environment in advertising is characterised by frequent reports of advertisers failing to adhere to the standards of morality and ethics as set by the community (54). Frequent reports of lack of transparency on the side of advertising corporations and their failure to conduct their activities in a fair, honest and forthright manner cause widespread public distrust. The level of confidence that the public holds towards advertising is eroded as a consequence of advertising corporations failing to stick to the unwritten rules of decency and taste in advertising (Goiran and Sutherland 3). There are several reasons that have led to the failure of self-regulation as a means of ensuring that taste and decency are adhered to in advertising. Schlegelmilch states that rapid changes in advertising in both local and global fronts as a result of technological advances have fuelled the development of new media, new ideas and different cultural opportunities (232). Such developments have not only fundamentally altered the way the advertising business is performed in general but they have also created new challenges and opportunities in terms of adhering to the standards of taste and decency in advertising (Grivec 31). Another reason as to why self-regulation has failed to ensure that advertisements adhere to the standards of taste and decency is that many bodies that are charged with the responsibility of overseeing self-regulation in the advertising industry have been compromised in their operations as a result of competing interests on one hand, and lack of sufficient legal power to compel wrongdoers to comply with their decisions, on the other (Institute of Advertising Ethics 23). This situation is exemplified in the case of self-regulation in advertising in Australia. According to Goiran and Sutherland, the Australian Standards Bureau Limited seeks to enhance the national voluntary system of self-regulation in advertising through two bodies: the Advertising Standards Board (ASB) and the Advertising Claims Board. The major function of the Advertising Standards Board is to ensure that all advertisements in Australia adhere to the standards of taste and decency (6). This is done by taking account of the prevailing attitudes of the community which are used to inform the decisions of the board with reference to the provisions of section 2 of the code of ethics (Goiran and Sutherland 7). The deliberations of the Advertising Standards Board are informed by the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ (AANA) Code of Ethics as well as the Code for Advertising and Marketing Communications to Children (Prendergast, Cheung and West 21). These regulations derive most of their provisions from what is defined as the prevailing standards of the community. This set up of the regulations has failed in several ways. For instance, Rush and La Nauze, observe that the regulations of the Advertising Standards Board fail to protect children against exposure to sexually explicit material in advertisements (13). This scenario arises from the fact that the regulation of the prevailing standards of the community fails to provide sufficient guidelines to the board when it comes to regulating the degree of sexual explicitness in advertisements that shall be viewed by children (Rush and La Nauze 14). Based on the regulations of the board, billboard advertisements bearing sexually explicit material, though not being meant for children’s’ viewership, is not a violation of standards. This is exemplified the case of the Advanced Medical Institute billboard advertisement of 2007 in Australia. This advertisement on the need for nasal delivery technology featured a line which read, “Want more sex?”. Although the ASB dismissed the public complaints about its alleged sexual explicitness, the board was forced to take action against the advertisement following a later appeal in 2008 (Goiran and Sutherland 14). Because of such an incident, there is need for governmental authority to rigorously apply standards for billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising so as to take into account the concerns of the public about inappropriate sexualisation of children and parental control over exposure of children to such material (Institute of Advertising Ethics 8). Another way in which self-regulation has failed in terms of preserving standards of taste and decency in advertisements is in the process itself as carried out by the two regulatory bodies: ASB and AANA. These bodies judge whether advertisements satisfy taste and decency standards based on the provisions of different codes of ethics. Although this is important, it would be more prudent if the process of self-regulation would also take into account the number of public complaints received about an advertisement when making decisions. Such an approach would reflect reference to the current standards in the community as well as satisfying the expectations of the community (Institute of Advertising Ethics 23). Since this is not the case, it can be argued that there is need for governmental authority in ensuring that the process of self-regulation in advertising does not entirely depend on codes in making deliberations. This is because the guiding codes of ethics fail to reflect the expectations of the community as well as protect children against harmful material in advertising (Rush and La Nauze 32). Another reason as to why the government should have authority over the taste and decency component of advertising ethics is the increase in instances in which advertisements have crossed the line of decency. In a study carried out to examine the kind of products which the Australian population find offensive in advertisements, Waller observed that advertisements that are directed towards children, those that are on alcohol and political parties are most likely to be found offensive (293). More so, the results indicated that products and services such as religious denominations, female hygiene products and racially extremist groups rank highly in terms of perceived offensiveness in their advertising (Waller 294). One instance in which advertisers have crossed the line of decency and taste involved the advertisements of Calvin Klein clothing products. These advertisements have featured semi-nude images that seek to appeal to the teenage population which forms the primary target market for the products of the company. As such, its advertising has stoked controversy about decency and unnecessary sexual connotations to the young – to whom the company seeks to address in its advertisements (Spence, Alexandra, Quinn and Dunn 178). In another instance, Abercrombie and Fitch, another global retailer of trendy teen clothing, crossed the line of decency by running magazine advertisements featuring semi-nude poses. Such kind of advertising has resulted in public outcry in different countries (Spence, Alexandra, Quinn and Dunn 189). In Australia, instances in which advertisements have failed in terms of maintaining standards of decency and taste are many. Some of these advertisements either contain offensive matter in their content or present their message in a manner that is deemed offensive by the general public. For instance, the Nandos television commercial of 2007 depicted a standard corporate lady describing how she cannot afford to have cravings at the place of work. The lady is then seen in a typical club setting: doing pole dancing and wearing a g-string, before sitting down to eat Nando’s with her family. Although this advertisement was not about an offensive product, the manner in which it presents its message is regarded as offensive by the general public. This explains why the advertisement features as one of the most offensive in Australia based on the number of complaints the ASB received (Institute of Advertising Ethics 18). Lastly, the need for governmental authority in regulating tastes and decency in advertisements is necessitated by the wide variation of what constitutes standards of tastes and decency in advertising ethics. Chan, Li, Diehl and Terlutter observe that tastes in advertising vary in terms of time, place and context (10). This means that advertisements which may be regarded as offensive in a particular society Within a particular time frame may not be so in a different society or even in the same society with the passing of time. For instance, contraceptives and related products and services were considered as sensitive issues whose depiction in advertisements was seen as being offensive (Chan, Li, Diehl and Terlutter 12). But in the current society, advertisements of contraceptive products are no longer viewed as being offensive to the general public. In the same vein, whereas the American society regards feminine hygiene products, women’s undergarments and haemorrhoid treatments as subjects for the most offensive advertisements, the situation in Australia is different. Crawford and Spence-Stone that the Australian society finds racially extremist groups, religious denominations and female undergarments as the most offensive subjects for advertising (9). This was exemplified in the advertisement by a small surfware company which showed a gutted shark with a protruding human skeleton wearing a pair of surfing shorts. The message of the advertisement was to emphasise the toughness of the surfing clothes developed by Kadu (Griveci 69). It is important to note that whereas the advertisement received accolades in Australia, it would have been treated as offensive in other cultures such as in North America (Crawford and Spence-Stone 38). It is because of this variation in tastes and decency that the there is increasing public pressure for governments to have authority over the taste and decency component of advertising ethics. In conclusion, it is apparent that there is need for governments to exercise authority in the taste and decency component of advertising ethics in different countries. This is a reflection of the case in Australia: whereas the approach has been to encourage self-regulation among advertisers, more often than not, this approach has been breached. Also, the process of self-regulation in Australia is governed by the Advertising Standards Board and the Australian Association of National Advertisers. It has been seen that the Code of Ethics as well as the Code for Advertising and Marketing Communications to Children has failed to ensure that the communal standards of decency in advertisements are adhered to. It is the failure of the self-regulation process that has prompted increasing public pressure for governments to have authority over the taste and decency component of advertising as is the case for the other components of truth and fairness. Works Cited Chan, Kara, Li, Lyann, Diehl, Sandra and Terlutter, Ralf. “Consumers’ response to offensive advertising: a cross cultural study.” International Marketing Review, vol. 24, no. 5. pp. 606 – 628. Crawford, Robert and Spence-Stone, Ruth. “Enhancing or Inhibiting Advertising Sustainability: An Overview of Advertising Standards Organization in Australia.” 3 September 2013. Goiran, Nick and Sutherland, Michael. “Submission on the Regulation of Billboard and Outdoor Advertising.” 3 September 2013. http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Fparliamentary_business%2Fcommittees%2Fhouse_of_representatives_committees%3Furl%3Dspla%2Foutdoor%2520advertising%2Fsubs%2Fsub%252019.pdf&ei=t9hLUu6-OYem0AXe9oDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNGCZoXXAcDtSAocV2waGdZZASXZ-g&bvm=bv.53371865,d.Yms Grivec, Malci. “The Ethics of Marketing Communication.” 2 September 2013. http://www.famns.edu.rs/skup2/radovi_pdf/grivec_malci.pdf Institute of Advertising Ethics. “Principles and Practices of Ethical Advertising.” 2 September 2013. http://www.aaf.org/images/public/aaf_content/images/ad%20ethics/IAE_Principles_Practices.pdf Ogilvy, David. “Confessions of an Advertising Man.” 2 September 2013. http://www.commissionedwriting.com/CONFESSIONS%20OF%20AN%20ADVERTISING%20MAN%20-%20OGILVY.pdf Prendergast, Gerard, Cheung, Wah-leung and West, Douglas. “Antecedents of offensive advertising: the case of modern china.” 3 September 2013. http://bus.hkbu.edu.hk/hkbusob/userfiles/pdf/working_papers/WP200711.pdf Rush, Emma and La Nauze, Andrea. “Corporate paedophilia: sexualisation of children in Australia.” 3 September 2013. www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP90.pdf Schlegelmilch, Bodo. Marketing Ethics: an international perspective. New York: Thomson Learning, 2000. Spence, Edward, Alexandra, Andrew, Quinn, Aaron and Dunn, Anne. Media, Markets and Morals. Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell, 2011. Waller, David. “Attitudes towards Offensive advertising: An Australian Study.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 16, no. 3. pp. 288 – 294. Young, Sally. Government Communication in Australia. London: Sage Publications, 2007. Read More