The ethics of advertising: Chances are you won’t read this
According to Gallup, advertising is the fourth least trusted industry in the world (one above used car salesmen), and going backwards. However, it’s rarely discussed by the industry itself. Thinkerbell’s Adam Ferrier says its time to talk about it.
The ethics of advertising is a funny one.
According to Gallup, advertising is the fourth least trusted industry in the world (one above used car salesmen), and going backwards. However, it’s rarely discussed by the industry itself.
It reminds me that back in the day as a psychologist, we were never really allowed to refer to ourselves as being in the behaviour change business. It was easier to ignore the fact we were paid to try and change people’s behaviour rather than deal with the ethics of it.
It’s the same as advertising.
Reading this article on Mumbrella feels like I’m taking a peek behind the curtain at an advertising agency’s ethics meeting, except it turns out the curtain is just another ad for curtains. The mental gymnastics here could qualify for the Olympics, where the motto seems to be: ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger… and if that doesn’t work, slap a label of ‘purpose’ on it and call it a day.’ – stakeholders will love that. It’s remarkable how ads have evolved from selling features to selling feelings, turning consumer guilt into a “marketing opportunity” If there was an award for ethical flexibility, this industry would be doing splits on the podium. Here’s a toast to the token ad gurus – may your campaigns be as transparent as your intentions are not!
It starts with your internal company values which should then reflect who you choose to work with as clients. I wonder how many staff of Thinkerbell and other agencies truely feel good about working with clients such as online gambling. It won’t take too much work from the Ethics Centre to point out that the impact of a lot of advertising is damaging to the fabric of the community, so be careful about the doors you open if you can’t back it up as a leader in the industry.
Hi Adam,
No, you said ‘Hi if you use cigarettes correctly as the manufacturer intends they’ll kill you’. Kill, not harm. Your words, see above.
Yes, vapes are harmful. They were introduced as a way of getting people off cigarettes and still carry an addictive component. The vape theoretically eliminates the carcinogenic aspect to smoking. I’m not sure how effective they are (my friend swears by his after many years of smoking) but I do remember their introduction being specifically for people who want to get off smokes, and then after that the nicotine-less flavours brought in the kids.
Yes, I came on strong but your headline sets you up as some sort of truth-telling oracle which I find particularly irksome when you don’t deliver.
I don’t think you’re really ready for a true conversation about ethics; the grey areas, the nuance, the genuine dilemmas. I put some standard scenarios to you, nothing too challenging, but you didn’t address them, nor provide an alternative set of criteria that you might use at your agency.
Reading this feels like you’re rationalising your embrace of consumerism in a way that helps at dinner parties.
Cigarettes are highly addictive, are likely to cause chronic heath problems and gouge at household income, but they are legal. In your piece, you imply they are a pernicious aspect to society.
Alcohol is highly addictive, can cause chronic health problems, gouge at household income, and comes with the added bonus of fuelling violence. It too is legal, and marketed via your agency.
Do you have a scheme that puts a relative value on your more ethically-challenged clients, that in turn requires ethically purer pro-bono work to offset?
You sound like a bit of a d*ck, but it’s hard to tell as you’re anonymous. Would love to talk about some of these things – but it’s hard as Ive no idea who im talking to – or where your comments are coming from.
“No, cigarettes do not elicit a 100% mortality rate in smokers due solely to their smoking.”
I didn’t suggest this. – I said ‘used as the manufacturer intended they are harmful’
Vapes are harmful too – we have an anti vape thing coming shortly.
Im not sure why you think im virtue signalling, but even if I am – so what – it’s still a step in the right direction – even your d*ckish response helps.
I love talking about this stuff – and exploring ethics in general – but its hard when you anon.
[Edited]
Hi Adam. No, cigarettes do not elicit a 100% mortality rate in smokers due solely to their smoking.
You also throw vapes wontonly into this negative values-loading. You may recall these were introduced to get people off cigarettes. It was their marketing and availability that extended the product to 13 yo school children.
Would you, for example, take on a vape client that wanted to market a product only to those trying to get off cigarettes? That’s a positive behaviour change, right?
Would it affect your ethical position if this vape manufacturer was also getting other of their products into children’s hands, or do you quarantine your ethical framework from the company’s wider practices?
Do you judge by single instance consumption of a product, or life-long consumption? Do you audit your client’s OHS, ESG and DEI practices? Do you look at their supply chain for evidence of exploitation?
Are you actually trying to start a conversation, or advertorialising with facile virtue signalling yet again?
Hi if you use cigarettes correctly as the manufacturer intends they’ll kill you (and they killed my dad). That makes them kind of different to every other consumer good I know. Anything else can be consumed safely in moderation – that Im aware of.
Leaning into the ethics of marketing is excellent. Doing something about it is even better.
From our peak body on ethics – bloody NOTHING. https://advertisingcouncil.org.au/events/new-aana-code-of-ethics-webinar/
I always think of the “Bill Hicks – Satans little helpers” video when we start talking about this stuff.
It comes down to stuff. People all over the world are buying too much stuff. Look at the piles on council put out days. Look at the landfill waste dumps. Marketing encourages people to buy even more stuff. Unless advertising is encouraging people to buy less stuff, studying ethics is a waste of time.
I’m a big fan of this conversation progressing Adam. I think it’s pretty clear that advertising has had some terrible impacts on the world, including in recent times, so whatever the system we have now is isn’t up to scratch.
FWIW, I think the B Corp Standards are probably at the bleeding edge of understanding and codifying the messy middle between making money, doing ‘good’, and not doing ‘bad’ in an objective way, which is essentially the tension you’re talking about.
Anyone who thinks about this problem for more than 10 minutes quickly realises how subjective and political it all is, so it’s a very tough problem to crack in an objective way, but I think B Lab do a great job.
The alternative/addition to the objective route you’re going down I think is the much easier subjective one where you codify the values and boundaries you have personally and as an organisation into your company constitution and policies. This makes it much harder for ethical gymnastics, self-deception and commercial incentives to skew decisions.