What I learned from ethics class

My ethics (#untj4470) class exposed me to many new ways of thinking in order to solve ethical problems in both my daily life and in my professional career. I have learned ethical theories to base possible decisions in our future jobs and how those decisions can impact other people.

We covered social media ethics as well and since I took the social media class this semester as well, this class complemented the other. I learned about endorsements, privacy and disclosure online, and “flogging.” I didn’t know that advertisers have a code of ethics. It makes sense that they do, of course if they want to remain as honest and credible sources for information. Probably one of the quickest ways to cause major harm to a brand or company is by being dishonest when there is a problem. 

I anticipate on using the knowledge gained by this class in my career in a positive and ethical way. The ethical theories are new ways of thinking that will help find balance between the needs of a company and individuals so I can act in the best interest of who I am dealing with while considering all viewpoints and bringing about minimal harm. If I come across unethical practices or practices that violate codes of ethics in my workplace I would make recommendations on how the company or individual could correct their actions and I would strive to act ethically on a personal level as well.
 
I had many “oh, wow” moments this semester and I have learned a lot. Throughout the semester I was my mind was constantly blown at how many companies and individuals acted so clearly unethically or how their reactions led to disastrous results. I learned how difficult it seems for some companies to act ethically and that advertising speech is regulated by the FTC. I also learned that the word “privacy” isn’t in the constitution and the free speech protection first amendment provides don’t guarantee total freedom. While researching a blog post, I was also surprised to find that political speech has few restrictions against it compared to commercial speech.

Commercial speech, Political Speech and the First Amendment

Arguably the most important amendment in the U.S. Constitution is the First, which grants protections involving freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, among others. However, the First Amendment talks in broad terms and the freedoms protected aren’t absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled exemptions from these freedoms in past cases.

Image via BecomingMinimalist

Two types of speech that have been scrutinized in Supreme Court cases are commercial speech and political speech. These forms of speech are handled very differently in their protections and restrictions. 

The Supreme Court defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction." Advertising is considered to be commercial speech, since it promotes the selling of goods or services with the intent of making a profit. 

According to the Central Hudson Test, the First Amendment only protects commercial speech as long as the advertising is not false, misleading or illegal. Therefore, federal laws and regulating government bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) exist to protect consumers from advertising that is false or deceptive. 

Earlier this year, Nissan settled a deceptive advertising case with the FTC after Nissan ran an ad in 2011 for its Frontier pickup truck. The ad showed the truck driving up a steep dune to push a buggy that was stuck in the sand. The FTC ruled that the advertiser misrepresented what the product was capable of doing. According to the Institute for Advertising Ethics, advertisers must exercise truth and transparency in their messages. 

If a consumer tried testing the scenario in Nissan’s ad and it resulted in injury or death, Nissan would be held liable. Companies must abide by “truth-in-advertising” laws and the FTC holds that it’s not right to sell a product based on deceptive tactics. This principle leads to the topic of political speech, which varies drastically in protections and regulations compared to commercial speech.

Political speech is considered to be any message that is intended to build up public interest or support for an issue, cause, position, or candidate. Ironically, while commercial advertising must not be false or misleading this does not apply to political advertising, which is rarely limited by the government and is granted full protection under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has “suggested little or no ban on political speech, even if false, would be found constitutional.” As a result, some states have acted on their own by passing laws that ban false campaign materials.

Commercial advertising is used with the intention of providing information to consumers, which protects them by contributing to informed decision-making. In this sense, there is a lack of consumer protection involving the exposure of political advertising messages. Politicians can say almost anything, including untrue things during the course of a campaign. This is because politicians are “public figures” and targets of false ads rarely sue due to libel laws that make it practically impossible for candidates to collect damages, even if they could win. Consequently, heavily distorted information is free to flow from political campaigns, leaving voters to their own devices when determining what information in political messages is true or false. 

The problem is that if commercial advertising is to be regulated in order to allow consumers to make informed decisions, shouldn’t political advertising be regulated as well? Political messages are tactical and selective in their wording as they use actors, truncate quotes and video clips, use statements out of context, make unsubstantiated claims, and play on emotions without providing solutions to real issues. 

According to the FTC, it is not permissible to use puffery or deceptive practices in order for companies to sell commercial goods, yet the Supreme Court holds that it is permissible for political advertisers to use deceptive tactics and exaggerated claims when selling political “goods” in the form of ideas. This creates problems with the country’s democratic electoral process by creating misled, uninformed or apathetic voters. 

Thanks to the loopholes and protections under the First Amendment, politicians and outside groups are allowed to make questionably valid claims. A 2012 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that campaign attack ads from outside groups are about 85 percent false. The IRS classifies these outside groups as 501(c)(4) organizations, which are meant to “promote social welfare to benefit the community.” Due to their status, they are not required to disclose their donors. 

There are countless examples of unsubstantiated political advertising claims from political parties and advocacy groups. A recent example involved Americans For Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group that spent $400,000 on a TV ad attacking U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) for his position on a potential carbon tax during his senate race this year.

While the ad had multiple claims, one was that Begich pushed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to make carbon tax a priority, presenting lines from a letter written to Reid in 2010 from Begich and other Democratic senators. Americans For Prosperity focused on one line of the letter to support their position: "We believe the scale of this challenge dictates the need for a comprehensive solution that includes making polluters pay through a price on greenhouse gas emissions."

Begich claims that he doesn’t support a carbon tax and Politifact determined the ad’s claims were mostly false. While this isn’t the most deceptive or scandalous case, the ad shows just how easily words can be omitted, manipulated or taken out of context in order to shape messages that progress the agenda of any political candidate or advocacy group, due to the free speech protections they benefit from.

Political advertising also affects broadcasters. If the advertisement comes directly from a political candidate, the broadcaster cannot censor the ad and must run it as is, regardless if there is falsehood in the message. In turn, the broadcaster is not liable for the content of a candidate’s ad. Advertising that comes from third-party groups can be accepted or rejected by broadcasters, but they are rarely rejected, which results in “just as many outrageous claims about candidates in third party ads as we see in the candidate ads that can’t be censored.” 

Like commercial advertisements, political advertisements also contribute to the “marketplace of ideas” in which the value of some information is vital to an individual, culture, religion or society, while other information is not so important. It is ultimately up to the audience to determine the value of the information presented to them. Diverse viewpoints can be taken into consideration, which is why the First Amendment is so important. 

While the messages presented in political ads may not have value to some, others see benefit due to the Supreme Court, which upholds the idea that unregulated political speech is vital to the proper functioning of society, democracy and the political process.

Classical ethical theories and modern advertising

The advertising world has been given a bad rap when it comes to ethical practices. There is no question that advertising can be controversial, as advertisers seem to continually push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in society. It is common knowledge that an advertiser’s ultimate goal is to sell something. However, there are boundaries and the public will generally react negatively towards an advertisement if it is seen as offensive and discriminatory. Due to this, advertisers must consider classical ethical theories in their decision-making process when creating messages that the public will see.

One classical ethical theory that can be seen in advertising practice today is utilitarianism. Under utilitarianism, the only concern is for the greater good. This means that any decision or action that is taken should result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Bivins, 2009). Numerous advertisements involving clothing and beauty products have been called out over the years for being discriminatory against women and self-serving for the company’s interests over society’s. Under utilitarianism, two brands stand out with their messages that promote happiness in the form of boosting self-esteem and redefining beauty among a large number of people in society.

One of the most famous examples is Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign, which was launched in 2004 by Unilever. Dove promoted the act of defining “real beauty” and standing against superficiality that is dominant in the advertising industry today. In 2013, Dove released “Real Beauty Sketches,” which became the most watched advertisement ever.

In January, Aerie unveiled its “Real” campaign (which targets young adults) to promote a more positive body image. The advertisements have not been digitally retouched, meaning that the models that appear in the ads look that way in real life. 

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which focuses on ends-based results rather than means (actions). Under this principle, an action is considered morally right if the results lead to happiness for the greatest number of people, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (Bivins, 2009). The advertisements for Dove and Aerie didn’t make the majority of people unhappy. Instead, a large part of society was able to benefit from a positive message that promoted increased self-esteem and redefined beauty standards in advertising. This concept can also be looked at under the theory of communitarianism, which we will return to later.

The two above examples can also be applied to another ethical theory, deontology. Deontology is a non-consequentialist theory, which states that “the action itself should be the focus of the decision-making, not necessarily the outcome of the action” (Bivins, 2009). In other words, “nothing is good in itself except the act of good will” (Bivins, 2009). If someone acts with bad intent, they are acting unethically regardless if the outcome of their action was good or bad. Under this principle, if Dove and Aerie truly believed that they were doing the right thing and acting out of good will in spreading a positive message to young women, their actions are considered to be ethical. In this case, both campaigns communicated positive messages that they truly believed would help consumers and society.

However, there should be consideration in the fact that an advertiser’s ultimate goal is to sell something. German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory, the Categorical Imperative, states that one must treat others as ends instead of using them as means to an end (Bivins, 2009). Dove and Aerie are ultimately trying to sell their products. Even if the message is positive and good for society, money and sales are the bottom line; companies use people as means to make money.

The money factor is relatable to another ethical theory, egoism. Egoism says that an “act is moral when it promotes one’s best long-term interest” (Bivins, 2009). Dove and Aerie are acting ethically because they are selling products in order to stay in business. Enlightened self-interest is a form of egoism wherein one brings about a desire to bring benefit to society because they are part of society (Bivins, 2009). The Dove and Aerie brand and the companies that own them (Unilever and American Eagle) are a part of society, so the companies’ actions are ethical because they are creating positive messages for which society can benefit while also providing a means to benefit themselves in the long-term.

Communitarianism is another ethical theory that can be applied to modern advertising. Under communitarianism, “decisions and actions should be essential to a sense of community and community values balanced with active personhood” (Bivins, 2009). It seeks to balance out the interests and well-being of the community and the individual that exists within that community. One of the main goals of communitarianism in advertising is to bring about a like-minded philosophy among the public. Sometimes advertisements created by non-profit organizations can fall under this principle, such as anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns. In February, the FDA launched a new anti-smoking ad campaign, called “The Real Cost,” to stop at-risk youth aged 12-17 from smoking or from becoming life-long smokers.

The Dove and Aerie campaigns send a strong moral message to women whose self-esteem has been negatively affected by advertisements for beauty and clothing products, where practice of digital retouching is practically standard. The messages communicated in the Dove and Aerie ads under communitarianism balance the interest and well-being of the community with the individual. Both advertisements promote messages supporting the widely held belief that the use of thin models or photo-editing software is unnecessary, while simultaneously promoting the advancement of societal views: shaping how society views the woman as an individual and how she views herself privately and as part of society.

Although the examples here were few, classical ethical theories can be applied in every advertising situation. For advertisers, it is important to understand these theories in order to make informed and ethical decisions when communicating with your audience. Ethics don’t always give answers to moral problems and different ethical theories may apply to different advertising situations, but if advertisers use ethical practices, they can deliver their messages to society with more discretion.
Advertisements like these stress issues that are important to the community and its overall well-being. An individual is part of a community, making the individual just as important to the community as the community is to the individual. For that reason, the overall health of the community should be considered. The information disseminated leads to awareness and action that is transformational within the community or society as a whole. Therefore, the FDA campaign promotes the message to stop young individuals from smoking with the expectation that it will help lead to a healthier community.

Sources
Bivins, T. (2009). Mixed media: Moral distinctions in advertising, public relations, and journalism. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Photo Manipulation in Journalism and Advertising and the Need for Ethics

Recently, AP announced that they have severed all ties with Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, Narciso Contreras, for violating their ethical standards after Contreras altered a photo he took last year in Syria.

Image Credit: AP

Image Credit: Dove

Using photo-editing software in advertising is not considered entirely deceptive. Disclaimers aren’t required for distinctly altered advertisements.  The public is aware of the prevalence of photo manipulation in ads, and companies like L’Oreal have had ads pulled in the past. But for the most part, many advertisers are free to alter the shape can change the shape of a model’s body or perfect imperfections. These practices might make money, but their ethics have been questionable, and it can have real consequences on an advertiser’s audiences.

However, you can sell a product without resorting to unethical photo alterations in order to do so. Recently, Aerie launched its “Real” campaign, which featured models without the use of photo-editing software. Dove also has the “Real Beauty” campaign.

Contreras violated the first rule of AP guidelines (and the SPJ code of ethics), which is “Seek the truth and report it.” None of his other photos were altered.

The seriousness with which Contreras was dealt with is justified. Altering a photo as a journalist is somewhat like fabrication when you’re writing a news story. You’re adding, omitting, or just making up information.

If you are a journalist or photojournalist covering an event, the public is counting on you to faithfully document an accurate, honest representation of the scene.

However, in advertising, the ethics of photo manipulation are more loosely defined, and are viewed by some as necessary and widely accepted throughout the industry. There is no argument that manipulated ads can be creative and thought provoking, yet is photo manipulation considered dishonest?

Thanks to government and industry regulation from organizations such as the Federal Trade Commission and the National Advertising Division, false advertising is actively dealt with and limited.

Nissan, TWBA, and the FTC recently settled a deceptive advertising case in which a Nissan Frontier truck is shown pushing a dune buggy up a steep dune. The FTC said the truck couldn’t actually drive up the steep dunes shown in the ad (which were modified to look steeper than they were) and that cables were used to pull the truck and the dune buggy.

Advertisers should be held to the similar ethical standard as journalists in deception. It’s one thing to be creative; it’s another to be deceptive. In the Nissan/TWBA case, ads that sell products give the impression that the product will behave exactly as intended, yet in this case the use of special effects could cause a potential danger to the consumer.

Advertisers can be creative and truthful. Last year, Volvo did a series of “Live Tests,” which were stunts featuring Jean Claude Van Damme doing epic splits and a Hamster driving a Volvo Truck. There are countless more advertisements that demonstrate creativity and truth about the product or brand.

Ads have permeated our culture, and therefore have a wide influence on a large number of people. Advertising is used to inform, engage, and entertain, with the ultimate or underlying goal of getting someone to buy something. It also seeks to enhance the image of a brand. If you want people to be interested in your brand, you have to be truthful. You don’t necessarily have to say the bad things about the product, but you shouldn’t misrepresent it intentionally.

“Truth in advertising” must mean truth about the product. So do people really believe that anti-aging products will keep you from aging when the model on the page has clearly been digitally altered?

part, advertisers are free to alter the shape can change the shape of a model’s body or perfect imperfections. These practices might make money, but their ethics have been questionable, and it can have real consequences on an advertiser’s audiences.

In photojournalism, the phrase “seeing is believing” is often used. However, as a consumer, in response to advertising, it’s often expected that what you see is usually not what you get. If you walk into a fast-food restaurant and order a burger, you know that the burger isn’t going to look as good as it’s depicted on the menu.

Though the public knows the use of photo manipulation is widely used and accepted in the advertising industry, the practice doesn’t exactly build trust or confidence among audiences. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why many people don’t trust advertising. These qualities should be a company’s main goal if they are trying to sell a product.

Advertisers should also act in the best interests of the consumer. Although advertisers are in the business of selling things, if they are truthful, they are doing a good service for a large number of people by imparting unbiased, accurate information so consumers can make an informed decision without being misled.