Module 1: Intro to Strategic Comm & Ethics

In Chris Moore’s speech on ethics in advertising, he raises many interesting questions for us as students to ponder.  From truth telling in advertising, which I have never understood how mascara advertisements get away with using fake eye lashes to promote their “lash extension and fullness boosting” mascara, down to tobacco and alcohol related advertisements.  One of the questions I chose to expand on was his question relating to an advertiser donating a quarter-million dollars in food aid to Bosnia, and then proceeding to spend over a million dollars to advertise what they had done.  Mr. Moore asks the listener, or in this case the reader, what decision would you have made?

Many people and companies seek recognition for a deed well done.  I believe it is human nature to want recognition for a good deed, yet when one makes it known that they did this good deed; it takes away from the deed and puts all the attention on the person.  To receive the true reward for a good deed, allow the person, organization, or country in this case to receive the attention.  After all they are the ones in need.

In this particular case, I would not have made the call to spend over a million dollars advertising the fact that my company donated a quarter-million dollars in food aid.  They spent more money in advertising what they did then in the food donation they gave.  There is something very wrong with this picture.  This shows arrogance on the part of this company.  If you want the public to know, send out a press release and let others take it from there.  Allow people to read about the story online or watch it reported from their nightly news.  With the amount of money that was spent on this advertising campaign, the company could have helped another country or organization in need, or double up on the amount of food aid provided to Bosnians.

I believe that spending more money on advertising what you did rather than on the donation given is a great example of a company trying to save face in the eyes of the public.  They are trying to reach out to its audiences and promote themselves as a “do-gooder” and ensure their audiences know they have contributed.  If a company really wants to make an impression, let others tell your story.  When another source tells the good deed done by another, it shows audiences that the deed wasn’t done out of self-promotion, but rather because the company felt it was the right thing to do.  Spending more money on the advertising than the donation is a virtual slap in the face to the Bosnians.   I have worked for the Walt Disney Company for over seven years and they donate millions of dollars per year to various charitable organizations and causes.  Yet, you never see Disney spending millions of dollars advertising what causes they have given to or touting the dollar amount given.  Often times they will donate money and people will never hear about it.  They choose to let the public know if a subtly manner.  A simple press release to the public on its website and internally through its intranet to cast members.  The reason for allowing cast members to know some of its donations is to encourage company morale and to promote volunteerism with its many charitable opportunities to give back to the community.  I see this as a valuable lesson to other companies that it is better to give than to receive.  Allow the receiver to promote what you have done, rather than bragging about your deed to others.

Mr. Moore also spoke about pharmaceutical advertising.  He asked if more information elevates national dialogue when an advertisement touts the benefits of the drug, while also describing the overwhelming and sometimes fatal side effects.

I absolutely think that more information elevates a national dialogue.  How could it not?  While watching television there are numerous ads for medications on the market.  Each one promoting how great their medication is with a person enjoying an active and healthy life, and yet the voice over is describing a very long list of potential and sometimes life-threatening side effects.  While the advertisers are required to list these side effects, it is humorous at the vast difference in what you are viewing the person in the commercial doing and what the actor in the commercial is saying.  When these commercials first became popular a few years ago, I remember a skit on Saturday Night Live, where the actors made fun of these commercials listing off horrific side effects, alternative diseases, and the ways in which one could die from taking a medication.  While it was made to be humorous, it was also very true.

Before these ads were allowed on television, a doctor would prescribe a medication and he or she may or may not have listed some possible side effects.  Even today when I am given a medication, a doctor will briefly tell me if there is something I am not to mix with the drug or if it will make me drowsy.  Then when the prescription is picked up, the medication comes with a large foldout listing all the side effects of the drug.  How many times have you personally read this information?  Before these ads were popular I don’t think I ever read them.  Now with more knowledge of the potential dangers medications can have on a person, I am very interested in reading about the effects a medication can have on me.  But I do not believe this is a personal interest.  I believe most people armed with knowledge, as a result of medications ads, are much more interested in what the medications they are putting in their bodies can do to them.

As much of a joke these advertisements have become, they have stirred the public to discuss issues such as side effects with their doctors.  Ignorance is bliss and most people trust their doctor not to give them something that has the potential to make them even sicker.  Yet, doctors also give out medications that are available to them and the pharmaceutical companies are making lots of money off of these medications.  So the more doctors prescribe them, the more money they make.  Doctors no longer have the time to discuss every side effect to every patient they see in a day.  This new public knowledge thanks to advertising puts the responsibility back on the consumer/patient to be mindful before taking a prescription and find out exactly what reactions their bodies may or may not have.