Module 5: Is boycotting ethical?

This week’s blog assignment presents the statements:

“It is unethical to encourage a boycott of a show because it amounts to censorship or It is not only ethical but also responsible for consumers to organize boycotts of shows and advertisers that offend them”.

When deciding which side to choose, it made sense that it is not only ethical but also responsible for consumers to organize boycotts.  If we look at the history of our country, we have fought to give our citizens the right to free speech.  This includes the ability for people to stand against things that are extremely offensive or violate human rights.  Boycotting is not the same as rioting.  It is not intended for violence against others.  Many people have undoubtedly gone that direction in their boycott; yet, it is intended to force a change within an organization by not engaging in the product, show or advertisement.  Merriam-Webster (2013) defines boycott as this: “To engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions”.

There have been many boycotts around the world for various reasons.  The website Ethical Consumer describes boycotts in this way,

For Ethical Consumer, boycotts offer campaign groups and/or individuals the chance to exert economic pressure on companies. They are particularly appropriate when governments are unwilling or unable to introduce reforms. We see them as a vitally important extension of our formal democracy.  They can also be especially empowering for consumers through the process of actively rejecting something produced or sold in an unethical way (ethicalconsumer.org).

Boycotts do not need to be a rejection of a product sold, it can also be related to a particular show, as in the case of Basketball Wives.  This show was boycotted due to the violence portrayed towards women.  A reality show such as this one in which violence is portrayed should be taken off the air.  If the producers will not stop the violence and the shows stars, for whatever reason are not able to get away from it, then someone should step in and take the necessary actions to prevent it from continuing.  Boycotting a show like this shows others that this behavior is not acceptable in private or public.

We live in a society where everyone yells tolerance.  Yet, so many people are boycotting things because they find them offensive.  Taking the Pledge of Allegiance out of public schools because it says “One nation under God”, or requesting our money to be changed because it is printed with the same phrase, these are two examples that I believe do not fall under responsible and ethical consumer concern.  NBC tried this by omitting the words “Under God” and “Indivisible” in the Pledge on its broadcast of the 2011 U.S. Open.  Whether NBC wants to call this censorship or a boycott, they backlash turned to a boycott of the network to fire those responsible for the editing (Hunter, 2011).

Boycotting a show that promotes violence, or an organization that violates human rights is responsible and ethical.  But some of the things people boycott because of a personal offense are a little extreme and sometimes unreasonable.  Everyone will be offended by something.  It is impossible to please everyone.  The Pledge of Allegiance is part of our American History and has been accepted since its inclusion.  A boycott of this is extreme, as the Pledge of Allegiance does not directly hurt anyone.  New York Democrats were caught “boycotting” the Pledge by refusing to stand.

The Pledge of Allegiance and the singing of the Star Spangled Banner, should always be respected no matter what, with proper stance facing the flag and your right hand over your heart.

References

Boycott. 2013. In Merriam-Webster.com.  Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott

Ethicalconsumer.org. 2013.  About Boycotts. Retrieved from http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/aboutboycotts.aspx

Hunter, M. 2011. NBC’s ‘Under God’ Omission Prompts Calls for Boycott, Firing.  Retrieved from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nbc-s-under-god-omission-prompts-calls-boycott-firing

Spencer, D. 2002. New York Democrats refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.  Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-democrats-refuse-to-stand-for-the-pledge-of-allegiance

Module 4: Unethical Tobacco Advertising

The topic this week to blog on is the ethical nature of tobacco advertising.  The side I chose is “Advertising for tobacco products is unethical”.

When I first looked at this, my immediate reaction was ‘unethical or not, a ban on tobacco advertising violates the 1^st amendment’.  I must clarify my position, I am not a smoker, never have been, and do not condone smoking as a healthy habit.  As I stared reading over the history of tobacco advertising it quickly became apparent that many countries must believe tobacco advertising to be unethical or there would not be a ban on this advertising in so many countries worldwide.  The reason I would call this type of advertising unethical is because tobacco advertising does not tell the truth of the effects, and a product that has no health benefit, and only leads a healthy person to an ultimate disease-ridden state is unethical.  Carlson and Luhrs cite three ethical norms for marketers from the American Marketing Association.

1. Marketers must do no harm.
2. Marketers must foster trust in the marketing system.
3. Marketers must embrace, communicate and practice the fundamental ethical values that will improve consumer confidence in the integrity of the marketing exchange system.

“In other words, one would not consider doing harm to others or acting dishonestly as worthy of a universal law. Tobacco marketers unfortunately fail to achieve the aforementioned standards on all accounts and can therefore be deemed unethical” (Carlson & Luhrs).

It is widely known that cigarettes are bad for your health, but does anyone know what is really in a cigarette?  Quitsmokingsupport.com (2013) states that cigarette company have only provided lists of ingredients to the Department of Health and Human Services but the government officials are not legally allowed to release this list as it is a violation of the tobacco companies rights to protect trade secrets.  They also state the L&M cigarettes are the first tobacco company to list its ingredients on it’s packaging.  Dr. Kleinman & Messina-Kleinman, M.P.H., list on quitsomkingsupport.com, list some of the ingredients in a cigarette:

• Fungicides and pesticides — Cause many types of cancers and birth defects.
• Cadmium — Linked to lung and prostate cancer.
• Benzene — Linked to leukemia.
• Formaldehyde — Linked to lung cancer.
• Nickel — Causes increased susceptibility to lung infections.

They also state “there are more than 4,000 ingredients in a cigarette other than tobacco” (quitsmokingsupport.com).  Some other ingredients are:

Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Methoprene: Insecticide
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element

Unfortunately cigarette products are under regulation by the FTA and not the FDA, meaning they are not legally responsible to list their ingredient list.  “By labeling cigarettes as an “addictive drug” in 1996, the FDA sought to gain control over the industry and limit the sales and advertising of tobacco products. While its actions were supported by then President Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court ruled against the FDA in 2000, claiming the federal agency was never given the proper authority to regulate tobacco by Congress” (James and Olstad, 2009).  The FDA still seeks to gain full control over tobacco products, which would allow them to regulate ingredients and advertising warnings.

With the disease and cancer causing risks associated with cigarette smoking, advertisers still reach out to children, teens, and adults in any way possible.  Fake cigarettes that release a floury type substance when puffed, and candy cigarettes all appeal to children to spark their interest and curiosity at an early age.  Sporting event advertising such as Nascar’s Winston Cup Series, and Marlborough was formerly a sponsor of Ferrari in the F1 series.  Movies have a tendency to romanticize cigarette smoking and appeal to various age groups.  Cigarette companies are required to list a Surgeon General’s warning for health effects in cigarettes here in the U.S., yet it does not stop their advertising.  Cigarette awareness has come along way over the past decades.  Doctors once used to advertise cigarettes, now doctors are on the push to get patients to stop smoking.

Cigarette smoking can lead to numerous health effects including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer, infertility, preterm delivery, stillbirth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and even death (CDC, 2012).  The CDC also lists these facts on their website:

• The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.

• More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.

• Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.

• An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.

With staggering statics, toxic ingredients, high addiction rates, and ultimate adverse health effects, I have to say advertising a product that does not willingly advertise this information, is unethical.  Tobacco companies do not tell the truth in advertising and each warning label is placed on the product by force, not by choice.

   

       

 

References

Carlson, Michael, and Chris Luhrs. “The Ethics of Tobacco Marketing.” Confronting Information Ethics in the New Millennium:    72.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012.  Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

James, R. & Olstad, S. 2009. Cigarette Advertising. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1905530,00.html

QuitSmokingSupport.com. 2013. Have you ever wondered what’s in a cigarette? Retrieved from http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm

Module 3: Subliminal Messaging

If it were possible to persuade consumers subliminally, would it be ethical to do so?

There is always controversy about subliminal messaging.  Does it work?  Is it just a hoax?  I feel that subliminal messaging is in sorts like hypnosis, if you believe it works, it will work on you.  While I am not a researcher, nor have I done any scientific research to determine the effects of subliminal messaging, I feel that while it is prominent, it does not always work.  Have I watched a commercial for food and decided I all of a sudden want pizza?  Yes, was that the work of subliminal messaging or the was it the fact that I was hungry and I like pizza?

In the case of subliminal messaging being ethical, I have to float down the middle on this one.  Advertising is everywhere and when a company wants consumers to purchase their product, they have the ability and right to place a subliminal message about the product in their own ad.  Take the color red for example.   Red is supposed to trigger the hunger sensor in our brains, is a food or drink company being unethical for using the color red in their ads, as this is a type subliminal messaging?  I think not.  However, I have to say it becomes an ethical issue when the subliminal message has nothing to do with the product.  For example, Disney movies are constantly under fire for this.  They animators place words like sex or phallic symbols in children’s movies.  In my opinion this is not only unnecessary, but highly inappropriate.  In such a sexually driven world, kids do not need any more exposure to sex, subliminal or obvious.

Not all subliminal messaging is bad either.  Sometimes it’s located in the logo’s of businesses we see daily.  Have you ever noticed the arrow inside the FedEx logo?  The old Bank of America logo displayed the “BA” inside the negative white space.  Even the “LG” logo features Pac Man.

Sex may sell in today’s culture, but the ethical issue arises when it is geared towards children.  Why people are more prone to advertisements that are sexually driven is another topic.  If an advertiser wants to use subliminal messaging, it is their right to do so; I believe it needs to be appropriate for the market and target audience.

 

Module 2: Understanding Media and Audiences

In Gael O’Brien’s (2011) article on Marketing to Children: Accepting Responsibility, Susan Linn was quoted “There is no ethical, moral, social, or spiritual justification for targeting children in advertising and marketing”.  The question is then posed “do I agree or disagree”?  As a whole, I think this statement is extreme.  With all of the products targeted towards children, who are advertisers supposed to market to?  Marketing to parents only, most products would not sell because most parents would overlook them.  Advertising to the target audience, children, helps boost sales and increases popularity and awareness.  In relation to this article, it is referencing McDonald’s social responsibility towards its alleged contribution towards childhood obesity.  Within this context, I have mixed feelings about they way some companies advertise to children.

Childhood obesity is an epidemic in the United States today.  Yet, so is adult obesity.  The reason obesity rates are so high is because the food industry has changed its standards.  Processed foods contain more chemicals and sugars, which add to more calories and fat content, thus making the risk for obesity much higher.  Onlinenursingprograms.com (2012) made an infographic listing the amount of sugar consumption today.  “In 1822 the average American consumed 45g of sugar, the amount found in once of today’s 12-ounce sodas, every five days”.  Today in 2012, “We now consume 765g of sugar every five days” (www.mindbodygreen.com, 2012).  They also state that Americans are consuming 130lbs of sugar every year, per person.  This is a frightening statistic.  Most breakfast food aimed at kids are loaded with sugars and directly marketed towards children.  The graphics on the boxes, the mascots of the cereals, and even the commercials, draw children in.  While most do not offer a toy prize anymore, the advertising and marketing has not ceased.  Even product placement is a marketing scheme for kids.  These sugary treats and cereals are placed on lower shelves either at eye level or within reach of kids.

I understand the reason companies advertise towards children, children do not understand health benefits and risks and want what appeals to them.  Most adults do not usually buy a box of sugary cereal for themselves, so these companies have no choice but to advertise to children.  Yet, these same companies are growing smarter in their tactics.  They are now reaching out to the parents.  General Mills advertises healthy grains on their cereal boxes thus trying to appeal to the parent that does not read nutrition labels.  These parents are more willing to buy these types of sugary foods because there are added grains or zero calories written on the front.  These companies are hoping parents do not read sugar content or the chemicals added into the ingredients.  In a typical McDonald’s Happy Meal with a cheeseburger, fries and a soft drink, a child will consumer 680 calories and 47g of sugar in one meal.  The American Heart Association states in its 2009 nutrition guidelines that children should have no more than 3 teaspoons of sugar per day.  47grams of sugar in one Happy Meal is equal to 14.68 teaspoons of sugar.

I believe the responsibility lies on the parents to make healthy choices for their children.  However, these companies do not make it easy on parents either.  Heavy advertising towards children, make it more difficult for a parent in the fight for a healthy lifestyle and nutrition for their kids.  There needs to be a balance on the scales.  If these companies want to bring kids into their restaurants, or to buy their products, make it healthier for children and adults.  If companies like McDonald’s made their food with less sugar and calories and gave more organic options, more parents would be inclined to let their children and even themselves consume these foods and drinks.  And the “bad food” reputation McDonald’s has would dissipate.  What would healthier food do to McDonald’s revenue?  If these high calorie, high sugary, chemical induced foods were more expensive and the healthier, organic foods were less expensive there would be more incentive to buy them, thus reducing the amount of childhood and adult obesity.  Companies should look at their moral compass.  Are the executives of these companies feeding these same foods to their own families?  Why isn’t more advertising was spent on marketing healthy options for children?  Those are the real questions.

References

Family Education. (2012).  Are we too sweet?  Our kids’ addiction to sugar.  Retrieved http://life.familyeducation.com/nutritional-information/obesity/64270.html

O’Brien, G. 2011.  Marketing to Children: Accepting Responsibility. Retrieved at http://business-ethics.com/2011/05/31/1441-marketing-to-children-accepting-responsibility/

Wachob, J. 2012. Mind-Blowing Sugar Consumption (Infographic). Retrieved at http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

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.