Advertising 7

Annales. Ethics in Economic Life 2018 Vol. 21, No. 4, 21–29

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.21.4.03

Jennifer L. Lemanski

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Department of Communication

e-mail: [email protected]

Traditional and emerging ethical concerns in advertising

Abstract

Ethical issues surrounding advertising have been well-discussed. However, over

time and alongside societal and media changes, different questions have moved to

the forefront in the discussion on advertising ethics. This paper presents an over-

view of traditional ethical issues of importance in the United States, and analyzes

the changes that have come about as a result of newer, more interactive media for

ad placements. Although many of the traditional ethical dilemmas remain, the

more personalized and interactive nature of new media and an expanded landscape

for advertisers to stake their claims have introduced new issues that were previ-

ously not of concern, such as privacy.

Keywords: advertising and society, advertising media, deception in advertising,

subliminal advertising

JEL Classification: A13, M37

1. Introduction

Advertising ethics has been described as “what is right or good in the conduct of

the advertising function. It is concerned with questions of what ought to be done,

not just with what legally must be done” (Cunningham, 1999, p. 500). Although

what is legal and what is ethical can be completely separate, some issues in con-

troversial advertising fall under the legal realm (for example, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) requires different information for different Direct to

22 JENNIFER L. LEMANSKI

Consumer pharmaceutical advertising appeal types, and warning labels on tobacco

ads are essential), whereas others are purely ethical questions (Is it ethical to ad-

vertise to children? Is it ethical to advertise unhealthy food or harmful products?).

Most advertising is, however, not subject to restrictive legal regulation other

than the Federal Trade Commission’s deceptive and unfair advertising standards,

and this makes ethical questions even more vital to the conversation. A five-part

test called TARES is one way of operationalizing ethics; this test guides advertis-

ing practitioners and researchers in reviewing five principles that should be part of

an ethical ad (Baker & Martinson, 2001). These principles include “Truthfulness

(of the message), Authenticity (of the persuader), Respect (for the persuadee),

Equity (of the persuasive appeal), and Social Responsibility (for the common

good)” (p. 148).

It is an advantage for advertisers to be viewed as ethical, although that per-

ception is far from commonplace among the general U.S. population, as a Gallup

poll in 2017 found that respondents ranked advertising practitioners as among the

lowest in honesty and ethics, with only 2% of respondents rating their ethical

standards as “very high” and 34% rating their ethical standards as “low” or “very

low.” The only professions ranking beneath advertising practitioners in terms of

honesty and ethical standards were members of Congress, car salespeople, and

lobbyists. This Gallup report included data beginning in 1976, and overall the

numbers have stayed steady since then. In the United States, advertising practi-

tioners have remained among the lowest in perceived honesty and ethics for over

40 years.

The controversial nature of advertising has been discussed and written about

for decades. In the past, conversations have focused on topics such as advertising

to children, advertising products such as alcohol or tobacco, and even whether

subliminal advertising exists and is ethical. Hyman, Tansey, and Clark (1994)

identified 33 topics with ethical questions, including use of deception, use of sex-

ual appeals, and ads for cosmetic surgery. In 1997, when direct to consumer

pharmaceutical advertising became legal, questions were raised about ethics in

that area as well.

This paper will review and analyze the current state of ethics in advertising in

the United States. What are the current issues that are most worrisome? How do

these differ from concerns of the past? How are newer media changing the ethical

environment for advertising?

2. Traditional ethical concerns

2.1. Subliminal advertising

Traditionally, one of the biggest issues in advertising ethics has been the issue of

subliminal advertising. A study by James M. Vicary was reported (“‘Persuaders’

get deeply hidden,” 1957), in which moviegoers were exposed to the subliminal

TRADITIONAL AND EMERGING ETHICAL CONCERNS… 23

messages of “eat popcorn” and “drink Coca-Cola” and reportedly bought more

concessions as a result. Although his study was discussed in various news outlets,

he did not publish a scholarly journal article about the study. Soon thereafter,

Vicary admitted that his results were fabricated. Yet, this is one of the issues that

is often brought up when advertising ethics is discussed. The discussion of

Vicary’s research sent society into a frenzy about the potential for media manipu-

lation of audiences. For a number of years, researchers discounted Vicary’s claims

(for example, cf. Moore, 1988; Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1988), but more recent

studies have reported the possibility of subliminal advertising effects (Verwijme-

ren et at., 2010). This remains a concern to many, especially with popular press

articles or blogs such as “9 Ads With Subliminal Messages You’ve Probably

Missed” which discusses characteristics of ads which are in plain view and do not

fit the definition of subliminal advertising (Schweigert, 2018). These articles feed

fuel to the fire, but it seems that the academic research world has not yet come to

an agreement about whether subliminal advertising is possible. And the ethical

issue remains: If it is possible, should it be used?

2.2. Advertising to children

Another debate has concerned whether advertising to children is ethical. Children

are less likely to understand the persuasive intent of advertising, and may not

understand the difference between what is shown and what they are buying. Ac-

cording to Wilcox et al. (2004), two processing abilities are necessary to compre-

hend persuasive messages (advertisements). The audience member must be able to

correctly classify any message as commercial or noncommercial, but they also

must understand the intent of the message as persuasive, and therefore biased. The

authors explained that children under 4 or 5 years of age are typically not able

to discern these differences—it is not until children are 7–8 years old that they are

able to understand the persuasive characteristic of advertising. Yet, countless tele-

vision programs and phone or tablet apps are aimed toward children under

the age of 8.

If children cannot accurately process advertising messages, how does adver-

tising impact them? Concerns about the ethics of advertising to children have led

to some changes in self-regulation by the advertising industry itself within the

United States. For example, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) was

created in 1974 by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) and is asso-

ciated with the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB). A revision occurred

in 1996 to address online advertising and information collection, and again in

2014 to add to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). All guide-

lines for advertising to children are outlined in the Self-Regulatory Program for

Children’s Advertising (2014).

The advertising industry is not the only interested party when it comes to

advertising and children. In 2000, the American Psychological Association formed

a Task Force on Advertising and Children, which delivered a report in 2004

outlining research on how advertising impacts children and families, how

24 JENNIFER L. LEMANSKI

psychological tactics may be used in advertising to children, and other related

topics (APA, 2004). A report by Lapierre et al. (2018) called for additional re-

search to better understand how advertising impacts children, how psychological

development may influence how children react to messages, challenges with new-

er media, and how to alleviate problems.

Studies around the globe have looked at how advertising impacts children;

for example, Sevik, Sevik, and Zivkovic (2017) found that advertising to children

leads to increased materialism as well as higher levels of parent-child conflict due

to children requesting or even demanding items they had seen advertised. A par-

ticular area of interest, research on advertising to children has focused on fast food

or other unhealthy foods, and many of the studies are combining the issues of

advertising to children and advertising unhealthy food (for example, Fleming-

Milici & Harris, 2018; Frechette, 2015), as this may lead to obesity and other

health problems and harmful habits from a young age. Earlier studies focused on

television advertising (Gantz et al., 2007) whereas current research also includes

web and app advertising (FTC, 2012).

2.3. Advertising of harmful products

Advertising of hazardous or harmful products is another angle that those studying

the ethics of advertising have identified. Advertisements for tobacco and alcohol

products have historically experienced limits in media placement. For example, hard

liquor was not shown on television ads from 1948 to 1996 due to a voluntary ban

by the hard liquor companies (Elliot, 1996). In 1996, the Seagram Company pio-

neered the return to television advertising for hard liquor, followed by other compa-

nies who could not risk being put at a disadvantage. Cigarette advertising on televi-

sion was brought to a halt in 1971 and has not resumed. Those opposing this

advertising are typically in opposition to the products altogether, but many also

worry about children being targeted, whether intended or not. But advertisers can

often get around any bans by using product placement, which shows the product in

use during the content of a show or movie.

2.4. Promoting materialism

Advertising introduces consumers to the latest products and trends. It encourages

the collection of more items, and showcases material items as good, which

ultimately encourages more materialism in society. As Zinkhan (1994) states:

“Commercial messages often portray materialism as a “value” (which consumers

are encouraged to adopt).” (p. 1). In some cases, it is not that products adver-

tised are harmful or dangerous, but that they are depicted as necessary when they

are not, leading consumers to strive to obtain certain brands or products, even if

these items are out of their budget. It may not be that one ad convinces someone

that a luxury car or the latest technological gadget is a need rather than a want;

but the continuous barrage of these messages leaves the consumer feeling

that everyone else has something they don’t. Schor (1999) explains this phenome-

TRADITIONAL AND EMERGING ETHICAL CONCERNS… 25

non as “a relentless ratcheting up of standards” (p. 1), in which the average person

tends to believe they need more and more possessions in order to be happy and

fulfilled.

2.5. Advertising appeal types

Some advertising appeals are considered unethical by their very nature. Advertis-

ing through the use of sex appeals (for example, see Blair et al., 2006) and fear

appeals have been the focus of much research attention throughout the years. Par-

ticularly troubling regarding sex appeals is sexual content that is not related to the

use of the product. For example, LaTour and Henthorne (1994) found that use of

a sexual image such as partially nude bodies and sexually suggestive poses in an

ad for jeans was rated as more unethical than was an ad for the jeans with less

sexual content. This would differ from products that are clearly related to sex,

such as condoms.

The controversies surrounding fear appeal tactics have also been debated in

previous literature (Duke et al., 1993; Hastings, Stead & Webb, 2004). Fear ap-

peals may lead to anything from momentary discomfort or unease, to longer term

psychological distress. In some health-related areas, fear appeals may make

sense—they aim to “shock” people into paying attention and making necessary

and healthy lifestyle changes (Brown & Whiting, 2014). On the other hand, when

fear appeals are used for consumer products or services such as car insurance or

a home security system (or even laptop computers and diskettes, as researched by

Cochrane and Quester (2005)), does the potential benefit outweigh the risk?

Foerster and Branter (2016) discussed the potential of using humor to cover

up or distract from an unethical appeal. Humor may disarm audience members

and/or make them less likely to counterargue a message (Gass & Seiter, 2003),

and less likely to react negatively to deception in a message (Hsieh, Hsu & Fang,

2010). The use of humor could also lead audiences to be less offended by an

unethical message, and it may alleviate concerns or hesitance about privacy issues.

Humor may be perceived by audience members as adding the value of entertain-

ment to the message, a concept that has been shown to lead to more positive atti-

tudes toward messages; for example, in-app advertisements (Sigurdsson, Menon,

Hallgrimsson, Larson & Fagerstrom, 2018).

3. Today’s issues

In today’s advertising world, we may still hear of those topics now and then. In-

deed, most of the topics above continue to be regularly studied. However, there

are newer issues which also lead to ethical questions, and which the research is

just starting to identify. New media has opened the door for a variety of ethical

issues to arise. For example, concerns have arisen regarding the way marketers

and advertisers can track who has seen what online—and how far they take their

26 JENNIFER L. LEMANSKI

communication with those audience members once they are identified is also an

issue. Advertising is becoming more personalized as it becomes more intrusive.

Social media sites such as Facebook identify keywords for which audience mem-

bers have searched, and show them ads for the same products. Cleff (2007) re-

marked upon privacy issues in mobile advertising, mentioning that “mobile adver-

tising may become extremely intrusive practices in an intimate personal space”

(p. 225), and suggesting that mobile advertising would need to be permission-

based in order to be successful. More recently, privacy concerns have become

more focused on what data is being collected, and consumers may be willing to

give up privacy or personal information if they receive a benefit. For example,

Brinson and Eastin (2016) mention perks such as customized rewards, offers, and

advance notice of special offers to consumers who are willing to share information

with a company.

People are concerned about privacy, especially when it comes to kids—and

the issue of advertising to children and teens continues to be the focus of much

research. According to Pew Research, 81% of parents are very concerned or

somewhat concerned about their child’s information being available to advertisers.

Sometimes, advertisers seem to have incorrect information, since 30% of teens

have received “clearly inappropriate” ads (although the study did not differentiate

between ads that were meant for younger or older audiences).

Montgomery, Chester, and Milosevic (2017) discussed data-mining by adver-

tisers on children as a separate issue from the more general fear of children voluntar-

ily disclosing their own personal information online. This study pointed out that as

advertisers get more information on an individual child, ads can be more personal-

ized and therefore more influential. A report by the Federal Trade Commission in

2012 found that mobile apps for children were not using appropriate disclosure

statements about what information they would collect and what options were availa-

ble for children inside the app, such as in-app purchases (FTC, 2012).

4. Conclusion

A wide variety of ethical issues in advertising have been explored and discussed

over the past decades. Many of those are still generating debate, while new tech-

nologies and new media have introduced new areas of ethical concern, particularly

in the area of privacy. Although self-regulation is practiced in the United States

advertising industry, the field is changing so rapidly that there may always be new

tactics, media placements, or other issues for which there are no pre-existing ethi-

cal guidelines. Advertising practitioners may be more or less on their own to make

these judgment calls, and if they don’t do it well, additional regulations could be

promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.

Future research to investigate thoughts of advertising practitioners on ethics

of the industry, their own firms, and the firms of their competition. And although

standards of industry self-regulation on and data on American consumers and

TRADITIONAL AND EMERGING ETHICAL CONCERNS… 27

advertisers have been the focus of this paper, research on advertising ethics, indus-

try guidelines, and laws from other countries would be vital to our understanding

of how advertising ethics are considered, discussed, and practiced around the

world.

References

Baker, S., & Martinson, D. L. (2001). The TARES Test: Five principles for ethical

persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2–3), 148–175.

Blair, J. D., Stephenson, J. D., Hill, K. L., & Green, J. S. (2006). Ethics in adver-

tising: Sex sells, but should it? Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Is-

sues, 9(1/2), 109–118.

Brinsin, N. H., & Eastin, M. S. (2016). Juxtaposing the persuasion knowledge

model and privacy paradox: An experimental look at advertising personali-

zation, public policy and public understanding. Cyberpsychology: Journal

of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(1). doi: 10.5817/CP2016-1-7

Brown, S. L., & Whiting, D. (2014). The ethics of distress: Toward a framework

for determining the ethical acceptability of distressing health promotion

advertising. International Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 89–97.

Cleff, E. B. (2007). Privacy issues in mobile advertising. International Review of

Law Computers & Technology, 21(3), 225–236.

Cochrane, L., & Quester, P. (2005). Fear in advertising: The influence of consum-

ers’ product involvement and culture. Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, 17(2/3), 7–32.

Cunningham, P. H. (1999). Ethics of advertising: Oxymoron or good business

practice? In J. P. Jones (Ed.), The advertising business (pp. 499–515).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duke, C. R., Pickett, G. M., Carlson, L., & Grove, S. J. (1993). A method for

evaluating the ethics of fear appeals. Journal of Public Policy and Market-

ing, 12, 120–129.

Elliot, S. (1996, November 8). Liquor industry ends its ad ban in broadcasting.

New York Times, A1.

Federal Trade Commission (2012a). Mobile apps for kids: Current privacy disclo-

sures are disappointing. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.

gov/os/2012/02/120216mobile_apps_kids.pdf

Federal Trade Commission (2012b). Mobile apps for kids: Disclosures still not

making the grade. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/

sites/default/files/documents/reports/mobile-apps-kids-disclosures-still-not-

making-grade/121210mobilekidsappreport.pdf

28 JENNIFER L. LEMANSKI

Fleming-Milici, F., & Harris, J. L. (2018). Television food advertising viewed by

preschoolers, children and adolescents: Contributors to differences in expo-

sure for black and white youth in the United States. Pediatric Obesity,

13(2), 103–110.

Foerster, K., & Branter, C. (2016). Masking the offense? An ethical view on hu-

mor in advertising. Journal of Media Ethics, 31(3), 146–161.

Frenchette, S. (2015). The effect of television food advertising on children’s pref-

erences, demands, and intake of high-fat and low-nutrient products. Ameri-

can Journal of Medical Research, 2(2), 246–252.

Gallup (2017). Honesty/ethics in professions. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.

com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx

Gantz, W., Schwartz, N., Angelini, J. R., & Rideout, V. (2007). Food for thought:

Television food advertising to children in the United States. Kaiser Family

Foundation Report.

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2003). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance

gaining. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing:

Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21,

961–986.

Hsieh, C. S., Hsu, Y. H., & Fang, W. C. (2010). The relationship between decep-

tive claims and ad effect: The moderating role of humorous ads. Interna-

tional Journal of Business and Information, 5(1), 1–25.

Hyman, M. R., Tansey, R., & Clark, J. W. (1994). Research on advertising ethics:

Past, present, and future. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 5–15.

LaTour, M. S., & Henthorne, T. L. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in

print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81–90.

Montgomery, K. C., Chester, J., & Milosevic, T. (2017). Children’s privacy in the

big data era: Research opportunities. Pediatrics, 140(s2), S117–S121.

Moore, T. E. (1988). The case against subliminal manipulation. Psychology

& Marketing, 5(4), 297–316.

Neff, J. (2010, June 7). Ad industry battles back against bad rep, forms ethics

institute. Ad Age. Retrieved from https://adage.com/article/news/ad-indu

stry-battles-back-bad-reputation/144288/

‘Persuaders’ get deeply ‘hidden’ tool: Subliminal projection. (1957, September).

Advertising Age, 16, 127.

Pratkanis, A. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (1988). Recent perspectives on unconscious

processing: Still no marketing applications. Psychology & Marketing, 5(4),

339–355.

Schor, J. B. (1999). The overspent American: Why we want what we don’t need.

New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

TRADITIONAL AND EMERGING ETHICAL CONCERNS… 29

Schweigert, A. (2018, October 14). 9 ads with subliminal messages you’ve proba-

bly missed. Hubspot. Retrieved from https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/

ads-with-subliminal-messages.

Sevick, N. P., Sevic, A., & Zivkovic, R. (2017). Children’s advertising: Material-

ism and caused conflicts with parents. TEME: Casopis za Drustvene

Nauke, 41(1), 157–173.

Sigurdsson, V., Vishnu Menon, R. G., Hallgrimsson, A. G., Larsen, N. M., & Fager-

strom, A. (2018). Factors affecting attitudes and behavioral intentions toward

in-app mobile advertisements. Journal of Promotion Management, 24(5),

694–714.

Truth Initiative (2018). What do tobacco advertising restrictions look like today?

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://truthinitiative.org/news/what-do-

tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today

Verwijmeren, T., Karremans, J. C., Stroebe, W., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2011).

The workings and limits of subliminal advertising: The role of habits.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 206–213.

Wilcox, B. L., Kunkel, D., Cantor, J., Dowrick, P., Linn, S., & Palmer, E. (2004).

Report of the American Psychological Association task force on advertis-

ing and children. Washington, DC.

Zinkhan, G. M. (1994). Advertising, materialism, and quality of life. Journal of

Advertising, 23(2), 1–4.

Copyright of Annales. Etyka w Zyciu Gospodarczym is the property of University of Lodz and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.