Let me start by sharing Geoffrey Klempner's (philosopher of business) definition of ethics:
Ethics, as understood here, is defined by the I-thou relationship:
"When I engage another person in moral dialogue, there are not two parallel processes of practical deliberation going on, his and mine, but only one. (Contrast this with the case of a 'dialogue' between politicians or traders, where each is privately deliberating how to gain the upper hand.) In opening myself up and addressing the other as a thou I am already committed to the practical consequences of agreement, of doing the action which, by the combined light of his valuational perspective and mine is seen as the thing to be done."
Geoffrey Klempner The Ethics of Dialogue (1998)
Forbes recently published an article titled Gender and Ethics in Advertising: The New CSR Frontier? It is all about advertisements in which one gender (usually women) is being harshly stereotyped. The first example they talk about is a Got Milk campaign released early in the year. Aimed at men, the ads "sympathized" with males who have to put up with their significant other's PMS. One print ad featured, depicted a man cowering holding his milk with the slogan "I'm sorry for not reading between the lines." A petition created by change.org surfaced, denouncing the advertisements for being unethical.
The article then describes a godaddy.com advertisement featuring racer Danica Patrick and Jillian Michaels, who are both "Go Daddy Girls." Take a look at the video:
Is it ethical? What about the last few seconds of the video, when the men at the end say, " do you know what would be cool. . . if they both had double D's! Ya get it, ya get it?!" Personally, I have never really understood the Go Daddy commercials. I mean, the ads probably work or they wouldn't keep using them, but I was surprised to find that the Go Daddy website was actually selling domains and websites. The two don't seem to mix well.
The next article I found was published on the American Psychological Association's website. The article, Advertising to Children: Is it Ethical was a pretty interesting read. Psychologist Allen D. Kanner, PhD., voiced his concern:
Ever since he first started practicing, Berkeley, Calif., psychologist Allen D. Kanner, PhD, has been asking his younger clients what they wanted to do when they grew up. The answer used to be "nurse," "astronaut" or some other occupation with intrinsic appeal.
Today the answer is more likely to be "make money." For Kanner, one explanation for that shift can be found in advertising.
"Advertising is a massive, multi-million dollar project that's having an enormous impact on child development," says Kanner, who is also an associate faculty member at a clinical psychology training program called the Wright Institute. "The sheer volume of advertising is growing rapidly and invading new areas of childhood, like our schools."
According to Kanner, the result is not only an epidemic of materialistic values among children, but also something he calls "narcissistic wounding" of children. Thanks to advertising, he says, children have become convinced that they're inferior if they don't have an endless array of new products.
(Advertising to Children: Is it Ethical?- APA)
The last thing I want to touch on is based on a study I found; a scholarly journal from the Journal of Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues. The journal can be found here. The title is Ethics in advertising: sex sells, but should it? The following is the abstract from the study:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether or not it is ethical to use sexual appeals in advertising. The study also examines (1) if sex actually sells and if so, when and where is it being used in advertising, (2) the use of men and women in ads of a sexual nature, and (3) the role that ethics plays in the use of sexual appeals in advertising. It is important because it not only focuses on the use of sexual appeals in advertising, but also how ethical it is to do so.
The study found that sexual appeals are used often in advertising. Sex does catch people's attention in advertisements, but usually without much brand recognition. Women have been the primary focus in sexual advertising in the past and present, but men are starting to be used more often as the sex object in advertisements. Ethics plays a definite role. There is no clear view of what is ethical and what is unethical when it comes to advertising, but with careful consideration and planning, it is possible for advertisers to find a common ground and use sexual appeals without offending people in the process.
The journal also asks the question: What is identified as sexual appeals in advertising? It is answered by a study from Ramirez and Reichert published in 2000 in which the four characteristics of a sexy ad was uncovered.
- Physical features of models
- Behavior/movement
- Intimacy between models
- Contextual features such as camera effects
I've never seen it layed out quite like that, but it seems to make sense. It also says that while women are most often used in these ads as sex objects (Victoria's Secret), men are seen more and more in ads like Abercrombie and Fitch.
I've concluded that when it comes to ethics in advertising, there is obviously no clear line. It is a gray area that no one can seem to figure out. While some ads can be clearly labeled as unethical, others are hard to categorize. There really is no answer.
