TU Morality, Law & Advertising

66 years. That is the amount of time that passed between 1924 (the original draft of the AAAA) and 1990 (the most recently revised draft). Changes needed to be made because of the large gap in time and the differences in the types of advertising available, the amount of acceptance the public allowed, and the types of products that were in the public eye. 21 years since the last revision and much has still changed in the world of advertising, but not in the code of ethics. Our 21 year gap has drastically exploded with the help of a couple of guys named Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. The rise of technology has changed the way we live and research for the rest of mans existence.

Article “e” in the code states:

e. Statements, suggestions, or pictures offensive to public decency or minority segments of the population.

However, who is to decide what is offensive to specific publics? What is accepted in one part of Philadelphia may disgust other members of society on the opposite side of town. I feel that we as advertisers must decide what should be considered offensive.

Many would argue, what about the children!??!! With the technology available today, there is nothing that can be hid from our growing youth- fact! If its out there, a 13 year old boy with an outdated laptop and internet access will have the same capabilities as the 30 year old man riding the subway to work with his iPhone. The internet has opened up a can of worms on what people of the world have access to.

We as advertisers must be cautious on the WAY we advertise due to the negative effect it may have on the sales of the product, in turn hurting our chances of obtaining more work, and then being able to survive in the business all together.

So in conclusion, I feel that the code of ethics COULD be updated; however, I feel it would be career suicide if we as advertisers did anything so outlandish as to piss off the entire population.

Although one might consider the political correctiveness of an advertisement, who might question the effectiveness of an advertisement shown to a truly diverse demographic?

The American Association of Advertising Agencies embraces a non-biased advertising establishment in the most politically correct forum. When reading their mission statement in-depth, it seems as though the AAAA hits all the creative and ethical points necessary to produce natural and un-biased advertisements. And I quote, “we will not knowingly create advertising that contains: e. Statements, suggestions, or pictures offensive to public decency or minority segments of the population.” This statement is important to a consumers point of view because in the US society today, stereotypes are continuously contradicted and challenged by advertisements that are considered “politically correct”. There is nothing immediate which needs to be updated about the AAAA’s ethical practice statement, only something which is necessary to be addressed about the reality of advertisement in the US today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOM4AMV050A

The commercial above is a blatantly contradictory statement against advertisement and market reasearch as an industry, yet it still adheres to a female demographic that seeks to challenge the norm. In comparison with the AAAA standard, this commercial follows the creative code required by all demographics. Its androgenous appeal is both self satisfying and defiant at the same time, which allows breathing room for the advertisement’s appeal to all womens’ demographics.

Something I noticed in the AAAA creative code is that there is no mention of the word “morality”. It is interesting because although the representation of stereotypes and mymicry of racial and gender profiling is a blatant issue in their ethical conduct, the question of weather or not what they are portraying in the ad  is “moral” is not an issue. This is a way of distracting the audience from what they are buying and trying to relate their preference towards something they feel obliged to buy versus something they are coaxed to buy by advertiseemnt.

Anywhere you look, and in almost any region of the world, a similar ad can be looked at 30 times and offend half of its audience. Maybe it’s because I’ve gotten somewhat accustomed to not being easily offended or annoyed, but most of our world today has not reached that point. So in defense of the Blue Cross, and keeping to the Potter’s Box method, I would suggest they focus on the value of self-interest and keep their Blue Cross signs in place. Through keeping focus on the company’s self-interested they would incorporate the principle of pragmatic utilitarianism and allow their signage to remain in place. Although focusing on the issue through the principle of pragmatic utilitarianism is somewhat of a stretch, you can take into consideration that they are doing the greatest good for the recognition of their brand and its people associated with it. The only additional aspect to focus on would be the expected results of their actions. I don’t feel as though they violated any of the residents in the neighboring areas in addition to the fact that they kept within the guidelines of the AAAA.

In congruence with my belief that Blue Cross did not in any way contravene what was outlined in the AAAA, I believe that the document itself, although adopted quite a while ago, does an excellent job at establishing advertising guidelines for companies and individuals to abide by. It layouts almost no specifics. In a sense, it nearly depicts what was brought up in our second lesson; the fact that morals or morality is the basis of good and bad or right and wrong, while ethics are essentially the guidelines that help us keep to certain moral standards. The morals within the world of advertising are the unmentioned base rules which exist within society today; something like don’t promote underaged drinking. The AAAA again serves as the extremely general way of guiding the ethical conduct of advertisers in general which then allows for each individual or company to establish additional sets of ethics which they see as important to them. For the most part I think the only argument to change the AAAA standards of practice is because it’s quite old, not because there’s something in that is no longer relevant or is outdated. I think it’s a document that should change with the times but currently still provides enough regulatory information to keep our advertising world somewhat ethical.

Sources:

AAAA:

http://www.aaaa.org/advocacy/diversity/Pages/default.aspx

Blue cross video:

Antonio Federici ads:

http://www.advertolog.com/antonio-federici-ice-cream/print-outdoor/we-believe-in-salivation-13962555/

http://www.adrants.com/2009/05/federici-gelato-poses-fresh-temptation.php

I do think we need to draw the line somewhere though. I have no idea where though, because everything is so debatable. Its all about peoples perception of things.

I think, this is somwhere we need to draw the line though

I was taught throughout my classes that the advertisement is supposed to sell the product. I’m not getting that from either of these advertisements. I think this is degrading and disgusting. But on the other hand Tom Ford obviously thinks it is acceptable. So who is to say where we draw the line? And when we do, where?

I don’t know how the AAAA could possibly be updated any further. It seems to be vague. Unless you directly rule out nudity, drugs, and things like that (the specifics) nothing will change the way the advertisers stretch their creativity.

The Constitution. Prohibition. Title IX. All things that have been adapted with change, over the sign of the times. To become relative to societies needs and standards is a must to be in existence.  In this day and age, with technology radically changing literally not by the year, month, or day – but by the minute – something that has not changed for 20 years now has to either be so productive it needs not be altered in any way shape or form (of which I can think of nothing in that category) or be out in space like the Hubble telescope where no one in the universe has access to it!

For the American Association of Advertising Agencies, I don’t think their offices are on Mars, so they should take heed and listen to the many agencies, consumers, companies that are not pushing the boundaries of their “Standards” but far exceeding the limits.  Are all ads and all agencies following this practice? No, some remain more to the ethical left however and try to regulate whatever is within their control and power. For the vast majority however, advertising agencies see the need to push the limitations on the company’s product to make it known, stand out.  Otherwise, it won’t sell and some people won’t be getting paid.

I found a interesting article by an agency that suggests “16 reasons to go with an AAAA agency.”  Some interesting points are mentioned, like: Being financially sound, established in business, ethical (!), elected by their peers, and making the case for the value of advertising. What I found to be most interesting was #15 on the list – “They are producing the advertising that America knows and responds to.” Really?!  http://www.estey-hoover.com/Estey-Hoover_pages/16_reason.htm The 600 of some 13,000+ agencies are solely responsible for putting out the ads that Americans know best and respond to. Their short list was not impressive, save BMW.  Take the Little Caesar’s for example. It was catchy, it worked for a time – then what happened. The company bottomed and now you REALLY have to go out of your way to even come close to a chain. If the AAAA agency was so savvy and great at placing ads, they would have come up with something more to try to save the company (from a marketing perspective, the overall balance sheet is a different story).

What I’m trying to discern from the guidelines of the AAAA is that the agencies who are members think what is now in place is current and does not need to be changed; or that in the new age of advertising some standards now can be bypassed and go into an unwritten rule type of territory.  They may still follow the basic A, B, C, D, E  laws, but to some extent the visual and presentation of certain ads has to be called into question.   I think that with so many of the big players as members, there really is no stopping what they want to produce, regardless of what is in place for a standard.  There is too much money being generated, too many employees and in a odd, funny way – too much history.

Though they are on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/aaaaorg

The AAAA guidelines were made in 1924 and first revised in 1990. These guidelines were made to ensure that morals and ethics were at the fore front of the Ad agencies minds when they decided to start advertising products to the public. The code of conduct are rules on how agencies should treat each other and what to understand when creating messages to be sent out to consumers. These rules are to be followed in hopes of showing a good representation of the individual agency as well as the whole association. Some of the main rules include a.) no false or misleading statements or exaggerations,b.) no misleading price claims, c.) as well as no indecent statements, suggestions, or pictures that may be offensive to a minority segment of the population.

The interesting thing about these rules are that they are very clear and concise. There isn’t one rule on the list that is unclear, so why does it need to be updated or changed? The problem lies in the AAA Association and the terrible job they are doing enforcing these rules. It feels like even though these agencies know the rules, there is no one regulating their work so it becomes a free for all and the only people that say anything about it are the consumers.

The use of offensive visuals and language is just another way that agencies feel will make their ads more popular than the next agency. There is some truth to this. I do feel like even though we complain about these ads, would we still be complaining if the ads were bland a little more one dimensional? I couldn’t really say. I know there are some ads out there that are truly offensive to some, including to myself but changing/ updating the code isn’t going to stop them from surfacing. The ads that do seem to be most talked about are those that are offensive to a certain segment of the population. It’s just that if you want these gone all the sex and death oriented ones have to go along with it. If updating the code was able to change this trend of over the top ads, I’m sure an update would have been made sometime after the millennium. But still in 2011 we are referring back to a code that was created almost 90 years ago; I’m sure these agencies find this “code of conduct” to be a joke.

The AAAA code is an interesting mishmash of vague rules and guidelines.  The beginning half talks about responsible competition and honor.  For the most part it appears that this remains to hold true to this day and that it isn’t necessary to update.

What is more interesting to me is the Creative Code.  I find this section interesting because of its ambiguity.  For example, how far does it have to go to be found offensive?  What I think is nice about this section is that the vagueness within it makes it an almost timeless document–one that can grow along with society by not being too specific.  Something to contrast this to is the Comics Code Authority which was established in 1954 to censor the material contained within comic books.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority A little over 50 years later and there are no longer any publishers signed up under the code, despite its continued updates.  The fact remains that society is growing and changing and where you once couldn’t display: “Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated,” but now movies like Saw and other horror flicks sell millions of tickets at the box office.  Some people may find this unfortunate but I think a more specific update to the AAAA’s Creative Code would eventually render the same type of reaction from Advertising Companies.

In a world where the limits are constantly being pushed more raunchy advertising is found acceptable–just look at how much farther Europe pushes their advertising. 
There will always be questions of whether or not things are being pushed to far but in the end the majority rules.   Of course there always has to be a system of checks and balances, which is why the AAAA’s Creative Code needs to exist.  We’re in a much different time from when the King’s word was the law which is what makes interpretation so important.  One point of view isn’t necessarily the right one.

..Which is when the AAAA last updated their standards of practice. They basically state that all agencies are responsible for being a constructive force in the business world, and will be able to fulfill this role through healthy competition with one another. They are not to slander other agencies, as it ultimately will lead to the downfall of advertising as a whole- advertising would lose its prestige and the public would lose its confidence in both advertisements and the institution as a whole. The AAAA also states that advertising agencies WILL NOT “knowingly create advertising that contains” any of the following- misleading or outright false statements, fake testimonials, misleading prices, statements that stretch the truth of conclusions drawn by professional or scientific authority, and any statements or pictures that would be considered offensive to public decency.

Wow, sure seems like advertising agencies have been doing a lot wrong lately. Who regulates these conditions anyway? There are a multitude of ads that seem to go against many of these standards. Take, for instance, the Reebok Easytone ads.  They mislead, by making women think that through simple tasks done in the sneakers that are portrayed in the ads (such as taking out the recycling), they will achieve a great butt like the girl in the ads. Unfortunately, this is not true. Also, these ads are pretty sexualized, never showing a woman’s face, solely focusing on her “assets”.

The other ads that come to mind when I think of misleading advertising are the ones for diet pills. They feature great looking muscular men and women who supposedly lost insane amounts of weight in insanely short periods of time. What they don’t say is how these results are not real; they may have lost the weight but it’s due to diet and exercise. The small print at the bottom of the television screen that flashes for 5 seconds and no one can read anyway, states that these results are not typical. But no one ever says it. At least on drug commercials, they physically speak the words of all possible side effects their drugs pose. Perhaps the problem here is that Hydroxycut is not regulated by the FDA, something that many people also would not realize, as it flashes in microscopic print in the ad. They do not outright lie, but they certainly stretch the truth in these diet pill commercials, especially in trying to target insecure individuals who are probably more susceptible to believing everything at face value.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies believe that positive ethical practice is what results in good business. Basically, it is the responsibility of advertising agencies to serve a clear concise message to the client and to the public. However, the ethical lines are blurred between agencies and the message that they produce to society as a whole. The AAAA use the Creative Code as a guide and example of what consist of high ethical standards. Appropriate agency conduct is not only controversial, but it is a set of regulations introduced to have a positive impact on the growth and development of American business. Depending on each individual, the argument of what is considered ethical and appropriate and whether or not regulations need to be updated will always remain a debate. The following is a list of what the Creative Code states that agencies will not include in advertisements:

• False, misleading, exaggerated visual or verbal statements
• Testimonials that do not reflect the real opinion of the individuals
• Misleading price claims
• Claims that distort the true meaning of statements made by professional or scientific authority
• Offensive statements, suggestions, and pictures to public decency or minority segments

This example is obviously misleading and exaggerated. Personally, I am not offended by this advertisement, but for people who are gullible and easily influenced by images could see a problem. I feel anything advertised on an “as seen on TV” commercial is usually a waste of space.

I’m always such a believer for exaggerated mascara advertisements. I do get disappointed and annoyed when I don’t get the results that are advertised, but it is a continuous lesson that I have to learn and a risk I’m willing to take.

I feel a regulation that is one of the most controversial is objectifying women and showing dominance between gender. This advertisement for Skyy Vodka visually shows the blurred line between what is considered appropriate conduct. I don’t see any harm in updating or clarifying regulations that offend people in society. Specifically  involving offensive, dominance, and gender associated advertisements. Advertisements that visually or verbally support these issues should be updated to a higher ethical standard.