Ethics

After reading the article by Jelly Helm I had mixed emotions about the various topics he discussed. While I do agree that advertising has led to an increase in our society's needs and desires, it is not solely responsible for turning us into over-consumers who seem to care nothing about the environment. Advertising is no different that observing our personal surroundings. Think about it, we go into malls are are overwhelmed by people toting designer bags and showing off designer jeans. While this could be considered a form of advertising, the agencies cannot ultimately be held responsible for our purchases. They simply suggest and point out new and exciting products, but never do they force us to purchase something.

I do agree that targeting lower classes is unfair, but advertising cannot be blamed for this. A lot of these people do not know the difference between a Louis Vuitton handbag and a Target clutch. If we presented two print ads to these people - one from each brand mentioned above - there is no guarantee the lower class would immediately choose the more expensive Louis. We can blame advertising for making the lower class feel inferior, but in reality, and this may sound very rude, they probably don't know the difference, and would be happy to just receive the product.

As for the three suggestions mentioned at the end, I do not agree with the suggestion to promote only those products that benefit humans. Every one seeks different benefits from different products. If advertisers were to determine what is beneficial vs. what is not, many popular products would cease to exist in advertising. There is no fair way to distinguish between what is and what is not considered beneficial to everyone.

Second, I do not think advertisers needs establish guidelines to prevent reckless spending. It is not the responsibility of the agencies to control the spending habits of humans. If we see an ad showing off a $5,000 pair of shoes - then let someone buy it! Agencies should not feel guilty for advertising an expensive product just because the majority of society cannot afford it. We may not really need everything we buy, but everyone can admit that without some of their favorite luxury items they would be much less satisfied.

Third - I do not agree with the idea of eliminating advertising to children under 12 years old. Even if children are not directly targeted by advertising as they grow up, he second they go in public they will be subjected to various products, brand names, and other endorsements just by the people around them. There is no realistic way to control that young children will live an ad-free life until they are 13.

In response to "Beyond Obligation" I do somewhat agree that clients and agencies should take it upon themselves to serve in the best interest of people, but it is not their sole responsibility to protect society. Agencies should be free to advertise a product how they see fit (within reason of not using extreme measurements). The issue of stereotypes falls into this category. I agree agencies need to be careful when creating how a message is to be interpreted, but it seems that everyone falls into a negative stereotype today - and most are now laughed about when portrayed in the right light. We cannot continue to blame agencies for using stereotypes that we so often joke about. There's not difference than talking about them with friends than seeing them in a magazine.

People are going to always interpret messages on a different level, and it's impossible for agencies to determine what will and won't offend the masses. Catering to one group discriminates against another - no matter what the final decision comes down to, someone will be offended and controversy will surround it. 

Rather than it being in the hands of the agency to shelter humans from what may or may not be ethical, society needs to accept our culture as what it is - an array of ideas, beliefs, and products that are tailored to appeal to a variety of people - not just one single consumer.