50 Shades of Media Ethics – It’s a Grey World

In “Media Ethics” by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, we learn that ethics are a rational process founded on certain agreed-on principles (p. 4).   As such, it is open to individual interpretation --- there is no one right resolution.   In absence of black & white (right & wrong), it is up to the individual to navigate through a sea of greys to choose the right solution or path.

Source: roflcat.com: weknowmemes.com; knowyourmeme.com 

Advertising, my chosen career, has been much maligned for a lack of ethics – witness the old adage: There’s no truth in advertising.   It’s even a punch line, “Read the fine print”, a TV character might say when they’ve been caught deceiving someone.   The purpose of advertising is to sell: a product, a service, an image.   Advertisers may feel that presenting their product in a truthful manner may dampen the message – “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story”.   After all, it is called the “ugly truth”.  

There are governing bodies such as the Federal Communications Committee, the American Advertising Federation and many industry specific organizations that set rules and guidelines about advertising.  So why does the public distrust ads so much?   It’s in the shades of grey.  Few companies will issue an advertisement that is outright false and easily disputed.  But how many will create one that is ambiguous, or misleading by what is contained or omitted in the message?  Too many will in the quest for sales.

Case in point: Splenda®.  When Splenda first came on the market in the US, it touted itself as a natural sugar substitute that was derived from sugar but without the pesky calories.  Sounds great thought dieters and diabetics everywhere.   Not so great as it was not quite true.   Turns out that there is nothing natural about the product as it is made in a laboratory from chemical compounds.  Both the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Sugar Association waged war against the Splenda claims and after a contentious court battle, Splenda revised their advertising to be more accurate.  

Misleading the public is not only wrong ethically but it is costly as McNeil Nutritionals, the makers of Splenda can attest.  It is also poor business.  Once a brand becomes tarnished, it is very difficult to regain the public’s trust.  For McNeil, they had a tough road ahead of them and they decided to aggressively discount their product through coupons and promotions to gain back lost market share.   Now with stiff competition from other ‘natural’ artificial sweeteners, McNeil has put Splenda up for sale.

In my career, I’ve been responsible for both the media and creative for a variety of consumer and business products.  Whereas some might find it tempting to omit certain truths or to be intentionally vague about benefits to generate higher sales, I’ve always found it best to be transparent.  My own personal guiding principles are: transparency and accuracy.  Believe in your product (service or image) and promote it to right target audience and the sales will come.   If the product is good and is priced for the market, there’s no need to be vague, ambiguous or misleading.   And if it’s not, improve the product.  The damage to the brand for short term gain isn’t worth it. 

For those entering the field and wondering how to develop their set of guiding principles, I’d recommend following Bok’s model:

First, consult your own conscience about the “rightness” of an action. How do you feel about the action? Second, seek expert advice for alternatives. Third, conduct a public discussion with the parties involved. (Patterson & Wilkins, p 5)

If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. If something seems unclear, vague or misleading, it probably is. If you are in doubt, ask a more seasoned colleague or mentor. Finally, show it to your target audience; do a quick online or in store focus group and get feedback. If the public misinterprets your ad or the product benefits, revise it.

Fortunately, for me, those situations have been far and few between.  I have been very deliberate in my choice of companies to work for and brands to represent.  While there have been opportunities to earn more at different organizations, it has always been important to me to be proud of where I work, what I work on and what I do.  In the rare instances where there has been an ethical quandary over messaging, I’ve been able to use my position as a subject matter expert to influence the outcome.  This is akin to Aristotle’s phrenemos – person of practical wisdom who excelled at ethical decisions in their daily activities. 

Below are three philosophical approaches to ethics: 

Table 1.1: Patterson & Wilkins, p. 11

Aristotle puts the emphasis on the decision maker.  Kant puts the emphasis on the decision and Mill puts it on the outcome.  The latter requires the decision maker to weigh the benefits of the stakeholders (typically the company and the public); this can prove disastrous if based on short sighted economic goals.

As Mill’s method is the most complex and fraught with risk, it is the most interesting to me to learn more about it and gain a new perspective.

Fine print: 
Media Ethics : Issues and Cases. Philip Patterson / Lee Wilkins, 8th edition. McGraw Hill 2014
McNeil Nutritionals is a division of Johnson & Johnson