Just think what a good politician could do with face time like that. Or worse, a bad one.
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see…. the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
That's Adolf Hitler, if you don't know. It frightens many in the business of "propaganda" to realize how carefully Hitler studied the craft of persuasion.
And it should.
Because the reality is, those of us working in commercial media influence thousands of people every day. That's what we're supposed to do. But what are the values we're selling along with whatever we're selling?
This old saw made its way around the Internet just a few weeks ago: A woman has three brothers. One is in prison for murder; one is a drug dealer; and one is in advertising. The woman asks Dear Abby: should I tell my fiancÈe about the brother in advertising?
Advertising is an easy target when it comes to integrity. But it is far from the being the worst offender. It's hard to open a newspaper today without ethics slapping you in the face.
In the last two years, two top Georgia officials and a candidate for Governor were fined for violating state ethics laws. Two state senators have been convicted of felony criminal charges, and both face prison terms.
The Atlanta Olympics, once a story of hope and triumph, is now tainted with titillating scandals of sex, lies, and profiteering.
The Clinton White House - which famously promised us the most ethical administration in history ó has left us struggling with the most personal of ethical issues: is oral sex sex.
Stepping back from the utter foolishness of that question there is this useful morsel: the idea of definition.
Defining boundaries is the first step towards actualization.
As with most things in life, wrongs are easier to spot than right.
Even in its infancy, President Calvin Coolidge noted that advertising affected "what we eat, what we wear, and the work and play of a whole nation."
This is no doubt why the industry's national trade association, the American Association of Advertising Agencies (www.aaaa.org), established written Standards of Practice in 1924.
The Four A's is not a regulatory body. Its Creative Code, however, is very clear on the fundamentals: no false or misleading statements or price claims; no statements or pictures offensive to public decency.
There are three types of regulation in the industry, says William B. B. Smith, a partner in the Atlanta office of international law firm Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. Smith practices intellectual property law with a specific focus on advertising.
Types of regulation include formal regulation through the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov); self-regulation through the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (www.bbb.org/advertising); and the court of last resort, civil litigation (www.deeptrouble.com).
"Formal regulation is the Federal Trade Commission," said Smith. "They are charged by Congress with regulating unfair trade practices. In that role, they bring formal enforcement action."
The FTC monitors national advertising to identify unfair or deceptive practices. In general, Commission law requires that advertising be truthful, substantiated, and fair.1 The majority of actions brought by the FTC target misrepresentations or omissions likely to mislead reasonable consumers.
Self-regulation occurs through the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau. Consumers or companies can submit complaints to NAD.
"NAD is the industry's primary means of self-regulation. Participation is voluntary," Smith laughs, "but if you decline to participate, they refer you to the FTC."
Like the FTC, the NAD focuses on truth and accuracy. Questions about taste or morality are referred back to the advertiser, no doubt with a huge sigh of relief.
Because determining truth in advertising is hard enough.
The landscape of advertising is dotted with campaign themes from the grandiose (OshKosh/What the future wears) to the straightforward (coolsavings.com/save.then shopô).
Puffery is not just accepted, it's expected. "Puffing," says Bill Smith, is the practice of making a claim so exaggerated or general that consumers don't expect you to prove it. If a line is considered mere puffery and not an objectively provable claim, it requires no substantiation.
One example is the famous Joe Isuzu campaign of years back. Not even Ralph Nader demanded proof that Isuzu cars were "faster than a speeding bullet."
The danger for agencies and advertisers a like comes when puffing ventures too close to comparison.
Case in point ó the recent court battle between Papa John's Pizza (lead agency, Atlanta's Fricks/Firestone) and Pizza Hut.
Following a series of competitive ads by Papa John's in 1998, Pizza Hut leveled charges that Papa John's misrepresented its products. Papa John's countersued. Last November, both companies were found to be in violation of the Lanham Act, which governs acceptable commercial statements.2
One issue was Papa John's tag line, "Better ingredients. Better pizza." AdWeek reported on November 29, 1999, that a federal jury in Dallas had deemed the tag line false and misleading, and that a replacement was in the works.3
But that's not the end of the tale. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on February 4 that Papa John's has asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reject Pizza Hut's application to trademark it's slogan, "The Best Pizzas Under One Roof," contending that it is "deceptively misdescriptive."
To Bill Smith, the case is significant "because it shows that the legal effect of a slogan depends not only on what words you use, but the context in which you use them."
"Say you're selling ice cream," he explains. "You do a print ad and show a picture of your ice cream with the line, ëBest tasting ice cream you can buy.' That's probably puffing and you're not going to need proof that it's true. But put your ice cream in the foreground and your competitors in the background, and you may be turning that puffing into a comparative claim."
If walking the puff line seems difficult, imagine the frustration of writing about prescrip-tion drugs.
You just know writers despair at having to craft words like these for a recent Xenical ad: "You may experience gas with oily discharge, increased bowel movements, an urgent need to have bowel movements and an inability to control them."
The good news about the Internet is also the bad news.
Yes, it's the great equalizer. It levels the playing field between mega-corporations and tiny upstarts. It removes the traditional barriers between people and information.
It also removes traditional gatekeepers like network or magazine standards divisions. For this reason, the oldest scams in the book are seeing new life on the Internet. The more the Internet becomes an engine of commerce, Smith points out, the more critical regulation of some kind becomes.
The FTC and NAD are coming down hard and fast with Internet regulation measures. But for now, there are few controls. Web site hosts rarely, if ever, ask for substantiation - even if you promise a cure for AIDS, as one site did.
"On the Internet, the advertiser becomes both broadcaster and publisher," says Smith concludes. "It's surprising how many advertisers will be scrupulous about having materials reviewed, but not web sites. We tell our clients that what they put on the Internet should especially be reviewed by counsel."
But for Smith, "legal" isn't the only standard to meet.
To paraphrase Smith paraphrasing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: The law establishes the minimum requirements for living in society. We should aspire to a higher standard than that.
And that is the line of demarcation between truth in advertising, and ethics in advertising.
George Fuller, VP/ACD of WestWayne/ Tampa, is as straight-up a human being as you'll find in business today. Funny, but that's exactly what he says about agency president Ben West.
Along with writer Ryan Stafford, Fuller has written some Publix radio spots that have actually been requested by consumers and, on one occasion, a preacher. There's no hard sell in the spots. There's no sell at all.
Each spot was carefully planned with Publix Director of Marketing and Advertising Kevin Lang to address things the Publix management considered important. Things like listening to children, respecting aging parents, and simply, doing the right thing.
"It's refreshing to work with a company like Publix," Fuller says. "They embrace their credo as much as anyone could. Some people will defend advertising saying, "We are a reflection of the culture. If it seems cynical, I'm sorry. That's the way life is. I don't buy that argument at all."
Fuller's perspective is that companies in business for the long haul approach advertising with a different mindset.
"The reason most companies give for advertising is always some variation ofÖ. Move this stuff off the shelves," Fuller explains. "But it's deeper than that. In the case of Publix, the point isn't only to sell out of toilet paper by Saturday. It's to make it so people come to you when they need toilet paper."
WestWayne, like many agencies, does not have a written code of ethics. "But if your moma didn't raise you right, you're not going to pay attention to an employee handbook anyway," says Fuller.
"It's so clichÈ but so undeniably true: the guy at the top sets the tone. If he tweaks the truth, everybody's going to feel license or pressure to tweak the truth. Ben West is a pretty straight-up guy."
BBDO/South understands. The agency used the strength of prominent Atlanta leaders as the cornerstone for a new Atlanta 2000 campaign. The first ad features Congressman John Lewis.
"We focused on a number of leaders from Atlanta who, during a defining moment, took a leap of faith and did the right thing," says President and CEO Chris Hall. "There's nothing more powerful than the truth. If we can achieve compelling relevance by unveiling the truth, we've done the consumer and our client a great service."
The responsibility to be ethical in advertising becomes more complex in the spotlight. Especially when you are a minority and you represent a minority community.
Dan Vargas knows this better than most. Along with partner Tony Flores, Vargas runs Atlanta's only full-service Hispanic-owned advertising agency.
"Hispanics buy into the American dream," says Vargas. "But they only buy into it once. Because the ëugly American' has tried to exploit them without giving back. When we come in as Hispanic owned and run, everything we say has to be exactly right. You are looked upon as being the community leader."
Given the emerging financial clout of the Hispanic market, more and more companies are trying to tap into it. In this case, says Vargas, community relations is the key.
"Companies are coming to us left and right saying, ëI want to reach the Hispanic market.' When we tell them the way to reach them is to give back, they don't always understand. We will not take an account that exploits the community without giving back to it."
This position hasn't won the agency many friends in the ad community, says Vargas. But it has won him something he considers more important.
"The title "Don" is one of respect, and you've got to earn it. The first time someone called me "Don Vargas," it took me by surprise. I thought they got my name wrong."
Monday, January 31, Super Bowl day plus one. The headline in the AJC's News for Kids section reads, "Just Buy It."
You're constantly being targeted by advertisers, the article says, asking kids: Do you know how to be a smart consumer?"
Yes, it's come to this. A primer in self-defense against advertising, wrapped in a product (albeit a noble one) which is itself 70% advertising.
But the point is well taken. The average American child spends 3-4 hours a day in front of some kind of screen - television, video game, computer. That's more time per year than they spend in school.4
There are 31 million teenagers in the United States today who were weaned on consumerism. They spend an average of $84 dollars a week - $336 a month - on top brands like Nike, Clinique, and Tommy Hilfiger. No wonder these kids are being called "Generation Buy."5
We should be grateful they use money and not guns. This lead comes straight from the pages of the newspaper:
"Rico Wilson and Eric Perkinson went shopping for a BMW with a 9mm pistol."
It makes me shudder. The whole purpose of advertising, after all, is to sell. To make people want things. But what happens when we succeed too well and people want things desperately?
Jelly Helm was a wildly successful art director at Weiden & Kennedy. His work can be found in every major awards book. Today, he splits his time between The Martin Agency and teaching at Virginia Commonwealth University. In a speech last October, Helm launched a salvo the advertising community will feel for years to come.
He said:
"Advertising's influence comes from the common theme underlying every ad, repeated thousands of times, day after day: Buying things will make you happy. When you build a system on a foundation of desire, dissatisfaction, and envy, people buy things - yes. But at the expense of some damage to the psyche."
But as we all know, the line between advertising and other forms of communication becomes fuzzier every day.
Nike co-opted the Beatles song "Revolution" to sell shoes. Absolut hired authors like John Irving to craft pieces of short fiction around vodka. Whittle Communications beams Channel One, a soft-news program targeted at teenagers and featuring stories on products, into schoolrooms around the country. And "sponsored educational materials" go as far as teaching children to count using Tootsie Rolls (www.commercialfree.org).
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Adbusters magazine (www.adbusters.org) is on a mission. They call it culture jamming and they believe it will be to the information age "what civil rights was to the ë60s."
They poke capitalism in the eye with articles like "Pop, Product, Person" and activist campaigns like "Buy Nothing Day." They tattle on spurious legislation like the Supreme Court ruling (Santa Clara Country v. Southern Pacific Railroad) which gave corporate entities the same Constitutional rights as citizens. They incited and published a manifesto for change, "First Things First 2000," signed by some of the country's top creatives.
The question Adbusters raises isn't whether the end justifies the means, but whether the end is justifiable at all.
Despite its name, Adbusters isn't anti-advertising, it's anti-irresponsibility. It's Don Quixote without the delusion, tilting at any entity that would rather fill its pockets than sustain a livable planet.
Adbusters is a magazine, web site and agency (called Powershift) run by the same kind of intelligent, sometimes eccentric creatives who people the advertising industry. With one small difference: Something in them has broken or blossomed, making them unafraid to take on Walt Disney, Philip Morris, or Corporate America itself.
Their mission is to drag advertising back to reality and to rattle our teeth when we start to believe our own tall tales. After all, something is dangerously amiss when we cling desperately to the idea that driving sporty Euro hatchbacks will somehow buy back our souls.
The magazine asks us to take inventory of ourselves. Of advertising. And, more important, to take stock of the much bigger world outside.
The Death of Outrage, by William J. Bennett, is a carefully reasoned treatise on the Clinton White House. But in a larger sense, it is a book on ethics. He wrote it, he says, because he believes that "Moral good and moral harm are very real things, and moral good or moral harm can come to a society by what it esteems and by what it disdains."
What does our advertising say we value?
Media theorist Marshall McCluhan said that "historians and archeologists will one day discover that the ads of our times are the richest and most faithful daily reflection that any society ever made of its entire range of activities."
Make no mistake about it. There is power in advertising. And we each make choices as to how we wield that power.
The study of ethics demands that we examine and articulate the body of values we hold. As individuals, as communities, and as a nation.
The application of ethics to advertising demands something else. As the legendary Bill Bernbach said and Jelly Helm used so vividly, it demands not just that "we believe in what we sell. But that we sell what we believe.
1
www.ftc.gov/speeches/anthony/aliaba.htm2
http://members.adweek.com/archive/adweek/adweek/1999/aw112 299/awsouthwest/3
http://members.adweek.com/archive/adweek/adweek/1999/aw112 999/awnational/4
AJC, 6-28-99, "Kids clock.."5
AJC, 6-28-99, "Generation Buy"