glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Thursday, 27th May 2004
Walking down to my office this morning, I came up with a nice title for my CCELS paper: "The Sweet Smell of Ethical Advertising."
Deodorant advertising makes an interesting subject for a case study because it raises a number of central issues. The argument will give support to or, possibly, gain support from my article "The Business Arena" in Philosophy for Business Issue 5, 7th March 2004.
In my article, I concluded that:
Business and commerce take place in a frame, an arena defined by unwritten rules.
Within the business arena, normal ethics is suspended.
The aim of a philosophy for business is to understand the rules that define the business arena, in other words, to grasp from an ethical perspective how business is possible.
It's good to know what you are aiming at, before you start. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But what I ought to say about advertising, consistently with the claim asserted here, is that there cannot be such a thing as ethical advertising. "The aim for a philosophy of advertising is to understand the rules that define the advertising arena." The aim is not to make advertising ethical, because that simply cannot be done. What we can do is ensure that compulsory or voluntary regulation is in place to prevent advertisers going over a line which has been drawn, more or less arbitrarily, according to current taste and expectations.
That looks rather depressing in cold print, but it is not meant to be. Human beings can learn that they do not need all the things that advertisers tell them that they need. But it is not up to the advertisers to tell them this.
So this is how it goes.
Following on from yesterday, suppose you are a deodorant manufacturer who has conceived the idea of an ethical advertising campaign for your product. Obviously, the deodorant has got to work and not merely be believed to work. It should not contain chemicals which are bad for your health (when the product is used according to instructions). This is more or less where we are now, in relation to current rules on advertising.
What the current rules ignore, or are not designed to cope with, is the point made yesterday. "Body odour" is a phrase invented by advertisers, embodying the concept that any natural human smell is, or ought to be regarded as offensive. It is hard to question a belief when it has become part of language itself. If you have B.O. that is something bad, by definition. B.O. is unpleasant and offensive, because being offensive is part of its concept. But that begs the question whether all bodily odours are unpleasant, or only some.
So let's take our imaginary scenario from here:
The ethical marketing team take the brave decision to question this assumption. The design and advertising of the product will be based around the idea that there are are pleasant as well as unpleasant bodily odours. The chemists are asked to come up with a product which gets rid of the unpleasant odours while not masking the pleasant ones. After extensive research and testing, the product is launched.
The campaign is a great success. The concept captures the public imagination, better than anyone had dared hope.
However, a new trend emerges from the on-going marketing research. A significant proportion of the people questioned express a willingness to try a product which enhances their 'naturally pleasant' bodily smell. The chemists identify a complex blend of chemicals, some of which are capable of synthesis in a laboratory. The ethical marketing team now face a difficult dilemma.
How can it be wrong to market the chemically enhanced product, if this was what people want? The argument for not doing so is that it was the success of the first campaign that created the demand for an added 'natural bodily smell', where none had existed before. This is the very thing that the ethical advertising team had sought to avoid! Against competitors who show no such scruples, however, the ethical advertisers face a losing battle in the marketplace.
The stark truth is that manufacturers and advertisers are as much controlled by the fickle consumer as in control. Rules can be set down concerning what is factually truthful, decent and fair. It is not the advertiser's job to make people better than they are, or want better things than they want. That is the work for politicians and preachers, or, possibly, philosophers.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!