The State Should Ban all Advertising of Consumer Goods and Services (Coursework Sample)

In their continuous pursuit of customer attraction and the need to associate their products with the perception of self-gratifying, luxurious or fresh, some advertising companies end up pushing the limits of what is considered socially and ethically acceptable. The vital economic doctrines that guided the development of advertising have not only social but also legal effects. A violation of these brings up social consequences and forces the government to take measures to correct these violations. What is irresponsible, offensive or excessive is decided by society while states set the parameters on what should be considered unfair or deceptive.
It is imperative that advertisers understand these issues so as to remain within the bounds of economically ethical, socially and ethical responsibility. This paper seeks to shed some light on whether or not the state should ban all forms of advertising on consumer services and products, and provide informed arguments on the stance taken in support thereof.
The Controversies Surrounding Advertising.
Marketing is one of the most noticeable activities of trade. By welcoming people to try their goods, companies risk public condemnation and attack if their advertising fails to please or is offensive to the target market. Failure to live up to the promise as advertised will also lead to such consequences. Those in support of advertising, therefore, state that it is indeed more safe to buy goods which have been advertised as companies will try as much as possible to save face when their reputation and names are on the line(particularly when it lists product profit).
Advertising is both highly praised and criticized not only for its role in selling products but also for its sway on the economy and on the public. For many years, critics have torn apart advertising for a variety of sins—some of them real, some imagined. Although advertising is not entertainment, journalism or education, it regularly covers all three.
What then is advertising? According to Albert Lasker’s original definition, advertising is mostly printed salesmanship (or in today’s dialect, in the paid time and space of the media). Advertising should not be judged by standards set by education, journalism or entertainment, even though it has traits in common with them. One of the main reasons why sponsors turn to an advertisement is because they trust it will help them sell some idea, service or product. It is a communication method meant to entice a particular audience to buy products, services or ideas.
Many controversies still surround the advertisement field, many of which focus primarily on the economic role it plays. Most of the questions arise are centered on issues such as:
* How is the product value affected?
* Do the prices become lower or do they become higher?
* How is competition affected? Does it promote competition or discourage it?
* Is overall consumer demand overturned? How does advertising affect overall consumer demand?
* What effect does advertising have on customer choice and the cycle of business in general?
Many other controversies shed light on or ask questions related to the societal effects of advertisement. Some of the issues raised are:
* Does advertising make us worldlier?
* Are consumers forced to buy products they do not need?
* What are the subliminal messages that reach buyers in a way they have cannot control?
* What is the effect of advertising on the society and culture?
* Does advertising demean our lingo?
There is always a new batch of questions that springs up from these social and economic controversies, particularly in regard to accountability and the control of the way adverts are passed to the consumer and the public in general. What is the appropriate function of participants in the promotion process? How much freedom should marketers have in the type of products they seek to promote and how they publicize them? What about the position of consumers? Do they carry some form of responsibility in the practice? Last but not least, what part does the government play? Are there consume protection laws in place? Which are the laws which go a bit too far and infringe on a marketer’s freedom of speech? There are no definite answers to these important questions, but discussion is healthy.
Criticism of Advertising.
In as much as advertising is essential for the growth of the economy, it attracts social costs. Various forms of spam messages coupled with emails which are unsolicited have become so familiar that they are now problematic to those who use these services.They also double up as a financial burden to internet service providers. In addition, advertising progressively encroaches on public spaces such as schools, and this has been dubbed a form of child exploitation by some critics. The pressure applied on consumers psychologically may be harmful.["Slashdot | ISP Operator Barry Shein Answers Spam Questions". Interviews.slashdot.org. 2003-03-03. Retrieved 2016-05-21] ["How Marketers Target Kids". Media-awareness.ca. 2009-02-13. Retrieved 2009-04-20.]
The more advertising becomes prevalent in the public sphere, the more it comes under criticism. It is also encroaching on the private spaces of consumers, and it is "It is becoming harder to escape from advertising and the media. "[Georg Franck.]
Advertising and the Social Impact It has on Consumers.
Because of its visibility, advertising gets repeatedly criticized, both for what it is not, and for what it is. It has been termed manipulative and deceptive. Many of the criticisms focus on the style of advertising, saying it’s deceptive or manipulative. Such type of arguments can be referred to as manipulative but in the short term. Other critics sift attention to the environmental and social brunt advertisement bears. These are now macro arguments which are long term. There are two principles attached to the social aspect and these are absence of externalities and complete information.
On social debates, these are instances when advertising tends to infringe on some these fundamental economic principles. The issues arising from these can be dissected from two standpoints, with the most important being manipulation and deception. The effect advertisement has on our value system, stereotypical nuances; offensive nature of marketing and commercial clutter can also be factored in.
The deceptive nature of advertising - One common argument put forth in support of banning advertisement is that it is more often than not deceptive. The core of a marketplace is embedded in a willing buyer, willing seller foundation. Anything which veers from a mutual contentment of both parties lead to a loss which in turn hurts either the seller r the buyer. If a product fails to measure up to the standards set by an ad, it brings about dissatisfaction, which is harmful to the seller and the buyer on a long term basis.
The success of an advertisement is hinged on the confidence of consumers. Any deception steers away from the important principle of complete and transparent information and also takes the risk of self-defeating, because it beats the purpose of advertising. Trade puffs may also be taken in their literal sense and thus regarded as deceptive. Puffery is nonfactual claims which are exaggerated. For example "Extra quality" because there is no way to measure quality. or: the best" or "premier”. Under the existing regime of advertising law, only those product claims, either implied or express, whose facts cannot be proven or portray a false impression are considered to have the potential of misleading people. Puffery is however not included because regulative bodies maintain that people will not believe it. Advertisers employ the use of exaggerated trade puffs to sell their products. Hence, they must think consumers believe it. These facts are not quintessentially about the product, but about the consumer or about the social sphere within which the buyer uses the brand. For example "Pepsi, the choice of a new generation.”
The truth is that product promotion is not full information by its very nature. It contains a lot of bias for the brand in question and the advertiser. In as much as people do expect advertisers to take pride in their goods and do not mind a little puff here and there, a problem arises when markets cross the line by creating false expectations. It is at this point that people begin to question and to object to this deception. A problem arises however in deciding where the line should be drawn since it is seen differently by people
Subliminal Advertisement: In a bid to attract customers, advertisers someone come up with ads which have sexual innuendos just below the threshold of discernment. This is what is known as subliminal advertising. This criticism is based on the notion that by embedding what would reasonably be considered as a dirty language in the ads, then the advertiser will make us want to buy the product. Even though several scholars have debunked this theory over the years, there is still a widespread fear that sellers are messing with our minds.
Psychological manipulation follows, and without our express consent, we end up buying goods which we do not need or want. In essence, this touches on the principle of complete information because this criticism puts forth a suggestion that advertising does not give consumers the freedom to make rational decisions, but rather, brainwashes them into it. Consumers are, therefore, portrayed as prey which is powerless in the jaws of the predators who are marketers.
The Public sphere/ space and the proliferation of advertising: One of the most familiar long-term complaints about marketing it is just a bit too much. The networks do very little to help the situation by congesting every single moment with their a...