What is the role of ethics in contemporary advertising for charities and the techniques they use?
This essay will look at how charities use advertising and advertising techniques to get their message across, what sort of ethics these techniques abide by, and weather or not design work for charities is as ethical as the First Things First Manifesto would suggest.
There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention. Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require our expertise and help.
(2000 First Things First Manifesto)
The updated version of the First Things First Manifesto, which was published in 2000 by Adbusters makes the above claim. Looking through the names of the signatories, I find it interesting to see that it was signed by Lucienne Roberts, the woman who wrote Good: An Introduction To Ethics, one of the books I read sections of to inform the stance of this essay. It’s particularly interesting that under the heading of “The Discomfort of Judging”, she writes the following:
In the modern world the freedom of the individual is all-important. We don’t like being told what to do and question the right of those passing judgement. Conversely, we want to live our lives with a good conscience and so look for mechanisms to facilitate this taking place.
(Roberts, 2006, p.103)
That a signatory of the manifesto would write a book informing people of various ethical viewpoints and ways of thinking, somewhat undermines the idea that Roberts fully subscribes to the manifesto’s way of thinking. Roberts, on the same page, writes the following under the heading of “Thinking Relatively”:
The result of this way of thinking is that a design project cannot be deemed good or bad in itself. It can be said to be good or bad when considered against the circumstances that created it, or by applying a variety of different criteria.
(Roberts, 2006, p.103)
This is something which is difficult with the manifesto Roberts signed. It’s easy enough for someone like Erik Spiekermann to turn down work based on the manifestos suggestions, but not for a young freelancer trying to make a living. This problem with the manifesto is elaborated on and summed up by Michael Beirut in his fourth and eighth footnote in his Ten Footnotes to a Manifesto.
In his fourth footnote, referring to the following extract from the original 1964 manifesto:
We have been bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work of those who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as: cat food, stomach powders, detergent, hair restorer, striped toothpaste, aftershave lotion, beforeshave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodorants, fizzy water, cigarettes, roll-ons, pull- ons and slip-ons.
By far the greatest effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.
(1964 First Things First Manifesto)
He writes, (referring to the list specifically):
This litany of gruesome products has one thing in common: they are all things with which normal people are likely to be familiar. Yet haven’t such common products comprised the subject matter that graphic designers have tackled through history?
(Beirut, 2007, p.56)
In his eighth footnote, he summarises quite simply:
Manifestos are simple; life is complicated
(Beirut, 2007, p.58)
Whilst Bieruts blatant cynicism of the the manifesto isn’t widely endorsed, it’s very much a theoretical view of how the design industry should operate, a view which would never be able to work in practice. That said, the 2000 manifesto suggests that “charitable causes” are “more worthy of our problem solving skills”, and given that the manifesto is a politically and ethically based document, this essay looks into how prominent ethics is in contemporary charity advertising, to assess the influence the manifesto was having on arguably the most worthy of the worthy pursuits. More specifically, the focus is on ethics of the advertising techniques commonly used, as you have to sell your cause somehow, and presenting your case or message is what graphic design is about.
There is justification for the Manifesto though, as few would argue against the idea that deisgn can alter the way people think and act, through guilt and fear amongst other methods, as the Manifesto states:
Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact.
(1964 First Things First Manifesto, )
Pratkanis and Aronson’s Age of Propaganda discusses how guilt can be placed upon someone and the effect it can have on the person and their behaviour:
Guilt can be induced by reminding the target of past sins that have long since been atoned for, by making small transgressions loom large, or by making it appear that the target is responsible for a crime that he or she did not commit. Once we are filled with guilt, our thoughts and behaviour are directed toward ridding ourselves of this feeling. The end result is, at best, the manipulation our behaviour and, perhaps at worst, long-term damage to our self-esteem.
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.178)
Advertising As Communication, written by Gillian Dyer supports what Pratkanis and Aronson say by pointing out that this has been an element of the media for a long time, writing:
As early as the 1930’s, literary critic F.R.Leavis accused the popular media, particularly advertising, of evoking cheap, almost mechanical emotional responses, and inculcating ‘the choosing of the most immediate pleasures got with the least effort’ (1933, p.3). He warned that advertisements corrupted feelings, debased language, exploited peoples emotional needs and fears, and encouraged greed, snobbery and social conformity.
(Dyer, 1982, p.80)
Also adding that “his (Leavis) criticisms of advertising have some force and relevance even today” (Dyer, 1982, 80), which is important, given the passed time since the 1930’s and the changes in society that have come with it.
Christian philosopher St Augustine would argue that this sort of guilt-induction for a charitable cause was OK though, as Roberts explains that:
Augustine notably emphasised the moral significance of motives over actions.
(Roberts, 2006, p.68)
Despite how old this philosophy is, it comes from the routes of Christianity, the religion that modern Western culture has stemmed from, so still carries some significance for this reason, if not for the reason that it is a somewhat difficult moral philosophy to take issue with.
That said, there are different ways to go about doing something, and capitalising on the fact that human sympathy and empathy works best when direct human-to-human interaction is involved by using a presenter, especially a celebrity presenter, is an action that organisations (charitable and non-charitable) often choose to use. This sort of advertising can break down barriers between an audience and a message, explained by Hamish Pringle in Celebrity Sells in the example below for BT:
Bob Hoskins was chosen to be the celebrity presenter to lead the ‘It’s Good to Talk’ campaign and he was a great piece of casting. At that time Hoskins was riding high on his performances as a gangster in films such as ‘The Long Good Friday’ and had great credibility with the male audience. Thus he was able to take the essentially instructional scripts and educate men as to the benefits of allowing women to talk for longer on the phone and further, how they too might improve their key relationships by doing a little of the same.
(Pringle, 2004, p.197-198)
This is backed by Aronson and Pratkanis, as creating a feeling of guilt, through whatever method, instinctively takes our minds off the cause of the guilt and focuses more on the removal of the guilt, as the following quote from their book explains:
When we feel guilty we typically pay little attention to the cogency of an argument, to the merits of a suggested course of action. Instead, our thoughts and actions are directed to removing the feeling of guilt - to somehow making things right or doing the right thing. We fall into the rationalization trap.
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.178)
I came across an advertising campaign for WWF when doing some research for a responsive brief. It’s a good example of how charities can use guilt appeals to raise money and awareness. This particular campaign was to raise awareness of the overfishing of Bluefin Tuna and the treat of extinction they face.
The wording directly challenges the audience to consider a question, leading them towards an answer that induces guilt by making them feel like it’s their fault for not caring as much about the Bluefin Tuna as much as they would a Gorilla, Rhino or Panda, aligning with Pratkanis and Aronson’s statement.
making it appear that the target is responsible for crime that he or she did not commit
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.178)
In this case the crime is the ethical crime of allowing the Bluefin Tuna to become endangered rather than any actual legal crime.
It’s an example of how a presenter can be used to break down barriers.The presenter is the Giant Panda, because of how it represents wildlife in general through the WWF logo. WWF themselves acknowledge this:
WWF’s founders were aware of the need for a strong, recognizable symbol that would overcome all language barriers. They agreed that the big, furry animal with her appealing, black-patched eyes would make an excellent choice.
(WWF, 2015)
By the Panda representing the tuna, barriers are broken down between the tuna and the public by implying that it’s more than just a smelly fish and is in fact just like the adorable giant panda.
This campaign was run in 2010 by an advertising agency called Ogilvy. In 2012 the same agency worked for Chengdu, a province in Western China where a large amount of Giant Pandas live in the wild and in Nature reserves. The campaign aimed to increase tourism in Chengdu, done with a very upbeat social media campaign called Pambassador 2012 with its own YouTube channel, encouraging people to visit Chengdu to interact and familiarise themselves with Pandas. Ogilvy claims on its PR website:
The campaign drove a 30.3% increase in international visitors to Chengdu versus China’s national tourism growth of 1.2%. Global media coverage and high social media fan engagement attracted 255,000 worldwide applicants to live and work in Chengdu.
(Ogilvy, 2015)
That such impressive results were gained from an upbeat and positive message about a serious issue such as panda conservation, makes you wonder if the guilt appeal in this campaign was necessary. Without the challenging message behind the text, the imagery could be considered quite fun and upbeat. Given that most of Ogilvy’s work is for corporate clients and they arguably unnecessarily used guilt in a rare charity campaign, suggests to me that guilt is a go-to appeal for charity campaigns.
Pratkanis and Aronson also write about how and why fear can be used as a technique to manipulate peoples feelings and actions. They write specifically about four things a fear appeal needs to be successful:
Fear appeals are powerful because they channel our thoughts away from careful consideration of the issue at hand towards plans for ridding ourselves of the fear. When illegitimate fears are used, the message promotes deception.
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.162)
a fear appeal is most effective when (1) it scares the hell out of people, (2) it offers a specific recommendation for overcoming the fear-arousing threat, (3) the recommended action is perceived as effective for reducing the threat, and (4) the message recipient believes that he or she can perform the recommended action.
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.165)
This works because charities take advantage of peoples will to be happy, achieved by fulfilling their personal needs. Instilling fear into someone unnecessarily gives people the impression that they need to rid themselves of this fear to become happy. Herbert Marcuse writes about this in One-Dimensional Man. Even suggesting that fulfilling such “false needs” makes us happier that fulling our actual needs, saying:
“We may distinguish both true and false needs. False are those which are superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice. Their satisfaction may be the most gratifying to the individual, but this happiness is not a condition which has to be maintained and protected.”
(Marcuse, 1964, p.4-5, my italics)
The use of the word “misery” is particularly important given that fulling your needs is what makes a person happy, therefore being unable to fulfil your needs should be your biggest fear, as it logically lead to misery.
That said, Dyer talks about how some research has shown that people are only affected by issues that affect them or things that they can relate to or sympathise with:
A member of the audience, some research has shown, cannon be affected by the media if they do not fulfil or gratify a need. For instance, if a person leads an active, varied life, and is secure and stable, no amount of advertising which appeals to fears of loneliness or being a social outcast, or to social snobbery will succeed
(Dyer, 1982, p.76-77)
Meaning that a fear campaign will potentially only work on someone if they already have associations with that fear. It should be pointed out however, that she adds that this is generally accepted as “optimistic research”, and is often argued against. For example, One-Dimensional Man was published over 50 years ago, and despite the media changing due to technological advancement and socio-political change in this period, his philosophy is recently and directly backed by Age of Propaganda, saying of fear appeals:
Given the power of fear to motivate and direct our thoughts, there is much potential for abuse. Illegitimate fears can always be invented for any given propaganda purpose.
(Aronson & Pratkanis, 1997, p.167)
Marcuse’s idea that false needs are thrust upon us is backed by a simple statement from Dyer herself in her introduction, where she writes simply:
Advertising’s central function is to create desires that previously did not exist
(Dyer, 1982, p.6)
It’s interesting to note that these three books all support this view, despite being published with large enough time intervals between them for society and advertising to make noticeable to changes within themselves, with the books being published in 1962, 1982, and 1997. This would suggest to me that the research Dyer referred to as “optimistic” doesn’t carry much weight against the accepted and acknowledged strength of fear appeals.
A recent fear-based campaign was “Get Unhooked” for the NHS from 2007. The print campaign ran for 5 weeks before being stopped due to 774 complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency, with Sky News Reporting that:
The ASA said the posters breached its rules on causing ‘fear and distress’ and children.
(Sky, 2007)
The campaign clearly scared people on a large scale, and when you cross-reference the contents of the campaign other than the scary imagery with Aronson and Pratkanis’ description of what makes a successful fear campaign, you see that this has all of these elements.
It ‘scares the hell out of people’, as the banning of the advert proves, as well as offering a ‘specific recommendation for overcoming the fear-arousing threat’, albeit this is quite the relatively weak and loosely-worded recommendation of “Get unhooked”. Despite this somewhat diluted recommendation, it is still ‘perceived as effective for reducing the threat’ and the suggestion to call the hotline or visit the website provided very much puts the audience in a position where ‘the message recipient believes that he or she can perform the recommended action.’
The BBC’s article covering the banning of this campaign supports Aronson and Pratkanis’ claims that these factors make fear appeals so successful, as well as quantifying numerically the weight a fear campaign can carry. They reported that the Department of Health had said the campaign was ‘highly effective’, and that:
The Department of Health said an anti-smoking helpline and website had been contacted more than 820,000 times during the Get Unhooked campaign.
(BBC, 2007)
Returning to what Roberts wrote about thinking relatively, it would be difficult to class the NHS campaign as anything other than ‘good’ against ‘the circumstances that created it’, despite it breaking ASA Rules relating to children because of the distressing imagery. That such a successful campaign had to be banned because of national law automatically questions it’s ethics. Whilst a utilitarian view sees this as an ethical campaign because it’s potentially improved the lives of 820,000 smokers, it doesn’t take into account the trouble or trauma it may have caused other viewers, especially younger children and their families, that may have been otherwise unaffected by the campaign, as Roberts explains:
Utilitarianism does not distinguish between the pleasure of different persons: not only is the pleasure of the person who undertakes the action taken into account, but also the pleasure of the other people involved.
(Roberts, 2006, p.69)
This view however is much less of an issue in campaigns such as the WWF one shown, which contains far less potential for causing trouble for audiences of the campaign who aren’t in a position to effect the issue at hand. In this instance it is simply asking a question, whereas the NHS campaign is much more forceful and makes statements, leaving far less room for the audience to make up it’s mind, as suggested by Marcuse through his simplified equation of logical thought:
the equation Reason = Truth = Reality, which joins the subjective and objective world into one antagonistic unity
(Marcuse, 1964, p.123)
A Kantian standpoint however, is much more damning of the WWF campaign, as it is directly altering peoples opinion to use them as a means of solving their problem which directly contradicts:
Kant’s idea that we should never treat humanity merely as a means, but always as an end in itself. (Roberts, 2006, p.69)
This is less the case in the NHS advert because it treats humanity as ‘an end’ by putting the health of people as the priority. Despite this, it doesn’t exclude fear appeals from the Kantian bad books entirely, as the principle of scaring people to change their original behaviour is easily exploitable, which would then be using humanity as a means to an end.
Going right back to the 1964 First Things First manifesto, the third paragraph specifically:
By far the greatest effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.
(1964 First Things First Manifesto)
As effort is put into and wasted on non-worthy causes, you would expect therefore that there would at least be effort put into the worthiest of worthy causes, yet the large amount of lazy campaigns that really solely on fear and guilt is out there for all to see. Quite the contradiction given the wording in the 2000 manifesto:
There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills.
(2000, First Things First Manifesto)
How are we to accept that there has been any problem-solving skill employed when all we see for these worthy causes are guilt campaign after fear campaign after guilt campaign?
Utilitarianism and Kantianism are ethical philosophies that make sense and are easy enough to follow, yet in the examples shown, it can be well argued that they too contradict each other to some extent. This essay has suggested through comparisons with ethical philosophies, that the First Things First manifesto is a philosophy in itself, and the fact that it has signatories goes no further to changing this.
Ethical standpoints will always contradict each other, and for that reason it’s easy enough to suggest that ethics has no role in contemporary charity advertising, but, given the ease of guilt and fear campaigns to produce, I personally feel that just the idea of ethics is all there is that holds people back from utilising these methods further.
Word Count:
3,226 plus citation
3,332 with citation
Bibliography
Aronson, E and Pratkanis, A (1997). Age Of Propaganda The Everyday Use And Abuse Of Persuasion. 6th ed. USA: W.H.Freeman and Company. 162-165, 167, 178.
BBC. (2007). Hooked smoking ads ‘broke rules’. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6658335.stm. Last accessed 29th January 2015.
Bierut, M (2007). 79 Short Essays on Design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 55-56, 58.
Dyer, G (1982). Advertising As Communication. 2nd ed. Suffolk: St. Endmundsbury Press. 6, 76-77, 80-81, 147.
First Things First Manifesto, 1964, Ken Garland
First Things First Manifesto, 2000, Asbusters
Leavis, F. R. and Thompson, D (1933). Culture and Evironment, London: Chatto & Windus
Marcuse, H (1964). One-Dimensional Man. London: Routledge. 4-5, 123.
Ogilvy. (2015). CITY of CHENGDU Pambassador 2012: Into The Wild With Chengdu Pandas. Available: http://www.ogilvypr.com/en/case-study/pambassador-2012-wild-chengdu-pandas. Last accessed 28th Jan 2015.
Roberts, L (2006). Good: An Introduction To Ethics In Graphic Design. Switzerland: AVA Puplishing. 66, 68-69, 71, 93, 103, 177.
Sky News. (2007). ‘Too Scary’ Anti-Smoking Poster Banned. Available: http://news.sky.com/story/513615/too-scary-anti-smoking-poster-banned. Last accessed 29th Jan 2015.
WWF. (2015). Giant Panda. Available: http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda. Last accessed 28th Jan 2015.
Sources
