FUNDAMENTALLY EXPLOITIVE?

1. John P. Foley VS Gene R. Laczniak ARE MARKETING AND ADVERTISING FUNDAMENTALLY EXPLOITIVE? Eric Roller Jordan Sheckman Jennifer Socias

2. A Little Background… • Journal of Public Policy and Marketing • Report released in February 1997 by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications • Comments on the state of advertising worldwide • Raises several ethical questions regarding advertising practices • History of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications (PCSC) • Formed on March 1, 1989 • To “deal with questions concerning the instruments of social communication, so that also by these means the message of salvation and human progress may serve the growth of civilization and morality” • After 3 years of preparation, the document entitled “Ethics in Advertising” was published on February 22, 1997

3. John Patrick Foley • A Roman Catholic Archbishop • The president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications • Ordained in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1962, and was named an Archbishop and appointed to his present position in 1984 • He holds a doctorate in philosophy and a master's degree in journalism

4. Dr. Gene R. Laczniak • Marquette University Marketing Faculty • Degrees in • Ph.D. in Marketing • M.B.A. • B.S. in Business Administration • Research Interests • Marketing ethics • Marketing strategy • Business ethics • Marketing and society • Member of the editorial review board of the Journal of Marketing for 15 years • Has published 6 books and over 100 journal articles and papers

5. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? YES • Foley’s summary of the report • Introduction • Benefits of Advertising • Economic • Helps economic growth  helps human development • Political • Education of political parties and candidates • Cultural • Ads can be entertaining and motivate positive actions • Moral and Religious • “Delivering messages of faith, of patriotism, of tolerance, compassion and neighborly service”

6. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? YES • Foley’s summary of the report (cont.) • Harms of Advertising • Economic • Deceptive advertising • Promoting a life of unbridled consumption • Promoting irrational buying decisions • Political • High advertising costs • Nature of political ads disrupt the democratic process • Ex. The 2006 Election

7. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? YES • Foley’s summary of the report (cont.) • Harms of Advertising • Cultural • Misrepresenting nations, cultures and women • Ex. Borat • Promoting superficiality and neglecting educational and social needs of market segments • Moral and Religious • Inappropriate content • Encouraging feelings of envy, status-seeking and lust

8. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? YES • Foley’s summary of the report (cont.) • Ethical and Moral Principles • Truthfulness • Dignity of the human person • Social responsibility • Conclusion • Advertisers are responsible for using ethical advertising • The industry should use “voluntary ethical codes” • The government should intervene • 1998 Public Policy Conference • Agrees with the report • Areas the report does not cover • Not the church claiming a monopoly on truth, but rather trying to articulate a consensus

9. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? NO • The Statement’s Fundamental Structure and Method • Laczniak argues that the conclusions are overstated, only partially true, economically naïve, and socially idealistic • In order for the essay to be credible, it should be supported not by sectarian, religious documents but mainly by references to the most current and reputable social science and business literature dealing with the social outcomes of advertising • The multiple criticisms only raise more issues rather than suggest solutions • The Statement’s Likely Impact: Ideal or Actual • It will be difficult for the statement to have much impact on the business world without some sort of publicity to upper-level marketing and advertising executives

10. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? NO • Observations Likely to Be Attacked • The clergy lacks economic understanding and presents their observations critically and without justification. • 1. Brand-related advertising is criticized for causing irrational buying patterns and serious ethical problems, but there is no clear evidence presented • Laczniak argues that “branding enables consumers to accrue a shorthand form of product identification and provides them with a longitudinally consistent indicator of price and quality across product categories” • Vatican’s authority is questioned with vague and critical analysis.

11. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? NO • Observations Likely to Be Attacked (cont.) • 2. Political Advertising is attacked for only having competitive negative messages and being dysfunctional • It is true that traditional interpersonal communications have evolved into mass communications sometimes containing destructive negative advertising, but it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution • How much else will church leaders want to censor? • 3. The Vatican portrays media practitioners as facing choice: help human persons to grow in their understanding and practice of what is true and good, or be the destructive forces in conflict with human well being • Laczniak argues that human nature is not either black or white, everything is not either all good or all bad • This is a simplistic way of thinking

12. Are Marketing and Advertising Fundamentally Exploitive? NO • Moral Principles Relevant to Improving Advertising Ethics • The PCSC Essay suggests truthfulness, human dignity, and social responsibility be used in the judgment of ethical advertising • These issues have already been discussed by the advertising community itself • There are professional codes of advertising ethics, as well as the law • Ex. Phone carriers, PETA billboard, and child obesity

13. So Who Wins? YOU DECIDE!