3.8 Context #3: Advertising

Some communication students end up in the fields of advertising, marketing, and PR, while others just remain consumers, but as the discussion of Reasoned Skepticism argued, all have ethical responsibilities. Advertising agencies know about false advertising and consumer protection laws, but aren’t above playing tricks that are technically legal but ethically dubious. Out of the 10 types of lies outlined earlier, the law addresses the first one (factual lies) but may not cover not the fourth and fifth types (lies by omission and paltering).

Lies of omission are particularly tricky, since it’s hard to define when not mentioning something crosses the line and becomes a lie. Think of the famous phrase used to swear in witnesses, “Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The first and third criteria are relatively clear, but the middle one must be hard to enforce: should a witness tell their entire life story on the stand? In regard to advertising, are manufacturers morally obligated to mention the downsides of their product? When it comes to pharmaceutical ads, they are legally required to mention side effects (and after a few years of very fast talking, were made to slow down that part of the ad so people can actually hear it), but that’s only for drug ads. Are mouthwash companies morally obligated to let you know that the burning sensation from keeping their product in your mouth for 30 seconds is a challenge?^[1] Is Invisalign ethically bound to let you know in their commercials that you should keep their product in your mouth 20–22 hours a day for the rest of your life, or is it okay for them to leave it up to your orthodontist to tell you that?

As for paltering (saying things that are technically true but give the listener the wrong impression), advertisers were doing that long before Mario Pei wrote a book about “weasel words” in 1978.^[2] Weasel words can take the form of numerically vague expressions, like “30% less fat” without saying what they’re comparing it to: a 5-pound tub of butter?. They can also include passive voice (“it is said that”) and deliberately vague verbs and adverbs. When a company says, for instance, that its product “helps” you lose weight or avoid a heart attack, there is no way to quantify exactly how much it has to “help” before it earns that word. Many consumers miss the “your mileage may vary” disclaimers and take those as concrete promises. And yes, that apartment can get away with bragging about an “ocean view” even if it takes an eagle eye to spot that narrow strip of water.

One of my favorite legal terms is “puffery”: legally allowable exaggeration that is okay precisely because it’s so overstated and general. When advertisers use phrases like “the perfect gift for everyone on your list” or “the movie everyone’s talking about,” it’s not considered false advertising because no one really believes it or is harmed by it. Even before the advent of false advertising laws, the principle of “buyer beware” was long established, as revealed by the fact that we use an ancient Latin phrase, “caveat emptor,” to describe it.

Study examples of deceptive advertising long enough and you may end up with the impression that the whole economy depends on tricks and gimmicks like these. However, in Chapter 6 (Persuasion) there’s a discussion of the problem with gimmicks: people catch on and stop listening or buying. If your business model is to make a sale even if the customer is unhappy about it, your model might work if you can keep finding new customers, but wouldn’t it be a better alternative to not play games and to make sure your customers are satisfied instead? That’s one more advantage to being an ethical communicator: customer loyalty. If you get a job in marketing or advertising, you may not have the power to insist on avoiding sneaky tricks, but perhaps you can convince your employer that “playing it straight” has practical advantages.