Although all advertisements can be seen as manipulative, it is important for the public to be informed about their choices when making purchases. If advertising followed consistent standards, providing only helpful information through words without any additional visual appeal, there would be no ethical dilemma. However, the truth is that advertising often manipulates and creates false desires, and advertising agencies are not using their power over the public responsibly.
Essentially, advertising aims to achieve four goals: firstly, advertisements aim to raise awareness; secondly, they aim to establish a brand’s name and identity; thirdly, advertisements strive to provide memorable information to the public; and lastly, controversially, they are used to persuade consumers that their product will improve their lives (Business Ethics: Truth in Advertising, film). Certain advertisements, especially those for alcohol and tobacco, have been accused of more severe ethical breaches.
Failure to comply with instructions regarding alcohol and tobacco can have deadly consequences, even though the products themselves are not directly responsible for causing death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.CDC.gov) reports that in 2008, there were 80,000 deaths attributed to alcohol, making it the third leading cause of death in the United States as a result of lifestyle choices. Cigarettes contain 70 known cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, tar, and formaldehyde – substances also used for rat extermination, road paving, and embalming. In just one year alone (2008), tobacco use caused 443,000 deaths in the United States; this number includes 49,000 deaths resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke. Current smoking patterns suggest that around 25 million Americans who are currently alive will die prematurely due to smoking-related illnesses. Shockingly enough, five million of these individuals will be under the age of 18. Despite efforts to regulate these practices, both the alcohol and tobacco industries frequently face allegations of targeting young adults and teenagers. These industries employ sophisticated tactics aimed at manipulating viewers by portraying false images of sex appeal and youthfulness while creating an illusion of a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle. Thanks to these strategies,, millions of people have succumbed to consuming alcohol and smoking cigarettes.
Various forms of advertising can be observed for products, including sporting events, billboards, magazines, and even daily television commercials promoting alcohol. Despite the awareness that these products are harmful and potentially fatal, their promotion and consumption persist. This paper aims to analyze the broader social repercussions as well as the specific impacts on individuals caused by advertising in the alcohol and tobacco sectors. These industries generate enormous profits amounting to billions of dollars and prioritize economic factors that shape their decision-making processes.
Understanding the ethical issues in advertising alcohol and tobacco products involves considering the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. The analysis must include the corporations that produce and promote the products, the agencies that create the ads, the media that accept and display them, the government that regulates them, and ultimately the consumers who determine their effectiveness.
The key topics addressed in this paper are the issues of oral and ethical responsibility, rights, justice, and duties. Given the latest sales gimmicks promoting alcohol using “Boy Bands”, appealing to patriotism and charitable causes, and the continuous development of sweet and fruity or candy-flavored alcoholic beverages, along with tobacco companies promoting flavored loose tobacco and cigars while flavored cigarettes are banned, it raises the question of whether the use of these advertising tactics is ethically, morally, and socially responsible. (Tuttle, 2013) Considering the health problems and deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco, do these industries have a responsibility to refrain from engaging in deceptive practices or advertising that creates false consumer desires or beliefs? Should all forms of alcohol and tobacco advertising be completely prohibited if they contribute to the market power of monopolies and oligopolies? This paper will explore these questions in relation to specific stakeholders by employing the aforementioned ethical theories. II.
Advertising from alcoholic and tobacco companies has historically aimed to deceive individuals into craving their products, utilizing various societal, economic, political, and legal circumstances. These advertisements emphasize the belief that the joy derived from consuming these items surpasses any apprehensions regarding personal well-being. They portray an alluring and unrestrained way of life, suggesting that by partaking in these products, people can attain a similar existence.
Advertising distorts people’s perception of reality by creating unrealistic social standards and criteria. This perpetuates an unhealthy and addictive society, resulting in various negative health effects such as lung cancer, emphysema, diabetes, bronchitis, infertility, low sperm count, liver disease, depression, nerve damage, and even death. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States followed by cancer; the increasing rates of these diseases are directly linked to the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products which are heavily promoted through advertising. The financial impact is significant: in 2008 alone, the tobacco industry spent 59.94 billion dollars on advertising while the alcohol industry spent 2 billion dollars. Ultimately, consumers bear these costs along with the loss of lives caused by these health risks. Furthermore,society faces substantial expenses due to these aforementioned health risks.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that cigarette smoking caused $193 billion in health-related economic losses annually in the United States from 2000 to 2004. This includes $96 billion in direct medical expenses and an additional $97 billion lost due to decreased productivity. Additionally, individuals who spend their money on alcohol and tobacco, substances with high addictive potential, are choosing not to support public infrastructure initiatives or invest in the education and well-being of their children.
Before the harmful effects of tobacco were discovered, there were few regulations in advertising. However, in 1964, the Surgeon General of the IIS released a report connecting tobacco use to various health problems. This report sparked the implementation of legal regulations in advertising. Time Magazine notes that as a result, there was an increase in restrictive laws such as requiring warning labels on packages and prohibiting radio and TV ads. Nonetheless, tobacco companies adapted their tactics by appealing to younger demographics through promoting candy cigarettes and using mascots like Joe Camel.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to regulate tobacco industry advertising in 1996, but the Supreme Court rejected their efforts. However, with President Obama’s support in 2010, Congress granted the FDA authority to regulate tobacco industry advertising techniques. The Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCC), a part of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has also implemented policies that promote self-regulation in alcohol advertising.
According to an FTC report, self-regulation is crucial for protecting consumers and has many benefits. The FTC has worked with industry groups to develop effective self-regulatory measures that enhance their fight against unfair practices. This collaboration enhances consumer protection in the market. Nevertheless, it is clear that alcohol and tobacco companies continue to employ deceptive tactics that go unnoticed by the FTC.
The regulatory government entities are mostly underfed and understaffed, which results in inefficiency. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) offers consumers a platform to express concerns about offensive or inaccurately targeted advertisements, particularly those targeting teenagers. Nonetheless, this procedure is typically slow and produces limited outcomes. (From the movie “Smoking Out the Truth”) In the past, alcohol and tobacco companies had significant influence as lobbyists in politics.
In spite of their recognized health hazards and misleading advertising strategies, the political involvement of the alcohol and tobacco industries has diminished. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2011, Altair Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, contributed nearly $2 million to political campaigns and representatives that favored their interests. Similarly, Reynolds American provided approximately $500,000 to political causes that backed the industry. These figures evidently demonstrate that the alcohol and tobacco industries, particularly their deceitful advertising methods, permeate American society across various aspects such as social, economic, legal, and political spheres.
An exploration of the harmful impacts of these advertisements on society and individuals is now appropriate. Ethical and social concerns, as well as their corresponding theories, play a significant role in this analysis. As previously mentioned, the fundamental principle underlying advertising posits that it stimulates the desire for products, thereby fostering economies of scale that ultimately drive down prices. Initially, this seems advantageous for society, as it contributes to economic development, job creation, and the advancement of wealth and prosperity.
Nevertheless, stakeholders must consider numerous moral and ethical concerns within the advertising sector. An assessment of the morality and ethics of advertising would be inadequate without examining utilitarian, deontological, and libertarian perspectives on ethical and moral conduct. This section will explore the responsibilities and privileges of all parties involved, delve into matters of fairness, compassion, and integrity, and ultimately address who benefits and who suffers as a result.
The use of “pop culture” and the American flag in beer promotion seeks to appeal to various drivers. Moreover, a consortium of nine craft breweries has found a way to leverage publics’ sense of social responsibility through the Hops for Heroes project. This initiative supports American service members and their families by donating a portion of beer sales to a nonprofit agency that provides emergency aid. Choosing to buy this beer and support our troops fosters both a patriotic and responsible sentiment. However, the manufacturers also benefit from increased sales, while ad agencies profit from producing promotional materials and advertisements. The media benefits by promoting a worthy cause, and consumers feel a sense of accomplishment and solidarity by directly supporting fellow Americans in need through their alcoholic consumption.
Similarly, tobacco and alcohol industries have found ways to target young consumers by incorporating their products with enticing flavors instead of using direct advertising. The presence of fruit and candy flavored alcohol and tobacco has significantly increased in recent years. According to the American Cancer Society, these brightly colored packages and enjoyable flavors like chocolate, blueberry, gummy bear, wine, and pink berry are deliberately designed for kids and pose an equal level of harm as cigarettes (source: move. So. Com, NY Cancer Society says sweet smokes aimed at kids). These items are easily accessible at convenience stores where they are prominently showcased near the checkout counter. It is evident that these flavors would be appealing to a younger customer base, which aligns perfectly with their intended purpose. For instance, imagine a 14-year-old buying a bag of fruit gummies from 7-11 only to encounter an array of fruit-flavored tobacco products while paying at the counter while holding a pack of fruit-flavored candies.
These companies do not care about their consumers, which puts our youth at risk. The lack of oversight from the FDA shows how inefficient they are at protecting society from dangerous products and advertising. We should ban these products. The utilitarian perspective on morals and ethics involves assessing the societal costs and benefits of actions and policies.
According to the utilitarian perspective, the ethical dilemma can be justified by selecting the decision that benefits society as a whole or provides the maximum utility. In this view, there is only one morally correct action for each situation, which is determined by weighing the benefits and costs. When considering the utility of advertising, utilitarian arguments maintain that economic success may outweigh individual health risks by considering the costs and benefits of using a product. Utilizing popular culture, appealing to patriotism, or masking the taste of a substance with something sweet or fruity can effectively sell an item, even if it is known to have negative health effects. The sale of alcohol and tobacco benefits all stakeholders except for consumers, which aligns with the desired outcome. This argument supports the notion that tobacco and alcohol advertisements are not only useful but also necessary in order to generate demand and continually expand or establish a consumer base.
However, upon further examination, the utilitarian perspective also asserts that producing advertisements is a misuse of resources because they do not provide any additional benefit to the advertised product or service. Research supports these utilitarian beliefs by showing that ads do not generate increased consumption, ultimately confirming the view that advertising is wasteful. Moreover, heightened consumption contributes to environmental pollution and the depletion of natural resources, further validating the notion that advertising is unfavorable, regardless of its success in promoting consumption.
Despite the well-documented risks associated with alcohol and tobacco consumption, stakeholders in these industries continue to heavily invest in advertising. Studies have shown that exposure to alcohol advertising influences young people’s beliefs about alcohol and their intention to drink, while similar research has demonstrated that tobacco advertising affects teenagers’ likelihood of experimenting with tobacco. As a result, primary stakeholders persist in advertising because both alcohol and tobacco companies aim to constantly attract new consumers, believing that advertising is the most effective and persuasive strategy for engaging their target audience. This decision is based on deontological ethics, prioritizing an individual’s internal motives over the external consequences of their actions.
Emmanuel Canes “categorical imperative” states that “everyone should be treated as a free person equal to everyone else” (Velasquez, 2012, p.98). Kant derives this imperative from two approaches to determining moral actions. The first approach asserts that regardless of an individual’s desires, the morally correct action is one that is universal and reversible. In other words, the individual would want everyone else to take the same action in a similar situation, even against themselves (Velasquez, 2012, p.9-100). The second approach emphasizes that because people are free and rational individuals, they should not be used as a means to an end. They should always have the freedom to choose rather than having choices forced upon them (Velasquez, 2012, p.100). This implies that people have a unique dignity that sets them apart from objects like tools or machines and cannot be manipulated, deceived, or exploited against their will to satisfy another person’s self-interests (Velasquez, 2012, p.100).This idea highlights a significant ethical concern regarding the promotion of alcohol and tobacco. The coercive nature of advertisements, particularly those aimed at young and inexperienced consumers, capitalizes on self-interests of manufacturers, advertising agencies, and publishers. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of consumer health and well-being.
Advertising potentially violates Kantian rights because it limits individuals’ freedom of choice and hinders their ability to live as free and rational beings without undue influences. This includes the freedom to engage in activities such as drinking or smoking. The Libertarian view of morals and ethics also supports these rights, stating that every individual has the right to be free from coercion by others. According to the theory of Kantian rights, individuals have the right to be free from injury or fraud and to have the freedom to think. However, both deontological and libertarian theories also support the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, which complicates the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding advertising alcohol and tobacco. These dilemmas arise from the question of whether and to what extent advertising should be protected, given the well-known health risks associated with smoking tobacco and excessive drinking.
Furthermore, advertising creates obstacles to entry and encourages monopolistic competition instead of a completely competitive free market. By having substantial advertising budgets, major conglomerates can effectively eliminate competition from the market. They are able to target a significantly larger consumer audience and allocate more resources to advertising compared to new market participants. Perfect competition, on the other hand, benefits consumers as it prompts companies to enhance their efficiency and better fulfill consumer needs.
Monopolies have the ability to affect our product preferences by limiting viable options through suppressing competitors, who are faced with elevated costs to compete. This lack of competition does not benefit society when viewed from a utilitarian standpoint, as society benefits from efficient markets that offer products at the most affordable price and utilizing the least resources. Consequently, advertising campaigns employing expensive tricks and attention-grabbing tactics become burdens for consumers, who ultimately bear the cost through higher product prices, limited choices, and an inefficient market.
Although there is a moral obligation for sellers to refrain from deceitful practices or exploiting vulnerabilities of buyers, such as gullibility, immaturity, or ignorance, there is ongoing debate regarding whether advertising can genuinely generate or manipulate desires. While the extent of manipulation through advertisements is still being discussed, studies have demonstrated that advertisements incorporating subliminal messages or targeting children can indeed impact consumer behavior. As noted by John K.
Gaillardia argues that advertising manipulates and controls individuals’ desires, with the aim of ensuring that consumers purchase the products being produced and thus expanding the industrial system. This raises concerns that advertising violates individuals’ right to free choice. Advertisements are designed to generate psychological desires in consumers, without their knowledge or the ability to rationally assess whether the product is truly in their best interests. A corporation’s moral obligation to its customers is established through a contractual relationship, where both parties must have complete understanding of the agreement and without any misrepresentation. Velasquez highlights that contracts must be made without coercion or undue influence, as freedom implies the absence of such elements. Therefore, alcohol and tobacco manufacturers, as well as those involved in creating and promoting advertisements for these products, have four primary moral duties: (1) fulfill the requirements of the sales contract, (2) provide accurate information about the nature of the product, (3) avoid misrepresentation, and (4) refrain from using coercion and undue influence (Velasquez, 2012, p.09).This paper specifically examines the ethical aspects of advertising done by alcohol and tobacco companies, rather than the ethical aspects of producing these substances. Therefore, the discussion will not address the moral obligation of corporations to deliver products that align with their advertised claims.
The absence of responsibility has been heavily discussed in various legal cases, especially in the tobacco lawsuits of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Nevertheless, corporations typically fail to fulfill their obligation towards consumers by providing accurate and valuable information regarding the detrimental effects of their goods. Corporations are required to inform buyers about any product qualities that may influence the consumer’s decision to purchase, especially those qualities that could potentially harm their health.
However, particularly in Pennsylvania, tobacco companies have been opposing the inclusion of warning labels on cigarettes, especially the graphic anti-smoking images that a federal law mandates on cigarette packages. According to studies conducted globally, it has been proven that large and pictorial warnings are the most effective way to educate consumers about the health hazards associated with smoking, deter children and non-smokers from taking up the habit, and encourage smokers to quit. (Source: www.watercourses.org U.S.)
The legislation requiring bold new cigarette warnings was blocked in 2012. Even tobacco companies argued that it violated their first amendment rights. However, in a surprising turn of events, the Obama administration chose to end its legal battle with cigarette manufacturers in March 2013. It effectively scrapped a series of graphic warning labels on cigarette packages that were previously blocked by a federal appeals court. The responsibility of developing a new set of warning labels in the anti-smoking campaign now falls upon the FDA.
It is expected that the new labels will not appear on packages for years (Doormen, 2013). The tobacco companies’ effort to suppress information about the harmful effects of tobacco is contrary to a corporation’s moral duties discussed above, considering that graphic warning labels have been proven to be more effective than written warnings (Neighbor, 2013). Court cases indicate a trend where the “majority of the Court currently prefers the First Amendment interests of advertisers over the health and safety goals of government” (Valance, 2004, p. 2). Additionally, the alcohol and tobacco industries each spend billions a year on advertising, which is significantly more than what competing government health agencies can afford. Currently, under the First Amendment, it is the government’s responsibility to prove that a statement is false or misleading. This raises the question of whether it is still ethical for alcohol and tobacco companies to advertise without making claims about their products’ health benefits while simultaneously staying silent on the health risks associated with consuming their products.
In fact, UCLA has often supported the tobacco industry’s free speech rights and opposes restrictions on tobacco advertising because they believe it is paternalistic to limit speech that cannot be proven false (Valance, 2004, p. 33). However, evidence demonstrates that smoking is primarily a pediatric disease, meaning that if someone doesn’t start smoking by age 18 or younger, the likelihood of them becoming a smoker is minimal (Valance, 2004, p. 33). Justice involves ensuring a fair distribution of burdens and benefits within society.
There is a burden the consumer pays for a product being advertised, which is reflected in a higher price point. Additionally, if advertising products that cause harm and lead to death, the immeasurable burden falls on the consumer once again. The value of a life cannot be quantified, and if advertising a deadly product results in loss of life, there is no price tag on a mother, father, sister, brother, son, or daughter to fill the void. Therefore, advertising becomes complicit in the injustice of product distribution and usage.
Corporations have efficiently adjusted to the repercussions of losing customers by targeting a young and susceptible demographic with advertising. This helps them compensate for the expected decline in their consumer base. However, there is a lack of compensatory justice when it comes to corporations bearing the full social costs of a life lost due to the use of their products as a result of intense, misleading, uninformative, and manipulative advertising.
It is crucial to safeguard our most vulnerable consumers, specifically the young generation, who are easily influenced by these ads that use manipulative tactics. Ensuring consumer safety can be effectively achieved through a free market system since sellers are compelled to meet consumer demands in order to generate profits. According to Velasquez (2012, p. 306), consumers seeking safer products can drive manufacturers to prioritize safety by opting for higher-priced, safer alternatives instead of purchasing unsafe products.
Such a system, in theory, promotes safer products at a fair price to all parties, continues to promote free choice without government intervention, and efficiently uses the resources of society. However, in reality, consumers who purchase highly addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco often do not have the choice of “safety.” Moreover, history has demonstrated that manufacturers, particularly tobacco giants, were aware of the health and safety risks but decided not to disclose this information to consumers.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of primary stakeholders to effectively protect consumers through legal constraints and voluntary initiatives of responsible manufacturers, as the market itself cannot manage the safety concerns of the government, public, and consumers. The present initiatives and constraints aim to address the ethical issue of protecting our youth and society from dangerous product advertising brought about by technology. Previous research focused on the impact of cigarette and alcohol ads on children, as well as subtler forms of marketing through product placement in movies and TV shows. Studies indicate that advertising influences unhealthy behaviors in children and adolescents, but with the rise of the Internet and social media, it has become increasingly challenging to shield them. Thus, technology has made it difficult to monitor and protect our youth from advertisers.” (Class, 2013)
The Internet has become a prominent platform for corporations to target children and consumers. Parents must be diligent in protecting their children from exposure to advertisements, which have become deeply ingrained in our lives. Some parents have resorted to extreme measures, such as restricting discussions about movies and video games at school, limiting television and computer access, and pre-screening movies for their children. While this may seem excessive to some, it is a reflection of the influence corporations have over society. Parents must filter content to shield their children from the negative and unethical advertising practices that have become normalized. Unfortunately, our government has failed to take action and protect young people, as tobacco, alcohol, and advertising companies possess significant lobbying power. These companies are directing money towards lobbying efforts and legal battles, including lawsuits against the FDA to ease advertising restrictions on life-threatening products.
The Supreme Court recently made a positive decision by rejecting a tobacco-industry attempt to reverse a 2009 federal law. This law enforces the use of graphic warning labels on cigarettes and imposes additional limitations on tobacco product advertising. The 2009 law specifically requires tobacco companies to display graphic labels on both the front and back of cigarette packs, covering half of the packaging area. This ruling signifies progress, as corporations that produce and sell harmful products should be honest about the health risks they pose to individuals.
