Responsible Advertising: Who Determines What is Right?

For better or worse, the rules of advertising are changing. I’m not talking about new techniques or creative concepts here, or even the Big Idea. Nor am I referring to the latest technologies surrounding product integration, search marketing, interactive platforms, or anything as intriguing as that.

The growing challenge for advertisers is not how to reach consumers where they are—marketers know how to do that very well—but how socially responsible the message is once it reaches those consumers. The new rules of advertising have more to do with responsibility than with Return On Investment. It is not the medium, it is the message.

We are witnessing the dawning of a new era of “responsible advertising” that seeks to protect consumers from advertising that someone, somewhere, deems socially and politically incorrect. Even if we stipulate there are categories of advertising that can—and should be—disallowed, responsible advertising goes well beyond traditional notions of content regulation. For example, should values become an indispensable part of the advertising mix?

Bolstered by political rhetoric and a conservative mood in Washington, the would-be arbiters of responsible advertising claim a public mantle, if not a public interest. Most would like to see advertising go entirely away, but would surely settle for heavier regulation at the end of the day. And they seem to be getting nearer to that goal every year. Because it is impolitic for big corporations to wage extended war with do-good public interest groups, companies prudently have disengaged from that battle and taken initiative on another front.

More and more advertisers are choosing to aggressively self-regulate the marketing of products or categories that some critics have found to be objectionable. Since most large companies have a working familiarity with the mandates of social responsibility in other areas, applying those principles to marketing and advertising has not been difficult.

Last summer, prescription drug makers established a new code of marketing practices and set up an Office of Accountability to review direct-to-consumer drug commercials. More recently, a leading food company decided not to advertise some of its products on children’s television programs that reach audiences under age 12. Many other industries have instituted marketing codes and established independent review panels. And the advertising industry has strengthened its unique self-regulatory regime through the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU).

All of these actions suggest the emphasis on responsibility is well-placed.
What troubles me, though, is who gets to define responsible advertising.

Advertisers have a vested commercial interest in portraying their products in the best light possible. They are, after all, ultimately accountable to both their customers and shareholders in a competitive marketplace, and should be able to decide for themselves. It would be a mistake to abdicate this role to outside interest groups who want to do away with advertising altogether, or who would promote a system that only permits the marketing of products they alone deem to be good, healthful, nutritious, wholesome or necessary.

© 2006

Adonis Hoffman is a lawyer and strategic marketing and communications expert in Washington, DC. He is the founder and chairman of the Center on Responsible Media & Marketing in Washington.

Advertising to Kids on the Bus: Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should

Marketers must learn to balance their constitutionally-protected right to commercial speech against society's expectations that companies will behave responsibly. With every legally protected right comes a duty. In the marketing context, a company should recognize that just because it can legally do something, does not always mean it should. Occasionally, restraint is the better part of wisdom.

The need for such balancing was highlighted by the recent decision of a few municipal school districts to allow commercial advertising to kids on school buses this coming fall. An enterprising company has a new system that, according to the Washington Post, “will pipe into school buses around the country a private radio network that plays music, public service announcements, contests and ads aimed at kids as they travel to and from school.”

Apparently, there is nothing in law, regulation or policy that prohibits such advertising. To be sure, the school districts, suffering from funding cutbacks and shortfalls, could use the extra money. Advertising revenues could supplement a host of sorely-needed school expenditures ranging from teacher salaries to physical education programs.

But at what cost?

Marketers have much more to lose than to gain by going forward with such a plan. Doing so risks the wrath of many. Moreover, ads on school buses could bring unnecessary attention to the thriving business of advertising to children altogether—at a time when the practice itself is under considerable scrutiny.

Prudence suggests this is a bad idea. It is a bad idea not because advertising to children is wrong. It is a bad idea because advertising to children on a school bus is not wise.

Some things should be out of bounds, even if the rules allow them. It is a classic case of a short-sighted, context-void, idea that should not see the light of day. And just because advertisers can do it, does not mean they should.

If the last two years have proven anything to marketers, it is that children (and to a lesser extent youth) are in a very special category. Society demands and expects that they be treated differently by everyone, but especially by marketers and media. The siren song coming from Capitol Hill, interest groups and even consumers is blaring: we are watching.

Right now, advertising to children is undergoing a thorough review. Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Better Business Bureau all are examining ways to meet the challenges of a new media environment in which commercial messages aimed at kids seem to be coming from everywhere.

I believe the answer for all stakeholders involved lies in the balance between the rights of marketers on the one hand, and their capacity to be responsible corporate citizens on the other. If they are wise, marketers will refrain from exercising their rights and go to great lengths, instead, to prove their responsibility.

© 2006

Adonis Hoffman is a lawyer and marketing communications expert in Washington, DC. He is the founder and chairman of the Center on Responsible Media & Marketing.