Unethical advertising . . . the "Shake Weight" as an example

           

              Last time I talked about children being advertised high-fat foods, and hit on the idea that this can slightly be linked to ethics. Now, I want to explore ethics in advertising. How we can tell if advertising is ethical or not . . . what says something is ethical or un-ethical. To me, I think the distinction is plain and simple. If an advertiser is advertising something and the product or service is not exactly how it is advertised towards the consumer or customer, then this is un-ethical. Ethics can also relate to children, as before, as children do not have the mental capacity to understand the backgrounds of advertising and how they are being targeted. So if someone sells a product and they advertise this product does “X & Y,” and then consumer has the product and this product does not does “X & Y” after the direction have been followed, then this is unethical.

            One example that immediately jumped to my head, is the example of the “shake weight” fitness accessory. This device that is as big as a regular dumbbell, it shakes as one holds the device and does a couple different motions. Anyone knows this is not possible. One cannot gain as much muscle, “in only 6 minutes a day” as it has advertised through its commercials. I also read multiple forums and responses of users, which identifies that this product does not work. Therefore, the “Shake Weight” is definitely, and example of a product that is unethical and is advertised unethically.Here is a video f the "Shake Weight" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbsSeVr5NSI

High-fat food advertised towards children?

             As I slightly touched on advertising towards children becoming more difficult before, I will continue to talk about a different side of advertising towards children. There is some speculation that many companies have been targeting their products, which are very unhealthy, towards children. Many of these companies direct their advertisements, visually usually cartoon-like characters, and utilizing verbal usage that appeals towards children. Some of these companies are: Kraft, Campbell’s Soup, Pizza Hut, Krispy-Kreme, and Pepsi-Cola.

            The article that offered all of this information is called "Group calls for ban on high-fat food advertising" which is seen on Advertising Age, and written by Ira teinowitz. Basically, the article makes the claim that these advertising are ultimately, responsible for much of the obesity today, and particular for childhood obesity. This could be true or it might not be true, however, I think this might be a stretch. The article noted how parents are “pestered” by their children wanting these foods advertised towards them, however, I believe the parents need to be able to say “no” simple as that. These companies are a business, and this is what they will try to do, sell their product the best they possibly can. Within the article, it also noted how some want the FTC to disable the advertising of high-fat food towards children, but this was thought to be something  that cannot be done because of right’s issues.

Children advertising . . . not as easy as it used to be.

            Previously, I looking into masculinity and femininity, however, now it is time to look at a new creature of advertising: children. Many people have paired children’s advertising as being unethical, however, this is why the Food & Drug Administration and FCC came into play in 2008 to regulate food marketers, such as General Mills, Kellogg and Kraft. Now it is proposed that the amount of money pulled in from children’s advertising will shoot up anywhere from 5 to 10%.

            Something else to throw in to the complicated nature of children’s advertising recently, is that there are more TV networks coming into the market. For example, Disney is going to create a preschool network, and Disney Junior as “early as 2012” according to Andrew Hampp of Advertising Age, in an article called "Behind the Battle for Children's Marketing Dollars." With more TV networks, this article makes it clear that advertising towards children is becoming more difficult because the attention and expose cannot be seen on just one or a few TV networks, but numerous ones. Basically, it is now harder to advertise towards children because there areso many networks now and advertisers cannot reach their audience as easy as they used to be.

Masculinity of advertising: Brett Favre . . . "tough" jeans from Wrangler

              

            To continue from my last post about masculinity and femininity, I thought I would go more in dept towards the other side as well; masculinity, when looking at advertising towards men. I think advertiser can still do a poor job of advertising towards men, however, and usually, advertisers can use stereotypes of men, but these stereotypes are not offensive to most men. When looking at femininity with female directed advertising, it is much easier to offend women when using stereotypes because times have changed.

            I have a great example of advertising from Wranger Jeans with one of Brett Favre’s many commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2pIvg-2vEY

He is seen outside playing football with all men, in a field or wooded type of area in the mud. When there is a voiceover describing Wrangler Jeans as “tough,” and “jeans that last.” This commercial also has rock song playing in the background which is clearly a song more directed towards the like of men. Since “tough” and “strong” and the outdoors with all men would clearly seem more masculine, this commercial is absolutely directed towards men with the clear sign of masculinity in what is happening within the commercial visually, as well as the verbal usage that describes the jeans. The difference between masculinity and femininity, as noted before, advertising towards men using masculinity is not offensive usually, while femininity directed advertising usually can be. I think this a great commercial from Wrangler and is probably pretty successful idea for their brand.