Interesting Advertising Ethics

Neuromarketing; just a side note on a bizarre practice in the marketplace

Manipulated!!!  I wasn't going to spend any money, but I did!
It's been going on for a couple of decades as advertisers learn how to directly target our unconscious brain processes.  If they can bypass our intended decision-making and trigger an emotional purchase, they win, especially if we intended to pass up the item.

"... techniques used in the ad to override the consumer’s rational decision-making process...."*

That moves beyond persuasion to coercion, of course.  It intrudes well past a reasonable expectation of privacy inside our own heads.  We'll all enjoy the coming court battles, probably on A&E.  

The problem, as always, is that technology and culture change much faster than institutions and government regulation can.

Corporate neuromarketers:

There are more than 90 companies providing neuromarketing services to Fortune 500 companies.  A partial list of entities that appear to be using those neuromarketing services and methods:

• A&E Television 
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield California 
• Olive Ranch
• Campbell’s Soup 
• CBS 
• Citi Daimler 
• Disney 
• Frito-Lay 
• Google 
• L’Oreal 
• McDonald’s 
• Microsoft 
• Nestle 
• Procter & Gamble 
• Scottrade 
• Starcom 
• MediaVest 
• Viacom 
• The Weather Channel

Potential Legal Issues*

The use of neuroscience to enhance advertising appeal raises a number of legal issues in three broad areas:


• Consumer Protection*

As neuromarketing techniques become more sophisticated and arguably more powerful, the industry will likely face increasing resistance from regulators concerned that consumers are being misled into believing they want or need a product they have no use for, or deceived into thinking a purchase arises from their rational choice whereas in fact they are being induced to act based on stimulated subconscious impulse. To regulators, these techniques may cross the line from fair encouragement to unlawful coercion. At least one European regulatory agency has already taken action against a financial services company employing neuromarketing. We expect there will be similar enforcement actions in the United States before long.

... so well received by millions
 ... but it's still just product marketing for sales.

• Privacy Issues*

Some of the more aggressive claims by neuromarketers about the power of their techniques to understand brain function and impact behavior have predictably raised privacy concerns among regulators and the general public. At a time of increased sensitivity to corporate monitoring of consumer behavior, thanks largely to the proliferation of Internet tracking and targeting technologies, the prospect of additional intrusions into personal thought processes has raised heightened concern. In addition to facing scrutiny by European data protection authorities and the Federal Trade Commission, neuromarketers may soon be confronted by the burgeoning privacy plaintiffs’ bar in the U.S., which in the last year alone has filed more than 150 lawsuits alleging that new marketing techniques, such as online behavioral advertising, violate consumer privacy.

• Tort Issues*

The use of neuromarketing techniques to induce purchase of a product which, if misused, could cause personal injury, raises important questions under the law of products liability. It is not at all difficult to imagine product liability claims being asserted, especially by or on behalf of children and other vulnerable groups, that neuromarketing wrongfully induced the claimants to use products that are unreasonably dangerous for them, or to over-consume or become dependent on unhealthy foods or beverages, by overriding their rational powers of self-control. Other tort claims may be advanced under a theory that by penetrating to internal areas of brain function, neuromarketing impermissibly “touches” a protected personal domain giving rise to liability for battery or assault.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will also have keen interest in neuromarketing techniques that are thought to be unduly persuasive, given the Commission’s mandate to prohibit “unfair and deceptive” trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, particularly when it is used to sell products to children.

* from "Neuromarketing: Legal and Policy Issues" ~ Covington and Burling, LLP

Here's hoping for a full scale legal challenge and upheaval in the industry.  But that's rather unlikely any time soon, isn't it.

So what course might we choose that will let us and our families choose our own values and lifestyle?  Is there a vaccination for advertising vulnerability?

Hint: when your child mentions a brand name they prefer, is that reasoned thinking?

Commercialized Children - Continued

Sex sells.

When children are involved, has the marketing industry crossed a line?

Such practices continue, generally unchanged, with full knowledge and deliberate intent by the industry.

For the right wing conservatives and free market capitalists among us, here's a glass of cold water in the face:

"For the last few decades, critics such as Thomas Frank, Kevin Phillips, David Harvey and many others have warned us, and rightly so, that right-wing conservatives and free-market fundamentalists have been dismantling government by selling it off to the highest or "friendliest" bidder. But what they have not recognized adequately is that what has also been sold off are both our children and our collective future, and that the consequences of this catastrophe can only be understood within the larger framework of a politics and market philosophy that view children as commodities and democracy as the enemy. In a democracy, education in any sphere, whether it be the public schools or the larger media, is, or should be, utterly adverse to treating young people as individual units of economic potential and as walking commodities. And it is crucial not to "forget" that democracy should not be confused with a hypercapitalism."

Among the factors facing the nation, cultural change is being imposed by a powerful and conscienceless marketplace.  We've removed all the guard dogs, and the flock is being mauled by wolves.

The question remains, Can our children be protected?  From Commercialized Children:

Successful strategies:

• Parental involvement, thoughtful access controls along with frequent discussions on the rationale.  Make the strategy a family effort with a good goal for all.
• Parental example of rising above the celebrity and materialistic messages along with thoughtful and perhaps light-hearted discussions about why.  Limit 'screen' exposure for the whole family, perhaps as a collaborative decision.
• Stay focused; use opportunities to point out and discuss how advertising is exaggeration, overstatement, and an attempt to get money, nothing more.  Do the same with celebrity issues, famous for being famous.
• Live on a thoughtful budget, and include the kids in the planning.  Do some discount and thrift store shopping; it can help put brand and style in perspective.
• Be part of a community and church that does a lot of things outside, together, and apart from the 'style' culture.  Sports, ballet, and gymnastics can be great motivators.  Worship and getting together with like-minded folks in church is a great way to refocus on what matters.
• Leave the country.  Go live for a while in the developing world with maybe one television channel and no internet.  Live like the other 80% of the world and learn how survival works.  Okay, that's not for everybody.
• Have a goal; discuss it, write it down, do the work for your own life and for the person your child will become.  It is not a small thing.  

Kids are smart; with help, they can learn how to make their own decisions about such things with objectivity and a good conscience.  

As a youngster, I was told with a smile ...

 Things are not as they seem.
    You were born into a world at war.

       Everything you do counts. 

Commercialized Children

Who gets to shape the way our kids think?
Well, we as parents do, of course.  Is that all?
Then there's school, teachers, and peers, of course, but who is the biggest player in the game?

Who has the right to instruct my kids?  
Who gets to tell them what life choices to make?

Surprisingly, a significant impact is made by industry and child-targeted advertising.  (see:  When Childhood Gets Commercialized, Can Children Be Protected?)

For starters, we have an epidemic of childhood obesity and the related rise in medical diseases such as hypertension and type II diabetes. (Surgeon General's report)  Curious how that happened?

Reputable children’s advocates have pointed to food marketing as a major cause of the shift to unhealthy diets of sugar, fat and salt. They point to the billions of dollars of food marketing directed at children; it is on television, in schools, on the internet, and in the grocery store. 

The critique goes beyond food to include the marketing of violence, unhealthy body images, and materialism. Social scientists and pediatricians have compiled an impressive array of research results about the effect of our consumer culture on children. 

Vocal industry opponents argue that children are suffering from "marketing-related diseases” and that marketers are engaging in a “hostile takeover of childhood.”  

Beyond the products, scholars point out that advertising to children is inherently inappropriate, even exploitative. Research shows that kids can't objectively evaluate persuasive intent, they don't grasp the basis of advertising, and that marketing bypasses cognition and targets emotions.

Children caught up in materialistic behavior
will make 3000 requests per year for
 products and services.

A researcher asked a group of six-year-olds to explain the purpose of advertising and gave them four choices. Their responses are as follows:

• don’t know – 31 percent
• for a break – 33 percent
• for information – 36 percent
• to persuade – 0 percent

“At six years old, children don’t show awareness of advertising’s persuasive intent,” he said. “Most do by eight years old, but ... they still see it as a benefit to the customer and not as a benefit to the seller.”

"Advertising is a massive, multi-million dollar project that's having an enormous impact on child development," says clinical psychologist Allen D. Kanner, PHD. "The sheer volume of advertising is growing rapidly and invading new areas of childhood, like our schools." The advertising industry employs psychologists to exploit things like why 3- to 7-year-olds gravitate toward toys that transform themselves into something else and why 8- to 12-year-olds love to collect things.

According to Kanner, the result is not only an epidemic of materialistic values among children, but also something he calls "narcissistic wounding" of children. Thanks to advertising, he says, children have become convinced that they're inferior if they don't have an endless array of new products.

Can children be protected?

Self-regulation by the media has been counter productive.  The public demand for PG-13 and R rated entertainment soared after the standard's implementation.  Young children (2-12) and children (12+) are increasingly exposed to unregulated sources via cable, satellite, and internet.

Attempts at protective regulation have been successfully countered by industry in the courts and Congress.  The family, community, and church have less of a role in the development of a child than ever before.  Character formation is, at best, a period filled with aggressive conflict between parents and an increasingly intrusive world.

Successful strategies:

• Parental involvement, thoughtful access controls along with frequent discussions on the rationale.  Make the strategy a family effort with a good goal for all.
• Parental example of rising above the celebrity and materialistic messages along with thoughtful and perhaps light-hearted discussions about why.  Limit 'screen' exposure for the whole family, perhaps as a collaborative decision.
• Stay focused; use opportunities to point out and discuss how advertising is exaggeration, overstatement, and an attempt to get money, nothing more.  Do the same with celebrity issues, famous for being famous.
• Live on a thoughtful budget, and include the kids in the planning.  Do some discount and thrift store shopping; it can help put brand and style in perspective.
• Be part of a community and church that does a lot of things outside, together, and apart from the 'style' culture.  Sports, ballet, and gymnastics can be great motivators.  Worship and getting together with like-minded folks in church is a great way to refocus on what matters.
• Leave the country.  Go live for a while in the developing world with maybe one television channel and no internet.  Live like the other 80% of the world and learn how survival works.  Okay, that's not for everybody.
• Have a goal; discuss it, write it down, do the work for your own life and for the person your child will become.  It is not a small thing.  

Kids are smart; with help, they can learn how to make their own decisions about such things with objectivity and a good conscience.

For a cultural counterpoint: in the airport between flights, I met an interesting Middle-Eastern fellow with whom I shared a conversation for perhaps half an hour. His wife and children were with him, but I didn't have permission to speak with them nor were they inclined to join in the conversation with me, being that I wasn't family or community. That's the way his culture works.

Currently, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico allow advertising on their school buses.  Additional states are considering overturning their long-standing prohibitions on school bus ads in a misguided attempt to solve their budget deficits. That's the way our culture works.

Note:  McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast food restaurant chain, reportedly spends $500 million a year on ads, of which approximately 40% is targeted to children. They serve 60 million customers a day.  (Horgen et al, 2001).   Virtually all children’s food advertising is for junk food, and in addition to child-targeted ads, children are heavily exposed to food advertising nominally directed at adults. (Byrd-Bredbenner and Grasso 1999). Nationwide, schools are reported to receive $750 million a year in marketing dollars from snack and processed food companies. (Egan 2002).

The Politics of Respectability, and other things

Gabby Douglas and her hair.  When this incredible athlete won her first gold medal, the twitterverse was filled with critical comments ... about her hair! We wondered about that for the longest time until discovering there are minimum standards for respectability. 

Depending on our class, ethnicity, and culture, there are various rules; e.g.,

• don't go out looking like that ...
• polish your shoes, do your nails, fix your hair ...
• clean up a bit before you go to the store where folks will see you ...
• at least wear a shirt with a collar ...
• it's Sunday, so you have to look nice ...
• I'll be ready in a minute; I've got to do my makeup before we go out in public ...
• we need a nicer house and a better neighborhood if we're going to be anything.

"A … core intuition of the politics of respectability is that, for a stigmatized racial minority, successful efforts to move upward in society must be accompanied at every step by a keen attentiveness to the morality of means, the reputation of the group, and the need to be extra-careful in order to avoid the derogatory charges lying in wait in a hostile environment." ~Randall Kennedy; Race, Crime, and the Law

The persistence of such rules impacts minorities rather dramatically.  They extend inclusively beyond race and class to everyone else, of course, and most play by the rules without a thought.  Culture is rife with such content, not necessarily to its benefit.

Historically, there are times where new rules get added to the existing list.  Following the turmoil, cultures adjust and adapt.  Rule-changing content emerges and circles the globe in ensuing years. Some recent additions:

• The Politics of Respectability - 1880-1920 up to today, ... still seeking to overcome the legacies of the nation’s original sins, continuing as minorities attempt to fit in
• The Green Revolution - 1940's through the 60's and continuing today as environmental science
• The Hippie counterculture movement - 1960's - the drug culture and casual relationships
• The Jesus revolution - 1960's into the 80's and beyond with radical changes for the church

• Neomaterialism - 1980's and '90's - the 'me & mine' or 'yuppie' years of consumerist growth and corporate bottom-line prioritization
• Hyper-consumerism - 1990's to today - the culture of 'more' rather than 'enough'

The fact that such figures exist is troubling, along with the fact that
after a decade, the issue has yet to reach the public forum.

The various effects of each continue visibly today, having seeped into every facet of our lives; many conflict and are incompatible.  Some are troublesome, especially when we, like lemmings, just go along with the common thought.

Do we need to think differently about some things, perhaps radically different?  Is it important enough to be worth the fight?  Will we waste years of life if we get it wrong?

You might want to see:  Class and the absence thereof or perhaps Gabby Douglas and her hair or The Politics of Respectability

Abou Ben Adhem

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

~ James Henry Leigh Hunt

I remember first reading this when I was quite young. The poem thoughtfully opens the question of how someone might please God.  Is it a religious question or a life question.  Does one please Him by perfect faith and religious practice?  Or, might God encourage something more relevant to real life, a genuine reflection of His heart in those who hope to do what is right and good with the opportunity they have?

In today's widespread quasi-religious turmoil, much is revealed from the hearts of those who harm others while claiming God's approval.  While no political argument is pristine, that one is particularly toxic.  It has been twenty years since the Bosnian massacre, and the trouble continues today in Syria, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Everywhere, actually.

Enemies of Peace

~ FDR 1936 ~  We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. 

~ They had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.  

~Eisenhower 1961~  "... this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the Federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." 

~ G.W. Bush~  Beginning in 2001, the Bush administration began pressing congress to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. "The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities ...."" Both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and he Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) formally identified the risks, and Treasury Secretary John Snow testified to the need for immediate reform.

Congress ignored the repeated warnings, accusing the president of creating an "artificial issue". In 2007, Senate Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd attacks the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. The crash followed shortly thereafter, generally as was formally presented to Congress on eleven separate occasions.

This is how things have played out over time.  How much influence does corporate money have in government today? Are decisions and policy really up for sale?

The financial industry pressed for (or purchased) repeal of the separation between savings and investment banking over a two decade period.  The repeal of Glass-Steagall gave us the derivatives marketplace (including mortgage backed security derivatives) and triggered the Great Recession.  Trillions were lost as the nation and the world recoiled; related deaths exceed one million, but the industry continues with little change.

Assets of the U.S. banking industry have risen to $15.3 TRILLION.  Together, JPMorgan and Bank of America hold 23% of the total.  Each is financially larger than most countries in the world.  Taken together they're larger than the 80 countries at the bottom of the list, combined.  Cross reference that comparison in fiscal size to one of political influence, and you begin to see cause for concern.

On the upside, the U.S. leads the world in the financial services industry.  The downside is that the U.S. leads the world in the financial services industry, and in doing so, we carry responsibility for our impact on the entire world and on each individual.  Much has perhaps been good, of course, but globalization is a new realm and not entirely predictable.