The Real Beauty of Advertising

In today’s advertising landscape the pressure is on, now more than ever, to deliver results and to be able to support campaign efforts with measurable increases in sales and brand development. With these kinds of results-based expectations, it’s hard not to feel as if most if not all “ethical” decisions currently made in the industry fall under teleological theories of thought.

            
Utilitarianism is probably a likely defense—if anyone is ever even required to formally give one—claiming that actions taken in executing a strategic idea are justified in bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number, that “greatest number” either referring to the public being informed of a product or service or simply our capitalist society itself. While some might be hesitant to admit it, many decisions are also likely to fall under the scope of egoism, providing long term gain for the client company or agency despite any harm done to a potentially offended demographic or even societal values as a whole.
            
With this opinion of real world advertising being a very financially driven consequentialist work environment, I often ponder the motives behind seemingly genuine ads claiming to boost public morale.
            
One example on which I wish to focus is Dove’s 2004 launch of its “Real Beauty” campaign thought up by Ogilvy & Mather Toronto. This acclaimed advertising effort went against the grain of unrealistic ideals that had become all too common in the marketing of beauty products and attempted to empower real women by portraying the average female form and her variety of shapes and sizes as something to embrace with confidence and pride. In class we’ve discussed similarly stated efforts behind campaigns such as the Richard’s Group’s take on the Summer’s Eve product line in an attempt to advance women’s confidence in their bodies.
            
This does sound very well and good, but even with such seemingly noble motives, was this idea really rooted in means rather than ends? And of course the ends I’m referring to are sales of a product and the rise of a client brand’s name. Would the campaign still be considered a success if it brought about advancement for women but not an increase in sales for the client whose name was attached to the advertising? Was the client really all that concerned about empowering women or could they have cared less? Let’s not forget that Dove is under the umbrella of Unilever, the same company that simultaneously released racy ads for their brand of Axe body spray that many saw to be shallow and sexist.
            
I’d like to think that the effort behind the Dove campaign was truly genuine and motivated by commendable ethics that could be seen as either deontological and viewed as an act of good will towards womankind or even teleological and executed with the hope of bringing about positive consequences for the female population. However, my wariness of advertising tells me not to be so quick to give praise. This beautifully executed campaign could very well have been created in vain with nothing more but the motive to do a good job for the client, make the client look good, make some money, get some credit and win some industry awards.
            
And I really do hate that I feel this way, especially since I will soon enter this field that is seen by so many as untrustworthy and slick. I don’t want to believe that any of my ethically sound efforts in my professional career will always be thought of as nothing more than egotistical means to an end at the cost of the good of others and the well being of society. I also worry that the increasingly intense focus on results will pressure me to compromise what I feel is ethically good in order to simply keep my job. I have struggled with this issue ever since I decided on this major and future career.
            
For now I chose to believe that advertising can still be a place for good and ethical standards to exist and even be encouraged. Even if ethical dilemmas are solved via consequentialist ethics, I’d like to think that the intended consequences are positive results for those involved and harm is always dramatically minimized. I don’t feel that an egoist mindset will produce effects of which I can be proud. These kinds of decisions often put the public at risk and are the type of actions that I feel have earned advertising its less than favorable public opinion.
            
The Bivins book warns that most students walk out of college with their ethics course fresh on their minds and so sure that what they believe is right will never be compromised but that these same students soon realize that real world pressures will have them wavering their ethical standards in order to meet deadlines and advance in their careers. I hope that I can be the exception to this expectation and still succeed. Wish me luck.