I had intended my recent Swift article to be an empowering piece on personal responsibility. I also wanted to bust a few myths about advertising’s alleged powers of control. Judging from many of the comments, it seems that some readers took the piece for a unilateral defense of marketing, abuses included, and a disavowal of marketers’ responsibilities for what and how they sell.
Marketing abuses indeed occur and shouldn’t be tolerated. That should be an easy call in clear-cut cases, such as outright lying. But more often, drawing lines as to what constitutes a marketing abuse is easier said than done. When Starbucks places a poster at the drive-up for their latest calorie-laden concoction, you can bet they spent good money on a studio, a photographer specializing in hot beverages, a lighting director, a food stylist, an adept headline writer, a highly paid graphic designer, and fine printing. Yes, they did all this to increase the odds of getting you to part with a few dollars for the drink in question. I suppose Starbucks could have used a cell phone camera to photograph the drink under ordinary lights and, instead of the catchy headline and layout, simply said, “Available.” They could have listed ingredients, along with a breakdown of calories by type and possible health hazards. They could have used a quick printer instead of a fine printer. For that matter, they could have printed the poster in black-and-white. They could have. If you think they should have, more power to you.
I happen to know that the most-read part of a direct mail letter is the P.S. So, if I put information likely to interest you in the P.S., am I exploiting you … or just being smart? If I know (as I do) that you’re more likely to order from a toll-free number after 10 p.m. on a Friday and least likely during Prime Time on a Wednesday evening, does honor demand that run I my TV commercial in the latter time slot to give you more of a fighting chance at not buying?
Such questions lead to gray areas. What marketers know matters, but so does how they use their knowledge. We need to consider the audience; the utility (or harm) of what’s for sale; the market’s right to spend as it chooses; when “putting your best foot forward” goes too far and becomes misrepresentation; when consumption results from advertising as opposed to other factors (such as peer influence); and more. These are difficult issues to sort through and weigh, but that’s no reason to shy from tackling them.
(Incidentally, marketers don’t know nearly as much about getting people to buy as some readers allege in comments on my earlier piece. Most marketing research is bogus and non-predictive, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, and despite big bucks spent on and because of it. But that’s another subject.)
Meanwhile, there are plenty of abuses which we can agree are blatant and require action. As an example, I’d like to share an essay that I submitted to the online edition of Advertising Age, the industry bible, about a year ago. Far from defending marketers, I disagreed with the magazine’s opposition to a threatened FTC crackdown on “results may vary” and “results not typical.”
Not that I expect all Swift readers to be satisfied. After all, I didn’t address predatory pricing, omitting pertinent information, pushing unneeded products, pushing harmful products like cigarettes and junk food, spinning, taking unfair advantage of emotions, etc., etc. All I can say is, give me time. I’ll get to them.
Here’s the essay, which Advertising Age ran in its entirety:
Sorry, folks. I’m on the government’s side. I own a direct response shop. It has long troubled me that many in my own industry rely on misleading advertising and questionable products.
Take diet plans. If you use 99% of your ad to promise miracles and 1% to say "results may vary" or "results not typical," you are using 99% of the ad to mislead, and you know it. You also know — read your own fine print — that no plan works unless you supplement it with diet and exercise. Trouble is, diet and exercise do the trick without the plan. So, diet plan marketers, you are taking money for a product that makes no or, at most, little difference.
Take natural remedies. If the formula contains all natural ingredients, the FDA has no jurisdiction over it. You can claim that your little pill "may" — very important weasel — help with myriad symptoms, provided your fly type contains statements like "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA" and "not intended to treat or cure any disease." Wait a sec. Not intended to treat or cure? Isn’t that what the rest of the ad was about? Once again, if 99% claims miracles and 1% disclaims them, you are trying to mislead, and you know it.
Your filing cabinet may be bursting with testimonials. You may use the product yourself and truly believe it works. Irrelevant. Millions of Americans truly believe the sun travels around the earth, but their numbers and passion do not make them right. It takes controlled, scientifically validated double and triple blind tests by qualified, disinterested third parties to validate medical claims. Nor am I impressed with your so-called "clinical studies," because I know how they work. If I wanted to, I could come up with a clinical study ‘proving’ that hiring my agency "may help relieve arthritis pains."
Some might wonder what harm exists in marketing that is 99% misleading. After all, some people lose weight on the diet plans, and some derive a placebo effect from otherwise worthless natural remedies. Here’s the harm: (1) People with serious weight and/or health issues risk, to their ultimate harm, delaying real treatment while pinning false hope on your flimflam preparation. (2) Deliberately misleading is a de facto immoral practice. If you can’t see the harm in that, it tells me something about you. (3) You hurt the image of the many honest direct response practitioners out there who don’t stoop to such levels. (4) You hurt your own industry by bringing regulators down upon us all.
If direct response practitioners would self-police, the FTC wouldn’t need to get involved. Please, direct marketers: Resolve never to take on a product that you can’t sell by telling the truth.
The resolve would help you, the industry, and people at large.
Nail on the head. written by Skeptigirl,
February 17, 2010
This article is much clearer than the other in terms of critical thinking. It's hard to question the ethics of presenting your product as a little more shiny than it really is, or associating the product with an image like the off road vehicle ad aimed at the city driving buyer. Those ads don't bother me. But why, as a society, we tolerate the fraud of products like HeadOn and Airborne under the guise of free speech is beyond me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
Excellent written by IanKoro,
February 17, 2010
I found your original article pretty clear as well. There's a program on CBC radio in Canada called "Age of Persuasion", done by a man who works in advertising, about the history of marketing and advertising which I think is excellent. With the use of google you can find a podcast that hosts all the past episodes.
One thing he mentioned in one episode is how many people often say "I know advertising works, but I'm well aware of what it does, and it doesn't affect me." This reminds me of skeptics who think that their skepticism means they're unaffected by the power of placebo. Advertising works on everybody, I'd even wager more so on those who think they're immune to it than anybody else.
I remember one comment in the previous thread where someone actually claimed they never buy anything advertised on television. Which is a claim so completely ridiculous it comes close to making the claimant a contender for the JREF's $1,000,000 prize.
Sure there are all kinds of problems with crass commercialism, questionable advertising, and criminal behavior on the part of big business, and there are certainly times when advertising becomes shrill and irritating, but it's certainly not going away anytime soon, and there are plenty of instances of great, intelligent advertising.
A lot of what marketing is about is not deception, it's more about making the consumer aware of the brand or product, and, of course, presenting the brand in a favorable light. Most advertising doesn't make false claims, and anybody who thinks that someone who was financially irresponsible because they were wooed into debt by car and electronics commericals has the right to blame the advertisers is making a pretty wild claim.
People often say that advertisers often create a completely novel and false need, but I don't see that happening very often. Take for example, Tide's "ring around the collar" campaign of the 50's or 60's. People often laugh at that, as an example of a totally manufactured problem, but the reality is, that campaign was created in response to marketing research that showed people tended to use the dirtiness of a shirt's collar to guage how clean it was.
As skeptic's it is important to continually re-evaluate your beliefs. The idea that advertising is a horrible capitalist evil exists all over the place, but frankly, it's not exactly backed up by any real evidence.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
... written by Otara,
February 17, 2010
"but it's certainly not going away anytime soon"
Thats true of any number of practises though and in itself is not a defense of anything.
Again, its quite possible to say personal responsibility is needed to handle situations and dislike the reason the personal responsibility is needed. Im allowed to dislike muggers, even when I also need to take precautions to avoid being mugged by them.
Similarly the writer again is making an implicit defense of anything other than outright lying, which I dont agree with. There are many other aspects of advertising and product placement that he leaves out like leaving sweets at childrens eye level in supermarkets that in my view are reprehensible no matter how 'legal' they may be or targetting children with advertising.
The fact of the matter is regulation has generally been the only way advertisers pull back on what they do. Self regulation by and large in this area has been a joke and only ever occurs in the context of external regulation being a real possibility.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Bravo written by bob1942,
February 17, 2010
Bravo on this article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
... written by Random,
February 17, 2010
"The resolve would help you, the industry, and people at large"
Sorry, but it wouldn't. There is a client willing to pay for that misleading advert. However many people in your industry resolve not to make misleading claims there will either be those that do not, or if all so resolve then another will form. Where there is a market someone will serve it. The only solution is to make the consequences of such dishonesty uneconomic. The only solution is to arrange that dishonesty has a financial penalty. I personally would suggest it should be in legally-enforceable liability for the efficacy of the product (i.e. not allowing advertisers to weasel out by disclaimer, and holding them to the claims made in the 99%), but failing that regulation could be effective.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by SashaNichole,
February 17, 2010
You're brilliant
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Great Clarification written by Kajabla61,
February 17, 2010
I was a bit concerned by the tone of your first article, this is the "however" portion that goes with it. Thanks for clarifying.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by vino,
February 17, 2010
Informed,intelligent and skeptical consumers are not taken in by the marketers games. This group however is not the one the marketing experts are aiming for.
Just watch late night infomercials, and count the number of lies misleading statements. Then try to read that fine print on the bottom of the screen. I think the "1%" disclaimer on those is a generous rounding UP of the figure.
People will believe what they see and hear, even if the "testimonies" are scripted.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by Rustylizard,
February 18, 2010
“Most marketing research is bogus and non-predictive, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, and despite big bucks spent on and because of it. But that’s another subject.”
Then things haven’t changed much. I took an advertising psychology course back in the early 1960s, and the professor informed us that there was very little data available on the effectiveness of ads. Companies would spent a bundle on their advertising, but weren’t willing to pay for studies to see if it worked. Since I took that course, I can’t view an ad without trying to analyze it, instead of concentrating on the product, so I find all of your information useful. One of my favorite pet peeves—ads where the profit margin percentage from shipping and handling often exceeds that of the product. And don’t you just love that expression, “But wait … there’s more.”?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
infomercials written by bob1942,
February 18, 2010
Especially when its Kevin Trudeau. If the TV stations that ran these things were liable for promoting fraud, it might change.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Free..just pay shipping an handling written by William,
February 18, 2010
The product is free, but you pay more than 3 times the postage to have it sent to you. Just be honest--the product costs $4, and they'll ship it to you for $2.95.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
I was thinking about this discussion... written by Griz,
February 18, 2010
...when I answered a knock at my door and this dillhole says, "hi, we're taking a survey, do you have an extended warranty on your jeep?" (which was sitting in the driveway.) He got this comically shocked look on his face when I told him that I wasn't going to answer personal questions from a random stranger knocking on my door. I had a similar experience when a guy knocked on my door and asked me if I had an alarm system. He was the one that got the blank stare, then my sarcastic nature got the better of me and I said, "would you also like a list of my valuables and where they're kept in the house?"
I think advertising per se is necessary and helpful. If I'm in the market for, say, a vacuum cleaner, advertising lets me know what my options are in the market. I would like advertising to inform me about the product and how I can find out more, and trust me to thereafter make an informed decision as to which product suits my needs. If your product meets my requirements best, I'll buy it. In reality, that's how I do it anyway, because, being extremely cynical, I check out all claims made for a product and completely divorce need from desire. I conciously make an effort not to be swayed by bells and whistles. I am lucky in that image has never been important to me.
The problem I have with marketing these days is that although they cannot MAKE me do anything, they act like they can. Advertising actively intends to manipulate me to act against my interests. Although I make sure they can't do it, it makes me mad that they do. It also makes me mad that they think I'm so stupid that I'll believe their bullshit: "hi, we're taking a survey." No you're not, you're going to try to sell me a worthless extended warranty for that vehicle, just like the dealer did, and just three out of seven pieces of junkmail per day currently.
My reaction to the last article on this subject was mostly because I percieved it was a marketing guy telling me marketing is not responsible for the manipulation techniques they use because technically they can't MAKE anyone do anything. The truth is, almost ALL advertising is deliberately misleading, manipulative, or both, and I can't understand how anyone can work in that industry and still defend any of that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
"They cannot MAKE me do anything" written by William,
February 18, 2010
Griz- But you and I both know that mainstream consumers aren't such independent thinkers. Advertisers know this, and exploit it. Their job is to sell a product that may not be the best the market has to offer. They have to at least convince people that this is the "one" to own, and additionally make one feel inadequate if they don't own "one" in the first place.
"Informed,intelligent and skeptical consumers are not taken in by the marketers games. This group however is not the one the marketing experts are aiming for."
Totally wrong. (Good) marketing is not generally about deception. Sometimes it is, of course, but like I said before, the people who think they aren't affected by marketing are probably those who understand it least, and are affected the most.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
William written by Griz,
February 18, 2010
All too true, but as far as that goes, I do agree with the original article: I think every consumer has a responsibility to check out claims before throwing money at something. Those that fall prey to all the advertising, marketing, and merchandising tricks hopefully learn their lesson, but many don't.
I would love it if there was some way we could inform and educate people about all these manipulative tactics and thereby negate them, but I think that would be a losing battle. Maybe someone should do something like Quackwatch for marketing tricks. But I don't think legislation is the answer either. Whatever rules you set for advertisers, they're always going to go one step beyond what's ethical and claim their observing the letter of the law.
Bottom line, though, is: people who act without thinking are always going to act without thinking. That's what advertisers count on.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
More Special Pleading written by Michael Dawson,
February 18, 2010
"predatory pricing, omitting pertinent information, pushing unneeded products, pushing harmful products like cigarettes and junk food, spinning, taking unfair advantage of emotions, etc., etc"
You just described 85 percent of corporate marketing campaigns. Harmful products include the automobile, by the way. If corporations succeed in keeping us in cars, we will burn up the planet's petroleum supply within decades.
Meanwhile, what about the cost of marketing? It's added to the price of the pitched products, and born by the buyer. It's a trillion-dollar-a-year endeavor, at least. That's sheer, gross economic waste, and a private tax.
And for a marketer to scold people about personal responsibility is like a robber blaming his victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood.
Marketing uses emotional manipulation and studied disinformation to sell crap on behalf of wealthy corporate shareholders. It also functions as a major form of media censorship, via the constant threat of pulled advertising in the case of content that displeases the masters.
That's the facts, Cuno, and you either know it, or are in massive denial.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
@M Dawson written by Skeptigirl,
February 18, 2010
You just described 85 percent of corporate marketing campaigns. Harmful products include the automobile, by the way. If corporations succeed in keeping us in cars, we will burn up the planet's petroleum supply within decades.
There is a difference between risk and fraud. You seem to have confused the two.
Then there is the issue of risk with a benefit, and risk with no benefit. That seems to have escaped your attention as well.
As for the cost of marketing, there I agree with you. It's unfortunate we as a society pay so much to be marketed to. I have no solution to this dilemma.
And for a marketer to scold people about personal responsibility is like a robber blaming his victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood.
Who are you referring to? Do you consider all education efforts as marketing?
Marketing uses emotional manipulation and studied disinformation to sell crap on behalf of wealthy corporate shareholders. It also functions as a major form of media censorship, via the constant threat of pulled advertising in the case of content that displeases the masters.
This paranoia is over the top, and that's coming from a left of center, often critical of the corporate mentality, person. It's useful to specifically address corporate actions which run counter to the public good. Heaven knows there are plenty of such actions to criticize. But viewing all corporations as evil beings with too much control over your life is not realistic and not productive.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by Random,
February 19, 2010
Michael Dawson
"If corporations succeed in keeping us in cars, we will burn up the planet's petroleum supply within decades"
Utter, complete nonsense of exactly the sort this site should be challenging. An unscientific assumption based on a myth.
By coincidence Exxon Mobile (often criticised for being too cautious in exploration) has just announced record finds of oil, meaning that for the 16th year running they have found more than they have extracted. So the more adventurous oil companies will be doing better still. Peak oil is a long way off, and getting further off every year.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
I'm truly astonished these days... written by Griz,
February 19, 2010
...when I hear someone repeating "fossil fuels are running out!" propaganda. It's usually young idealists who haven't been hearing recycled versions of that scare tactic for 40 years.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Michael Dawson written by Caller X,
February 19, 2010
More Special Pleading written by Michael Dawson, February 18, 2010 "predatory pricing, omitting pertinent information, pushing unneeded products, pushing harmful products like cigarettes and junk food, spinning, taking unfair advantage of emotions, etc., etc"
You just described 85 percent of corporate marketing campaigns. Harmful products include the automobile, by the way. If corporations succeed in keeping us in cars, we will burn up the planet's petroleum supply within decades.
Within 2 decades? Thousands of decades? Or you're just making stuff up or repeating what someone told you?
Meanwhile, what about the cost of marketing? It's added to the price of the pitched products, and born by the buyer. It's a trillion-dollar-a-year endeavor, at least. That's sheer, gross economic waste, and a private tax.
Yes, you pay for products. That's not a tax.
.....
Marketing uses emotional manipulation and studied disinformation to sell crap on behalf of wealthy corporate shareholders. It also functions as a major form of media censorship, via the constant threat of pulled advertising in the case of content that displeases the masters.
I adopt that very posture every year at the anti-globalization protests near the World Bank in DC. I've found it enables me to pull in endless college-age pelt. Chicks eat that stuff up with a spoon. It's my own little marketing campaign. I like to call it "the trim-tax".
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@ Random written by Skeptigirl,
February 19, 2010
By coincidence Exxon Mobile (often criticised for being too cautious in exploration) has just announced record finds of oil, meaning that for the 16th year running they have found more than they have extracted.
Don't be so sure what they claim is factual. It's my understanding these companies regularly exaggerate their holdings.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Caller X written by Griz,
February 19, 2010
"...it enables me to pull in endless college-age pelt..."
LOL
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
