Sofia+Chahin+Rought+Draft+Ethics+in+Adevertising

Advertisement

Ethics in Advertisement Escuela Internacional Sampedrana Mr. Shult Philosophy

Ethic of Advertisement “Sale! $4.99 for a pair of brand new amazing sandals! Get yours today while supplies last.” Today (Now a days) we observe these types of statements anywhere we go. They are called advertisements. “Advertising is the business of drawing public attention to goods and services.” (Princeton, 2009) Today we find ourselves with an ethical question regarding advertising. “Is advertising ethical or not and should it be banned?” Is someone arguing that advertising ought to be banned? who is that? restricted perhaps but banned? 1270598202 (eliminate the "") We will find different answers to this question (rwrd). Personally, I believe (NEVER USE I, I, I... YOU DONT HAVE TO SAY I BELIEVE!!) that (eliminate "Personally, I believe that") advertising should be censored in some way but not banned because banning it would mean an infringement on freedom of expression; advertising gives us, the consumers, the medium by which to know what is being offered causing upon us desires and giving us limited pleasures when we obtain the product. In addition it gives the consumer many advantages which include the ability for us to seek products that will better enhance our personal lives and it is an expression of liberty, especially free will. (So... ban or not? Work on thesis) (briefly state in which ways you think, without saying 'I', it should be censored; restate thesis/introduction: remember censorship is also a way of taking away people's freedom of expression because some things or actions might be morally wrong; sounds like you're confused between censorship or banning) I find myself agreeing with many people's comments here... you are sounding over-dramatic. No one really wants to ban advertising in a free society... a better question is: what are the just limitations a free society can place on advertisements? 1270598202 Advertising is a tricky business; it has to attract people’s attention to get them to buy the product. Usually advertisement does this through an eye-catching __add__ (spelling) in a newspaper or a TV space. To ensure that these “eye-catching” advertisements are ethical we find ourselves with some set of international rules. According to the European Commission on Information Safety and Media (citation) advertisers cannot mislead people, they must identify themselves, (--> eliminate and) and promoting towards minors has some restrictions, as well as publicity for substances such as alcohol and tobacco have some restrictions. By saying that advertisers cannot mislead a person we can understand that these people creating an advertisement must adhere to the facts and not create false statements, limiting their potential to lie to the consumer. When it is said that an advertiser must identify itself we can ensure that even though the ad is a negative commercial directed towards another business we will know who paid for such an advertisement. The minor restrictions that are introduced to advertisement ensure that the ads are directed towards the right audience and not taking advantage of the innocence of toddlers. Regarding harmful substances such as tobacco and alcohol these advertisement must contain a cautionary statement (awkward, rephrase), besides this they may not lie in the sense that they will enhance performance and they must not link the consumption to driving or other physical activities. All of these simple rules ensure that (the) advertiser at least follow the minimum ethical rules in our society. (since these are specific rules about advertisement, you should make citations) An ethical brainteaser we deal with every day is: "What can you legitimately simulate to illustrate the truth?" Before you answer "nothing!", ask yourself if a better message would be served if Pampers and Kotex commercials showed the real thing instead of that fake blue water. Someone might say that advertisers push the limit in some cases. This may be true to some eyes but not to others as this statement is subject (subjective?) (subject means that its tied to: to the previous evaluation) to personal opinion and not hard core facts. Having said this, if an advertiser is trying to exceed the limit they will be stopped before the advertisement even hits the public as they are reviewed by people to ensure that no laws are being broken. Ads have to be able to prove what they say to their own corporate counsel, the ad agency's lawyers, the network's approval committees and to any number of regulating bodies like the FDA and the FTC (maybe you should specify what those mean). With at least five different government agencies looking over our shoulder, the cost of being caught cheating is simply too high. Like lawyers, an advertisement’s job is to put products in the best light. When you go on a job interview or a first date, you don't assume a false identity; you probably don't make a full disclosure either. Chances are you keep your lactose intolerance and foot odor issues in the background, and save your Federation Starfleet (?) uniform for later in the relationship. For a company trying to sell something, an ad is like getting a job interview with millions of people all at once. The ad wants to make a good first impression and really, really doesn't want to make people mad. But different people react differently. (You say you advocate for censorship, but here you are stating that adverstisements have a lot of restrictions already and they follow the rules? So they already have censorship and you are agreeing to those rules I suppose..?) Advertisement is positive to society as it is the medium by which we can easily find out of products, services or any other thing that can enhance our life. Therefore advertisements help everyone in the pursuit of happiness. Advertising can contribute to the betterment of society by uplifting and inspiring people and motivating them to act in ways that benefit themselves and others. Steve Forbes once said “Our founders understood: First life, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness.” (Forbes, 1999) The pursuit of happiness is an alienable right to any citizen of the world, if happiness can be obtained through an object why not makes it easier to obtain it? Campaigns make us aware of the products and services that are out in the market for our leisure which will allow us to pursue an easy quest to happiness. Besides this utilitarian philosophers argue that the utility of a product is how much benefit it brings to society. Any utilitarian philosopher would agree that advertising is beneficial to everyone. Ultimately advertising creates a want for a product, that want for the product creates a desire and the acquiring of the product gives us happiness. As more people acquire the product because of effective advertisement more products must be created, therefore, creating job positions which will give essential money for families to live a decent life. Therefore the utility of advertisement goes beyond the simple fact that it gets a product out to the audience. Besides these benefits advertising helps the political democracy of a country. Political leaders use advertising as their main weapon to get their ideas to the audience. If people do not like the ideas presented they will not vote for the individual. (Good points) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith says that “advertising is bad because it creates a false desire for an object.” Advertising can betray its role as a source of information by misrepresentation and by withholding relevant facts. A false desire is not possible because a person has its own will and judgment to make decisions. Also, helps the economy move in a faster way and as Galbraith is an economist he should learn that the economy is basically driven by wants or desires. Excessive commercialism is creating a materialistic population where unneeded value is given to consumer products at an increasing rate. Richard and Joyce Wolkomir say, “Today’s average American consumes twice as many goods and services as in 1950” Even though society consumes more, they do it without any obligation.

Why not include some real world examples of court cases where a company was sued by individuals or a company challenged a law that it thought was unconstitutional (and you'll have to specify whose constitution -- Honduras, USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia?). What about some public outrage over signs on buses advertising atheism that outraged some people? What limitations should there be on the advertising of pornographic materials? Are such laws enforceable, and if so, how -- and would the enforcement of such laws also break people's freedoms? Fights right now over gun laws and the NRA in the United States come to mind where some states require that you show your ID, present a criminal background check and wait 2 weeks or more before you can buy a gun... are those limits constitutional? That might be getting away from your original thesis somewhat, but the idea is the same: what just limits can the government place over private corporations and individuals in what they buy or sell?1270598202

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rosseau and Immanuel Kant have been advocates of human rights. Today we try to ensure that free will never be violated. Advertisement is the soul practice of free will and freedom of expression. Banning advertisement is against these alienable rights to human kind. Companies under law act as individuals. As an individual they have the freedom of expression and they may express it through advertisement. Besides this consumers also have rights and their most basic right is free will. The buyer posses the free will to listen to, buy and have an opinion on things. Consumers are not obligated to listen to the advertisement as they have other options to listen to, besides this they are not obligated to buy a product as it is not a need in life, simply a want. Consumers must understand life as the prime minister of India once said “Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.” (Nehru, 1961) This applies to advertisement as the hand being dealt is what is determined but the way you acquire, understand and interpret the advertiment (advertisement) is your personal free will. As Ayn Rand once said “Man is a being with free will; therefore each man is potentially good or evil, and it’s up to him and only him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be.” (Rand, 1971) Applying this to advertising, it is only him who can decide what he wants to buy and obtain from the advertisement. Many people may say that advertisement infringes free will and rights as it overloads the scene with tremendous amounts of advertisements of all kinds. This is not true as it does not infringe in private property and it is the consumer who has the power to read and notice such advertisements. Advertising also can be, and often is, a tool of the "phenomenon of consumerism," as Pope John Paul II delineated it when he said: "It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward having' rather than being’and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself." (Paul,2001) It is argued that consumers are capable of saying no, and that no one can force them to buy anything which they dislike or which they deem to be unneeded. First of all, advertisements are... (?, forgot to include something? :D) Advertising today has become extremely common in our days. Today we want to look at the commercials to observe new products and look for good deals such as promotions. It is up to the consumer to buy and listen to advertisements. The publicity industry is lead by sets of international rules that ensure the ethicality of ads. Advertising gives us, the consumers, the possibility to search and seek new objects that will give us happiness; beside this, advertisements are also an act of freedom of expression and free will. Banning advertisement is not only an infringement on these rights but an act of communism which cannot happen in our democratic countries.

Comment: This is a very good essay. It has an attractive opening sentence. It may need some more in text citation which can support much better your ideas. Some specifications should be done to some parts in the supporting ideas. Other than those observations the essay is pretty well constructed. 1268785817

1268787513 This is a very thorough and interesting piece of work. You effectively deliver the message by using adequate sentence structures. There is an order that is easy to follow that facilitates the reading. There is just one little thing I suggest you to do: try to find Kantian theories about advertisment. They surely have something interesting to say. You should also address PROPAGANDA, the german movement that allowed Hitler to reach the power as well as Benito Mussolini. Through both examples you are able to discuss the negative effect of advertisements. You need to work on your thesis statement because you are practically saying"yes, but no, but yes". Another thing is.: NEVER use "I" in a paper that does not ask for personal experience, it makes it look informal. =D hope everything can help you. remember using SON OF CITATION The real-life situations are eye catching and interesting to read. There is only few sentence structure errors, which makes your essay's main idea to be delivered fluently to the readers. I really enjoyed reading your essay, it's very interesting. Just remember that personal thoughts, including "I"s, should not be included in a persuasive essay, Other than that, your essay seems fine! 1268803406

I really like this essay. Your word choice is excellent and your resources great. However, I'm not sure about the delivery of this topic At first you talk about censorship and how advertisement should have it, but then you start talking about how you think advertisement is good and should be promoted. What happened to the censorship part? Do you want to write about why advertisement is good or bad or why advertisement should be censored or not? You should really pay attention to this because it sort of seems you are wandering of the point you want to make after the introductory paragraph or that the introductory paragraph and the censorship line should just be eliminated. Also, read the essay out loud or have someone else read it to you so you can check out those grammar errors. You examples are just awesome, very creative. I believe you need to organize your arguments better so your essay is more well apreciated. Keep it up and work hard...Good Luck in NYC "concrete jungles were dreams are made of there's nothing you can't do"!! 1268798664

== Strengths: Strong introduction, good beginning. Catches the reader’s attention immediately. You have good arguments and successfully convince the reader on your point of view. Your thesis is clear. You have nice examples –I especially liked when you compared advertising to a job interview or a first date –this helped make your point clear in a friendly manner. == == Areas to Improve: There is little redundancy that could be taken care of, ad minor grammatical errors as well, including some word choices and rephrasing of clauses. I made my grammar suggestions on a hard copy of your rough draft for your convenience, which I’ll hand to you personally. There is a nice flow overall, only some awkward sentences disrupt the flow a few times. Be careful in some of your paragraphs, where you introduce new ideas in the middle of them. I think it would be best to split some paragraphs, which I address directly and specifically on the hard copy. 1268796294 ==

Reference: Foley, J.P. (1997, February, 22). Ethics in advertising. //Pontifical Council for Social Communications//, Retrieved March 6, 2009, from: [] Hoffman, K. C. (2005, September 26). //Ethics in Advertising//. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from [] No author. (2005, September, 2). The modern rules of advertising?. //BBC news//, Retrieved March 6, 2009, from [] Ogilvy & Mather, (2004). Advertising Educational Foundation. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Ethics in Advertising Web site: [] Paquette, P., & Gini-Newman, L. (2002). Ethics in the World, Philosophy Questions and Theories (302-303). Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson School

Some work needed to bring everything together. The topic is interesting, but get those real world examples with dates, names, times, places to liven things up. Then focus on your thesis statement making it very clear what the limits you are arguing for actually are -- and then justify them; find other experts who disagree with you; and then prove them wrong. Then you're done. Sounds easy right? When do you think you can finish?1270598202