Comparative Advertisement as an Extremely Influential Tool - Essay Example

Comparative Advertisement Comparative Advertisement It is ethically correct to criticize competitors through comparative advertisements because it is a good way to gather attention and earn profit by the company. It is a marketing tactic which has been used for many centuries and as long as it doesn’t tell any lies and misleads the customers it is ethically correct to utilize this technique. Comparative advertisement is a strategy used by companies in which they compare their product with another similar one in order to achieve an upper hand over their competitors. It was first approve by the Federal Trade Commission in 1970, according to which, it is a tactic used to enhance competition. Ever since its approval, comparative advertisements has been compared to a double edged sword in which it promotes one product whereas demotes the other. An ideal comparative advertisement provides the customers with honest and sincere information in order to compete with a product so that the consumers can make a better choice while purchasing the commodity. Various researches proved that comparative advertisements help to create awareness among consumers, hence, the less popular brands become popular and the market for the popular brands tend to decrease. Comparative advertisement is considered unethical when the comparison provides the consumer with fake information and misleads the customer on purpose. Hence unethical comparative advertisements may also result in lawful proceedings. In accordance with one court any oblique remark, any indirect proclamation or any suggestions that may mean more than one thing are considered unethical. It is also considered wrong if an advertisement flatters their product in comparison to other. Furthermore, any sort of name calling, insulting and finger pointing are considered wrong and should be avoided at all possible costs when indulging in comparative advertisements. To keep a check and balance on comparative advertisements and to keep it within limits various organizations in the United States such as American Association of Advertising Agencies, the National Association of Broadcasters and the FTC have issued do’s and don’ts of comparative advertisements. One such example is of NBC, which says that the companies should not discredit, disparage or attack the competitors, products or industries in an unfair way (Bovée & Arens, 1982). A list of guidelines by The American Association of Advertising Agencies is made up of ten points which ensures that a comparative advertisement remains within the ethical boundaries. The first point in this list says that the advertisement is only meant to inform the consumers and not meant to unfairly attack the competitors, when and if a comparative product is named it should be the name which is used in the market, the advertisement should never degrade the competitor product or company in any way, comparison should only be limited to a similar prospective like shape to shape, feature to feature, ingredient to ingredient, The advertisement should only be for comparative purposes and not meant to demote the other brand. If the advertisement portrays any competitive test then it should follow objective testing service, these tests should be supportive of all claims and should not give false data to the consumers. Impartial test results or inconclusive test results should be avoided, the product being compared should be similar in every possible manner as possible and the advertisement should not include more than one testimonial given by a person (Wells, Burnett & Moriarty, 2006). One problematic case of comparative advertisement was seen in Schick’s advertisement when it claimed that it was better than other leading razors. Hence, other companies such as the Fleximatic, Norcelo, Remington and sunbeam files lawsuits against Schick. The NARB, conducted tests and it was concluded that Schick’s claims were false and deceived the customers, as a result of this the Schick’s advertisements were stopped (Magill, 2013). A good example of comparative advertisement is seen between Apple’s Iphone and Samsun Galaxy SII. Both of these phones are very much similar in features, looks and even shape. Samsung titles its SII as ‘the next big thing’. It shows long lines of people waiting to get Samsung’s new phone which refers to the long lines of people waiting to get the latest iphone. However, Samsung never shows Apple’s logo or even its name, setting an example for all those who are planning to advertise their products in a comparative manner (Halt, 2014). Liberty and autonomy play an important role in business and advertisement both. However, it should be combined with the responsibility of not causing any harm to others in the process and not affect the liberty of others (Dower, 1998). Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher, who opposed the theory of utilitarianism and proposed his own theory known as Kantianism. According to his theory, there is not right and wrong of an action which is not dependent upon their end result rather it depends upon the fact that whether they fulfill our desires or not. According to him, morality was of utmost importance. In easier words, Kant wanted to explain that people should not do anything that they do not want people to do in return. Such as if I expect other not to cheat then I should not cheat myself (Csus.edu, n.d.). Kant’s perspective does imply on comparative advertising in ways that if a brand does not want to be degraded or compared negatively by other brands then it should not itself allow comparison in their advertisements. But this theory does not apply to everyone and those who have their mind set to follow unethical ways of comparative advertisements will find a way to do so. John Rawl proposed a theory to ensure justice among all, known as the veil of ignorance. According to Rawl, it would be better if people were kept under a veil of ignorance and not have knowledge about what is going to happen or what lies beyond the veil, hence everyone would seem to agree with the other’s point of view and in this way every one would agree on one point. Rawls’ veil of ignorance helps to eliminate injustice and helps people decide on a fair basis (Shaw, 2011). Rawl’s veil of ignorance is a good moral implication to avoid injustice and serves as an example which allows people to choose without being unbiased and attempts to unite freedom and equality on a single platform. Like Kant, Rawl’s theory is also based on two principles; the first says that every individual has a right to freedom and that an individual should not affect the freedom of others. But in most cases people can misuse their right to liberty and make wrong decisions and degrade the other person unknowingly (The Meaning of Liberal Equality, 2013). Advertisement agencies usually defend themselves based on these theories of liberalism and autonomy thinking that good is achieved through advertisements. These advertising agencies consider consumers as decision makers who decide on whether the product will be successful or not and advertisements as the ultimate power that can manipulate the customers mind. The advertisements should be persuasive enough as to affect the target audience into buying the product. The advertisements are liberal enough to alter the subject of the media coverage and even alter the content being used in the coverage. However, critics are against these advertisements and believe that these agencies follow none of the ethical principles of advertising (Christians, Rotzoll & Fackler, 2005). The Federal Trade Commission after conducting an investigation of advertising media and various trade associations of an industry and examining the industry codes, policy statements announced their own statement of policy regarding comparative advertisements because they had found various policy statements that seemed inappropriate or discouraged the competitors. The policy statements was made so that the advertisers could benefit from it and re evaluate their policy regarding comparative advertisements. The commission only supports advertisement in which the comparisons are clearly stated and contain truthful information. It allows productive comparison and encourages improvement in product and innovation with the help of such advertisements. The commission does not allow bashing or unfair attacking of the competitors and only allows this only if disparagement is truthful and honest. The commission also does not allow the advertisements to show that the product is better than the other product which it is being compared to and is not acceptable by the commission (Ftc.gov, 1979). FTC also discouraged the use of names in comparative advertisements. This cannot be seen as openly participating in comparative advertisements because the FTC has clearly set out rules for comparative advertisements and has also strictly prohibited any kind of advertisements that degrades the other product. Any sort of name calling is also prohibited by the organization and according to some critics; the policy statement of Federal trade commission may be seen as discouraging the use of comparative advertisements by the advertising agencies. International Trademarks Association (INTA) is a subcommittee of comparative advertisement. It regulates the law of comparative advertisements in various countries. In 1998, it requested the approval to allow comparative advertisement on conditions that rules and regulations are made to regulate comparative advertisements. INTA promoted the comparative advertisement because according to them this type of advertisement allows innovation and allows improvement in products. It provides the customer with useful facts and figures which helps the customer to decide on which product to buy (Das, 2008). Comparative advertisement is a technique used by many popular brands and is served as an extremely influential tool. It is useful in helping customers decide on a better product and it helps the companies to innovate and continuously improve the product to face the competition of the market. However, comparative advertisements may at times prove to be unethical when the advertisers go out of their limits and give wrong information to the customers to gain benefit from it. References Bovée, C., & Arens, W. (1982). Contemporary advertising (pp. 240-241). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin. Wells, W., Burnett, J., & Moriarty, S. (2006). Advertising (7th ed., p. 83). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Magill, F. (2013). Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Business and Commerce Volume II (p. 988). New York, NY: Routledge. Halt, G. (2014). Intellectual property in consumer electronics, software and technology startups (pp. 72-72). New York: Springer. Dower, N. (1998). World ethics (p. 155). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Csus.edu,. KANTIAN ETHICS. Retrieved 29 March 2015, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm Shaw, W. (2011). Business ethics (pp. 111-112). Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. The Meaning of Liberal Equality. (2013). PHAVISMINDA, 12. Retrieved from http://ryanmaboloc.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-rawls-and-liberal-equality.html Christians, C., Rotzoll, K., & Fackler, M. (2005). Media ethics (7th ed.). New York: Longman. Ftc.gov,. (1979). Statement of Policy Regarding Comparative Advertising | Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved 29 March 2015, from https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1979/08/statement-policy-regarding-comparative-advertising Das, P. (2008). Advertising And Trademark Infringement. Legalserviceindia.com. Retrieved 29 March 2015, from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l180-Advertising-And-Trademark-Infringement.html Reflection and Integration When I discussed this paper with one of my family members, she said that she did not like the concept of comparative advertisement as a whole. When asked why she thought so, she simply replied by saying that she did not like the idea of comparison among products. Each and every product is unique and original in its own way. Quoting the example of Samsung and apple in the paper, she said that if a person was a fan of Apple iphones, they would even fall for the comparative advertisements and would do what they felt was right. Secondly, she also thought that Kant’s theory could be manipulated favoring the person and can be used for the selfish purposes, she further said that if a person had to lie to promote his product and bash the other one, they would simply do so by justifying their lies. When I asked that whether she would like to see any comparative advertisements on television, she replied positively, saying that it would be useful in certain products which did not have brand followers, and the customers had the potential to be diverted. She further added by saying that as long as comparative advertisements are providing the customers with truthful facts that are not manipulating the consumers then there is no harm in creating such customers. And an added benefit she agreed to was that companies certainly do have a potential to grow through comparison with different products. This certainly proved to be an effective communication as I got to know the opinions about comparative advertisement from a general point of view. Read More