Ad/PR/Mass Comm Ethical Position Paper

As an Advertising and/or Public Relations professional, one is expected to uphold a set of

certain ethical standards. These ethical standards are intended to protect the integrity of the

advertising and public relations fields as well as those who choose a career within them. An

advertising or public relations practitioner who fails to preserve and maintain an ethical

reputation is destined to experience a drastic decline in popularity due to a lack of trust from both

the public and clientele. Thus, it is extremely important that professionals in the aforementioned

fields take into consideration ethical standards with every decision they (or their clients) make.

The scenario being addressed presents a situation in which an ad/pr practitioner must

make a decision of whether or not the advertisement the client plans to produce is ethical. In this

particular situation, one could be at risk of losing their job by defending their ethical standards or

even be obligated to quit to protect their reputation if the company producing the campaign

disagreed.

The big question now is, “Is this ad campaign ethical?”. In short, based on my personal

ethics and those outlined in the PRSA Code of Ethics and the Institute for Advertising Ethics, the

answer is no. While the company has purchased the rights to the name Smither’s and the recipe,

it is unethical to portray to the public, through an advertising campaign, that it was handed down

from generations to the old man actor in the campaign - who, in reality, is not a part of the

Smither’s namesake. The other major issue with this specific advertising campaign is that the

company intends to suggest to the audience that they are a small, local business. This is unethical

as the company is actually a multinational company based in New York.

 Now, one must ask themselves Why? What ethical standards is this campaign defying?

Once reviewing the PRSA Code of Ethics and the Institute for Advertising Ethics, the answer as

to whether or not the proposed campaign is ethical becomes very clear.

Beginning with the PRSA Code of Ethics, the campaign challenges the following

standards:

● Honesty: “We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing

the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public”.

● Loyalty: “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to

serve the public interest”.

● Free Flow of Information: “Be honest and accurate in all communications”.

● Disclosure of Information: “Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of

information released on behalf of those represented”.

These four ethical standards outlined in the PRSA Code of Ethics accentuate the significance of

honesty, transparency, and accuracy among PR professionals in order to maintain a strong

relationship with the public. If I, as the PR professional in the scenario, chose to run this

advertising campaign, I would be violating the aforementioned code of ethics as well as my own

personal ethics. The statement, “It uses a family recipe that has been handed down for

generations of West Virginians beginning in the 1800s from our namesake John Smithers…and

that very same recipe has been passed on to me and we use today,” may technically be true

depending on how one interprets it, however, one’s personal and professional ethics are the true

determinate in whether or not the use of the statement in an advertising campaign is ethical. It,

unarguably, insinuates that the old man actor is a relative of the Smither’s and it is a

‘family-owned’ business. This would be totally acceptable, if it were true. Unfortunately, it is not
true and deceives the public using carefully selected language and wording, thus deeming the

campaign/statement unethical. Based on the honesty, loyalty, free flow of information, and

disclosure of information standards in the PRSA Code of Ethics, airing this advertising campaign

would be unethical as it encourages and delivers dishonest and misleading information that will

likely misinform the public.

When assessing the Institute of Advertising Ethics, the following ethical standards come

into play:

● Principle #1: “Advertising, public relations, marketing communications, news,

and editorial all share a common objective of truth and high ethical standards in

serving the public”.

● Principle #2: “Advertising, public relations, and all marketing communications

professionals have an obligation to exercise the highest personal ethics in the

creation and dissemination of commercial information to consumers”.

Similarly, the Institute of Advertising Ethics leads an Ad/PR professional to question the

ethicality of the advertising campaign at hand. Principles #1 and #2, listed above, remind

professionals to uphold the truth and personal ethics to the highest of standards when distributing

commercial information to the public. Based on these two principles, it is evident that the

Smither’s campaign is intentionally deceptive and therefore unethical. As the professional in this

scenario, I would choose not to air the campaign as it is based on all of the previously stated

information.

The largest advocate in this debate of ethicality is the ethical philosophy Social

Contract/Veil of Ignorance. Following this philosophy, this specific advertising campaign would

undoubtedly be deemed unethical and I would be inclined to attempt to change the campaign or
disassociate myself from the company/brand. The philosophy of Social Contract entails that one

removes them from the situation completely and assesses the benefits and consequences from an

outside perspective. When assuming this perspective, one has no knowledge of whether they are

in the minority or the majority and must decide the ethicality of the situation based solely on the

facts. As the Ad/PR practitioner in this scenario, following the Social Contract philosophy, I

would determine the most ethical choice to be to not run the currently proposed advertising

campaign. The minority in this situation would be Craft’s and the majority would be the public.

Although I may not know which group I fall under, the ethical choice would be to not deceive

the public and cancel or alter the campaign. The consequences of this scenario are not extreme

and if the campaign were canceled or changed to be more ethically aligned, the only people

affected would be those associated with the company and the brand's reputation. However, if it

were the other way around the effect it may possibly have on the public could be detrimental -

even to the Craft’s brand itself if you really evaluate the situation and possible outcomes.

After thoroughly evaluating the scenario in question, I would personally choose to alter

the campaign, ultimately disassociating myself with the brand altogether if they were to choose

to stick with this specific campaign. My personal and professional ethics are extremely important

to my reputation and this specific situation goes against many of my ethical principles.