Advertisements can be irritating when they interrupt our favourite shows or obstruct our view out the window on the bus. They can also amuse us when they’re clever or humorous. When ads get in our way or cause a negative reaction in the viewer, it can be quite a challenge to judge where we should draw the line, and to say “Hey, that’s not ok!”
There are a few different government agencies that work to police the ads and ad agencies all over the world. In Canada, it is the Advertising Standards Canada group that produces The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. As said on their website: “The Code is broadly supported by industry and is designed to help set and maintain standards of honesty, truth, accuracy, fairness and propriety in advertising.” All of their rules are centred around this, and the group also accept complaints from consumers regarding ads they think go against the Code. The Code’s scope includes details about what advertisers can say about price claims, guarantees, testimonials, safety, advertising to children and minors, all the way to unacceptable depictions and portrayals.
I personally think that the scope the Code covers in Canada is reasonable and contains very good points to help the consumer avoid dishonest products and services by preventing the advertisement of them as such. I also think it is great that there are services in place where consumers may voice their complaints about ads, however, I am not sure how successful these individual complaints may be in each individual instance since by the time they complain, many other people have probably seen and been affected by the ad in question.These complaints may aid in future beneficial changes to the Code, but perhaps the damage had already been done depending on the severity of the ad.
I cannot speak for ad agencies, but it does make sense that since the consumer is inundated with so many visual pieces of advertisement that the ad agencies would need to potentially resort to more drastic measures in order to grab the attention of the consumer. When there are so many things to look at, all vying for attention, you definitely need to somehow stand out from that monotony. Shock is certainly one method of doing this, but there are other ways to get attention that the agencies could use as well, such as humour like the Old Spice commercial that went viral a couple years ago.
I think it does matter that ad agencies are offending other groups of people even though their target audience aren’t offended. Just because they aren’t in the target audience does not mean that they will not be forced to look at and experience the ad when it may be plastered to the side of busses or on billboards. I think that it is inconsiderate to not think about how you may be effecting other people with shocking ads. Obviously, there needs to be a place to draw the line or else it would become “all ads that are controversial in the least bit will be banned” which is not realistic, but agencies should have to consider the impacts at least to some degree, which is where the Code can come in.
I do think that it is a deliberate strategy to get your ad banned so that the publicity from the banning will do the work for you. There are people in the world that will respect your company for having the confidence to create something that turns heads, which can be another benefit. There’s no way that agencies are somehow missing the fact that their ads are shocking, they can’t be surprised when viewers react strongly to a message they’ve created after their marketing team has researched so much about their viewers before they even started the ad campaign.
In terms of the brand’s reputation, I’m sure that there is a line that exists where their reputation may be tarnished if they cross it. That line exists between controversial and the morally wrong. Since morals are a very personal thing, this line is drawn separately from person to person, but within different cultures there are common collective morals that do exist. If an ad was to cross that morally wrong line strong enough and in the right culture, I do think their reputation will be tarnished. If it stays just in the area of controversial, it would be beneficial to the company instead.
An example of this could be the anti-abortion ads on Guelph Transit busses, versus the recent Rainbow Doritos campaign to combat mental illness and suicide in LGBT youth. In the first example, graphic images were attached to the ad on the bus, and the phrasing of the accompanying text made it sound like the option for an abortion doesn’t exist, which it does. The use of graphic images on busses was also offensive as you can’t get away from the images as easily as if they were in a magazine. This campaign tarnished the group’s reputation in Guelph. With the Doritos campaign, they are reaching back to those against their ideas to continue the conversation, supporting their campaign in ways that is controversial, but I consider less morally wrong regardless of the fact that I do support their message.
Where we will continue to draw our lines as individuals and as a culture will be interesting to see as our culture continues to learn and grow, and advertisers continue to toe the line carefully.
izzy806
prguitarman
dailybridgerton
jacobvanloon
baratheonpilled
stormborns