page 14 March 16, 1998 1 It KKT TI VI

Media managers mustn't allowads that mislead consumers

J;iines Miller III, PresidentRonak! Rengiin's Urst ;ip-pointee as chair (tf the FeticnilTrade (^ninrnission, defemieilhis cuts in FVC activitv' on

"The McNeil/Lehrer Report" in1982 by stating, "The FFC is nut t^conly hody with a program of protect-ing consumers from false and tlecep-tive advertising. The Better BusinessBureau has ;in excellent progratn.The media, anil especially the hroad-c;isl networks, have ongoing proli-lems to screen commercials (for hon-esty)."

Miller could have said that adver-tising regulations are had, as he hadsaid ahout other regulations, hut he(lid not. This leader of l'>H()s deregu-lation implicitly stated that advertis-ing regulations are dcsinilde, hut thatorgani:^.iidons other than the FIC^can provi<le them.

Referring to the power and activityof the media to control advertisingveracity, it might have heen truethen, hut it is not true today.

No U.S. television station, cahle orbroadcast network, magazine, radiostation or newspaper is required toaccept any commercial advertising.All media outlets have the right to re-ject advertising and some imposestrong standards on the types of ad-veitising they will accept.

And every rejection has the powerto influence or alter an advertisingcampaign. Sometimes the mediamanager's ohjections are minor, sochanges can he made to the ad with-out harming the message strateg)'. Offoiirse, the marketer can take the adsto another media outlet, l>ut only ifthere are others who will accept itand who also will fit with the mediastrategy.

With occasional educational semi-

HerbertRotfeldonMisplacedMarketing

nars, the Fl^C tries to encouragemedia managers to tlo more to screenads for potential deceptions, b'verydeceptive claim caught hy attentivemedia managers is one less thing totake up the time and attention of thecommission.

However, the primary concem formost media decisions ahout advertis-ing is how the taste or style of the atifits with tlic editorial content oriniiige of the vehicle, not whether theclaims are true or if the productworks. Some media ct)mpames mighthe examples of a potentially strongadvertising regulation force, hut itwould he a gross error to presumethat their practices are typical.

Usually, although media matiagersprohahly would not knowingly carryads that mislead the audience, tlieirprimarj" concem is keeping readersor viewers, ln other words, mediamanagers aren't so much concemedabout whether an ad is misleading aswhether the iUidience will find it oh-jectionable.

The original owners of the majornetworks—wealthy patricians with asense of social responsihility—startedtheir businesses with consumer pro-tection concerns. They carriedstrong and influential news divisionsas a money-losing public service.

These days, owners and corporate

affiliations are in constant flux, andpeople fear that advertising standardswill become driven hy monetary-goals. At many daily newspapei^s,which are driven hy the delivery^ otnews and honest infonnation, theptimaiy reason for rejecting advertis-ing is often that it is potentially mis-leading. Yet grossly false ads some-times do appear in reputable publica-tions.

Texthooks and popular wisdompaint the media as major hulwarks ofconsumer protection, hut advertisingacceptance is really just another mar-keting activity for tlie puhlication orprograms. Good Harm-keeping's seal ofapproval was assurance not of prod-uct testing hut of standing behindreaders wanting refimtls tor productsthat did not meet expectations. Theseal was a tool to market the niag;i-zine to both readers and advertisers.

hi these days of the Intemet andthe quick exchange of infonnation,the time and costs of checking out ad-vertiser claims are no longer reasonstor ignoring p<3ssibly tlecepdve claims.

At the same time, the media man-agers' job is evaluated by the revenueand protitability, so e\ en the bestpolicy otten is driven by greed andfear—hy wanting the revenue but notwanting to drive away the audience.In marketing the pubhcitions orbroadcast stations, most managersare concemed with entertainmentvalue, not a reputation for honest}.

Media standards for acceptable ad-vertising [̂ H)ssess a strong potential asa force for consumer protection, butnot when its use is limited or mis-placed as another marketing tool. •

Herb Rotfeld is a professor of mar-keting at Auburn University in Ai-abama.

These books are among the manyreceived at the AJVIA'S MargueriteKent Lihrary/Intormation Center.Many are availahle for loan to /\A1Amemhers, others for reference only.

'J The Advertising Agency Busi-ness: The Complete Manual forManage/rient & Operation, by Eu-gene J. Hameroff. N'l'CyContem-porary Publishing Co., 425.'* W.I onh\ Ave., Lincolnwood. 111.

60rt46, (847) 679-5500. 240 pp.,$VA95 (hard cover). Provides infor-mation on developing and manag-ing an agency.

• Creative Strategy in DirectMarketing, by Susan K. Jones .N I C / Contemporary PublishingC-o., 4255 W. Touhy Ave., Lincoi-nwood, ril. 60646, (847) 679-5500,448 pp., $39.95 (hard cover). Pre-sents insights and hands-on tools to

THE SCANNING EXPERTSCD850 SERIES OMR SCANNERSNEW SCANNERS THAT REALLY WORK

NO MORE THE CD850 READS THESE!

"FILL IN THE BUBBLES"

O •The only OMR scanners designed for your applicatjons!WJth its unique Checks&.Marks" processing, the CD850+serJes of OMR scanners looks for checks, x's, and othermarks. At rated speeds of 5,00(3 to 10,000 sheets perhour, your data capture can easily be handled in house,reducing your total turnaround time.

UNISCORE, IncorporatedFOR INFORMATION, CALL

1 (800) 777-9774

create packages for all media.

IJ The Sea-et to Finding and Sell-ing Ideas, by Robert I,. Mont-gomery and Nancy Montgomery.Montgomerj- Zukerman Davis Inc.,lHOO N. Meridian St., Indianapolis,Ind., 46202, (800) 866-6693, 94 pp.,$9.95 (soft cover). A guide to un-derstanding the creative process.

^ Sales Promotion Essentials: The10 Basic Sales Promotion Tech-niques ... and Hoiv To Use Them.,by Don E. Schultz, Williams A.Rohinson and Lisa A. Petrison.NTC/Contemporary PublishingCo., 4255 W. Touhy Ave., Lincol-nwood, Ttl. 60646, (847) 679-5500,208 pp., $19.95 (soft cover). Pre-sents techniques and explains theiradvantages anil disadvantages. •

Have youheard?

Mesi resenrchnews is at...

OpinionThe world's market research Web sitew w w - w o r l d o p i n i o n . c o m

Like marketers,consumers haveresponsibilities

I nvariably, when discusingmarketing ethics, we con-sider unetliical ami inap-propriate actions a seller

imposes on a buyer. But buyers aswell as sellers have moral respon-sibilities.

Do buyers use the power theyhave fairly or unfairly? l"hcre areat least two types of problems toe.\plore.

rhe first is when the buyertakes advantage of a seller's poli-cy, such as a retuni polic)\ Hav-ing spent 30 years in the retailapparel business, I am familiarwith the customer who buys—f)r,should we say, borrows—a dresson Fridaj- and reuirns it on Mon-day for fiill credit or a refundeven though it obviously hasheen worn.

We hear stories from storeswith liheral return policies, suchas Nordstrom and L.L. Bean,al)out customers who renini mer-chandise years after huying it, orreturning merchandise that waspurchased elsewhere.

Although those finns may hen-efit in the long run from thegocttl puhlic relations these [K)li-cies generate, there is little ijiies-tion reganling the ethics of ihecustomers' hehavior. In mostcases, the buyer implicitly lies tothe seller, claiming that the mer-chandise did not measure up insome way when, in fact, it did.

But there is another category^ot huyer hehavior that is morecomplex, interesting and impor-tant. This is the boycott: Usingthe huyer's purchasing power l>ynot huying a good or sen ice for anoneconomic—such as an ethicalor social—reason.

In either case, such withhold-ing of purchasing power is exer-cised as a matter of conscience, toinfluence or change some activity-of the manufacfurer or seller,

Boycotts can be carried oui byindividuals or groups. Kvery daydozens of boycotts are wagedagainst finns for a variety of caus-es, such as the rights of animals,g;iys, or minorities, or to protestpolitical activities, the exploita-tion of naninil resources, layoffsand so on. Most people are un-aware of the majority of theseboycotts.

Few gain much attentionamong consumers, much lessbring significant pressure on theorg-ani/ation to change its prac-tices or policies. More than 30years ago, however, (x'sarChavez organized a reasonahlyeffective boycotts against lettiiceand grape growers in California.

But a 1970s boycott of Nestleproducts in the United States,triggered hy that eompany's prac-tices of marketing infant fornuilain developing countries, also be-came a aiiisc fclehv at the time,but there still is no agreement ontbe trtie economic effects of thathoycott.

The lalK)r movement some-times mounts campaigns to "BuyAmerican" and punish firms diat"outsource" production rather

than manufacture in the UnitedStates. These efforts have little, ifany, lasting effect.

Occasionally, an issue draws alot of attention, such as theKatbie I.ee (i'iffor<l apparelmade in Central America withsuhstantlard wages and workingconditions. But the effect onconsumer huying |iractices isshort-lived.

Why don't more ol these ethi-cally motivated proiests and hoy-cotts gain more attention andsuccess?

is it tor lack of infonnation?Perhaps not enough consumersknow which products on storeshelves come with an ethicalprohlem attached. W hich prod-ucts are maile with child labor?(")r slave labor? V\'hich are matleby manufacturers who cruelly useanimals for testing?

Is it a lack of caring? Do con-sumers simply shnig off these is-sties as inconsequential? Or is theprice of morality too high: Arebuyers unwilling to pay an extradollar or two for a shirt, or anextra $20 for a rug, made withoutchild lalx)r?

Some argue that such mattersof conscience, morality and ethi-cal behavior have no place in thebusiness of huying and selling ag(H>d or sei-vice. All that mattersis the product. If it meets thebuyer's expectations regardingprice, quality,' and other ohviousattributes, then the huyer shouldmake the purchase.

1 disagree. Why shouldn't theseller's (or manufacuirer's) ethicalhehavior also he considered animportant attribute of the prod-uct? V\'hy shouldn'i buyers exer-cise botli etbical judgment andeconomic )udgment?

To go a step further, I sa\' buy-ers should consitier the seller'sethics in deciding whether aproduct is worth its price, andthat to ignore such matters ismoral laziness.

Most agree that as part of theexchange process, sellers shouldahide hy certain ethical standards.1 suggest that buyers also bavemoral obligations and responsi-bilities—to be informed afxmtthe seller's ethical hehavior andto consider that behavior specifi-cally when deciding whether tomake the purchase. •

Kirk Davidson is an associateprofessor of marketing atMount St. Mary's College InEmmitsburg. Md.. and the au-thor of Selling Sin: The Market-ing of Socially UnacceptableProducts.

Marketing News, vol. 32