NEW
MEDIA ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES AND THE ETHICAL DEBATE SURROUNDING
THESE.
The
arrival of the Internet as a fresh, interactive, and increasingly
predominant means of communication has naturally provided companies
with a new platform for advertising and marketing. Obviously, with
such an arrival being so free-flowing and rapidly inter-linking, the
process of marketing a product to the correct groups of audiences has
had to be re-considered. In many cases this has included alternative
placements of products, pop-ups, and spam e-mail; and to a greater
extent a lot of these methods have proved in some cases to be quite
ineffective compared to traditional advertising techniques, and have
not generated the expected revenue. However, with the ever-increasing
popularity of Social Networking sites as a medium of communication
have created unique opportunities to explore ideas and techniques
previously unheard of in the advertising world. Of course, with new
ideas and techniques come new responsibilities, and whilst the most
daring competitors are often rewarded, there are always cases where
not enough thought has been given to the potential outcome of these
new ideas. This essay investigates a case study from 2007 involving a
Facebook advertising scheme; whether this was ethically correct, and
whether situations like this call for moral codes to be put in place.
In
late 2007, the social-networking giant Facebook introduced Beacon; a
service that streamed the news of a friend's recent online purchases
onto the user's homepage (partner sites included eBay, Blockbuster
and Travelocity). Facebook assured advertisers that its users would
be able to 'opt-in' to the service, as opposed to assuming that users
would naturally want to take part, and thereby opting them in by
default. The truth of the matter, however, was that the user was not
alerted to Beacon's intentions of passing information onto 'friends'
(taking into account the possibility of virtual relationships, as
well as the sort of 'friend' that you have perhaps only met once but
are connected online) until a purchase on a partner site had been
made and they had returned to their Facebook account. Naturally, the
sudden loss of control over the release of information to peers would
be disturbing for many, and whilst being quite an extreme example of
digital-age advertising, goes a fair distance to demonstrate the
radically innovative possibilities provided by the internet.
Of
course; on the surface of the situation it becomes easy enough to
condemn the transfer of personal information from one website to
another as un-ethical and morally wrong, even if it is simply
regarding the details of the purchasing of a cinema ticket. However,
this popular viewpoint can be readily argued:
“Product
placement, spam, 'pop-ups', and similar techniques are ethical tools
for advertisers and their clients to use, as long as they are legal
and can sell a product.” (Sheehan, 2011, p.412)
Undoubtedly
the legality of the situation is somewhat dubious; although it seems
fair to hazard a guess that Facebook's terms and conditions put in
place in 2007 (which, of course, 99% will never read) were more than
likely worded in such a way that allowed them to slip through the net
as such, and like many other services are subject to change without
any sort of notice. So, assuming that Facebook's terms and conditions
were themselves sitting within the confines of digital law, the act
of passing details of a purchase from a partner site back to Facebook
in order to notify others should technically be a perfectly
legitimate thing to do. Although of course to the average user it is
most definitely not acceptable, which is where the ethical
decision-making comes into play. It is useful at this point to note
that what is morally and ethically correct today may perhaps not be
acceptable after a certain period of time, and vice versa. For
example, it was fairly recently acceptable to smoke inside a
restaurant, now it is against the law to do so; and same-sex marriage
was once very much off the cards. No doubt if this advertising
technique continued to infiltrate itself into everyday social
networking, over time it would become far more normalized and
acceptable, and whilst ethical codes of conduct are a constantly
evolving topic, the goals of advertising rarely differ. As Sheehan
(2011) would state, Advertising is part of the grease that keeps the
wheels of our economy moving forward. Perhaps, after some time,
audiences will become familiar with such an advertising system, much
as they once had to come to terms with the adverts placed on
television screens or on the radio.
From
a far more traditional viewpoint, the system devised by Facebook and
Beacon to taylor advertisements based on the purchases of friends was
entirely un-ethical; despite being an innovative and creative
technique (the system would undoubtedly create psychological links
between certain products and a user's friend, which could almost be
considered a step forward from linking a product with a celebrity or
location). It is possible to argue that to be honest within today's
advertising industry would involve steering clear – or being very
careful – when using new advertising techniques:
“The
'anything goes' philosophy regarding the use of new advertising
techniques is not only unethical but also counterproductive, and will
destroy the credibility of the advertising industry.” (Dorsher,
2011, p.422)
It
is almost certainly true to say there are certain instances where the
use of new advertising techniques is very much counterproductive,
particularly to a younger, tech-savvy audience. For example, the
forceful nature of a company like Groupon's advertising system almost
presents them as a company that should very much be avoided, in the
same way door-to-door salesmen are often turned away without any real
consideration for the products they might be selling. However; the
general public have very much become normalized and accept that
salesmen (or even religious types) will occasionally appear on the
doorstep in hope of selling a product or service. Perhaps in the long
run, when taking into account the situation where Facebook and Beacon
are concerned, the ethics and correctness of advertising techniques
become in many ways insignificant once the general public is
familiarized and in acceptance of the scheme. After all, it appears
to usually be the case that ethical debates are a response to what
has happened previously, rather than what could potentially happen in
the future. Like many of Facebook's software updates, if the company
had simply chosen to ignore the uproar caused, there is little doubt
that after a certain length of time the Beacon system would have
become accepted, and users would begin to forget what the website was
like prior to this.
Arguments
such as the one presented here continually raise the question of
whether 'codes' of ethics are necessary for today's digitally
orientated lifestyles, in terms of all aspects of digital
communication. Advertising is undoubtedly a huge field to take into
account when considering moral codes:
“Codes
of Ethics are useful and necessary, both for the news media and in
public relations and advertising, because these codes benefit
society.” (Gordon, 2011, p.167)
In
the digital age that we exist in, it is easy enough to suggest that
moral codes are becoming more and more necessary, and if they existed
already, need updating and refreshing. Whilst the messages
transmitted through advertising media have remained largely the same
(buy this product, feel this good, etc.), the ways in which they are
presented are being radically updated and renewed; the internet
provides the possibility of interactive digital advertising that can
readily involve the user, from deciding the outcome of a short film
sequence, to making use of contributions from the general public. The
changes undergone in communication in the last twenty or so years
have perhaps been in some ways too fast for both consumers and
advertisers to truly get to grips with, maybe in a similar way to the
introduction of print processes and mechanical reproduction. In an
age of digital reproduction, it is possible to relay messages,
images, video and sound to an audience spread wide across the globe,
with essentially unadulterated freedom. With this freedom and speed,
any action taken on the Internet reaches its destination immediately
with no time for review – users will be instantly taking their turn
to use or view whatever has been sent, and will be quick to judge and
respond should it not suit their tastes, or should they be offended
by the material. If enough users are subjected to the material and
enough are upset by its content, news of this uproar carries fast and
wide round the planet, causing the proprietor to be heavily
scrutinized by the general public. This matches the case of Facebook
and Beacon, which rapidly gained a lot of unpopularity among Facebook
members, raising the question as to why there was nothing in place to
prevent such a system going ahead without much thought about the
potential outcomes of passing on private information. Of course,
however, the potential of moral/ethical codes raises far too many new
questions, such as who should decide on what is good or bad, and how
should these codes be applied to various situations. Also
ever-present is the possibility of moral/ethical codes failing to
protect the public from material that may cause offence or harm,
which once again raises even further questions.
Therefore,
whilst it is possible to argue a case for the introduction of ethical
codes of conduct in the world of New Media Advertising techniques,
there are many problems in terms of the ambiguities presented by the
nature of the world we live in; no two situations will be the same,
no two companies have the same goal, no two advertising agencies have
the same concepts of right and wrong:
“Ethics
codes are too general to apply to many real situations, too
black-and-white, and too idealistic in the cases of public relations
and advertising.” (Dorsher, 2011, p.179)
In
the case of Facebook and Beacon, there is little doubt to suggest
that if one was to produce a set of moral and ethical codes for the
advertising system, the codes would indeed by solely exclusive to
that particular system. For example, suggesting what is right and
wrong with the system, and what is good or bad, would perhaps differ
heavily to the principles that govern how a product is advertised on
the television. There are arguments for stricter measures with
regards to television advertising due to the potential presence of
children, but also arguments for stricter online governing due to the
potential invasion of personal privacy, even for the details of a
minor transaction potentially involving cinema tickets. In any kind
of situation involving New Media advertising techniques, perhaps at
the present time it is simply not possible to draw up a set of
guidelines regarding ethical conduct in the same way that it could be
possible to do so with television advertising, it could potentially
take years of planning, testing, and experimentation to achieve a
level of effective advertising with ethically corrects codes of
conduct.
Any
situation like this will always be a cause for debate amongst both
advertisers and consumers, and of course, like many other situations,
can be discussed and argued, but never with any solid, definitive
outcome. It is clear that were very aware of the potential
effectiveness of being slightly dishonest whilst staying within the
confines of the law. Such a situation will always beg the question as
to where ethics and the law intersect in the field of advertising,
particularly in such an age where it is possible to obtain more and
more information about individuals, allowing them to be categorised
and targeted far more easily. An example like this raises a perhaps
obvious need for clear guidelines and ethical codes when considering
New Media Advertising, although this raises an indefinite number of
questions regarding who should(/could) help define these rules, and
how one action can be better than another. At a time like this, there
are few answers to give in a situation such as this, and perhaps the
best plan of action would simply be to attempt to make the best
judgement prior to marketing a product or service, although this
again raises an indefinite number of questions.
Bibliography
A.
David Gordon, John Michael Kittross, John C. Merrill, William
Babcock, Michael Dorsher, (2011), Controversies In Media
Ethics, London and New York,
Routledge.
Charles
Ess, (2009), Digital Media Ethics, Cambridge,
Polity Press
Lucienne
Roberts, (2006), Good: An Introduction To Ethics in Graphic
Design, Switzerland, AVA
Publishing
Paul
Hodkinson (2011), Media, Culture and Society: an
Introduction, London, SAGE
Publications.
