Essay

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.