What Would Kant Say
What would Immanuel Kant say about advertising today? Well, he’d have a lot to say because he asserted that nothing was right or wrong, the only thing that matters is the intentions behind the action.
So, an ad is only as good as the intention behind the creation. Analyzing every intention behind every ad would take forever, but if a company is really looking after their customers’ best interest (which most companies claim to do) then every ad would be “good.” Imagine if all advertisers thought this way. How would it change things?
If all ads had good intentions behind them, then the public would take comfort in advertising. But let’s be honest, not every ad has the best intentions for the customer.
Some ads are created with the intention of selling more products, regardless of the consequences to the customer. So you would think those companies are acting unethically because the intentions are bad.
Wrong.
Kant would say the intentions of the company were good, because he doesn’t specify whom the good intentions are for, as long as they are good. The results do not matter.
Lets take a look at this ad:
This jean ad is more like an ad for sex and definitely doesn’t scream, “buy Calvin Klein Jeans”, it screams...well nothing, really. What about the intentions behind this ad? Do you think that advertisers had the best of intentions when this ad was created? What about their intentions for the company? Were those good?
Kant could probably write thousands of aimless words and never answer these questions, but overall I think this philosophy is bull, at least in regards to advertising. Kant probably didn’t make many friends with this philosophy, and neither would a company that abides by the same. An ad is only good if it works. This moves us into WWJS.
WWJS – no, not what Jesus says but what Jeremy says. Jeremy Bentham.
What Would Jeremy Say
Jeremy would say that an ad is only good if it has a positive result for the greater good. If an ad caused the customer to purchase the product, then all the customers died but the company made the most profit in a decade, it could be argued that the ad was good.
Personally, I think that Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy is easier and more effective means of rating the “goodness” of an ad. Named Utilitarianism, this philosophy allows advertisers more slack. To determine if an ad is good, all one must do is look at how the ad effected the largest number of people. If the largest number of people received a positive, pleasurable experience, the ad is considered good.
Check out this ad: http://www.tomsshoesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/toms.jpg
Almost everyone knows about TOMS. This ad encourages people to buy TOMS, which donates “a shoe for a shoe” and to give blood. Obviously, this affects a large number of people positively. So, this ad is “good.”
I believe this Utilitarian philosophy puts ads in the best perspective. It looks out for the majority. While having a majority means there is a minority not benefiting, it’s hard to argue against something that benefits the most people.
Therefore, I believe analyzing ads with old ethical theories is challenging but worth it. It lets you decide how to best analyze an ad, on your own terms. Companies should look at what benefits the most people, not what the intentions behind the ads are. I am most definitely a WWJS girl.
No comments:
Post a Comment