1. Ethical Advertisement Anthony Wainwright American Public University System BUSN410

2. Overview  Objective  Ethical Debate  Proponents Argument  Contrasting Argument  Validity of Arguments  Best Argument

3. Objective  Present varying ethical arguments.  Comment on validity of arguments.  List and describe the best argument.

4. Ethical Debate Since the 1970s there has been an ethical debate over advertisement to children. There are proponents for the support of advertising to children and this feeds a multibillion dollar industry! However, there are many more contrasting views that push advertising to children into a bad light. The primary positive arguments for advertisement to children list rights and current technology. The side opposing advertisement lists cognitive functions and health affects as reasons to prohibit advertisement to children. Adapted from Clifford, S. (2010, February 14). Media & Advertising: A Fine Line When Ads and Children Mix. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

5. Proponents  Rights  Current technology

6. Rights  There are few recommendations that the federal government makes to businesses advertising a product or service.  The government is focused on a self- regulated method of advertisement.  This provides risk to the business because fatty foods or tobacco advertisement can provide negative social responsibility.  Self-regulation takes the form of warning labels on explicit language for music cd’s. Adapted from Johnston, K. (2014). FTC Restrictions on Marketing to Children. Demand Media. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/ftc-restrictions-marketing-children-37251.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/ftc-restrictions-marketing-children-37251.html

7. Current Technology  Proponents believe that advertising isn’t harmful to children if it’s not misleading and that the current culture is one of consumption and technology.  J. Warren Young from the magazine “Boys’ Life” stated “why shield them from any of the marketing experience that comes with making a purchase decision?” (Clifford, 2010).  This defense states that withholding advertisement from children would hinder their advancement into adult life in a culture of consumption. Adapted from Clifford, S. (2010, February 14). Media & Advertising: A Fine Line When Ads and Children Mix. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

8. Contrasting Argument  Cognitive functions  Negative health affects

9. Cognitive Functions  Psychologists from the American Psychological Association (APA) are outraged because children don’t have the ability to decipher advertisement and they can be easily misled.  Most children aren’t able to recognize and analyze the true purpose of advertisements.  Additionally, certain psychologists work with business men to improve their advertisement to be more attractive to children, proving to be deceitful. Adapted from Clay, R. (2000). Advertising to children: Is it ethical?. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspxhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspx

10. Negative Health Affects  Children, age 2 to 18, often watch over 40 hours of advertisement each week and are mostly unsupervised when this takes place.  Advertisement for food companies have become from strict on self-regulation due to national obesity but advertisement is a direct reflection of why American children have reached obesity.  Advertisement of food trains children to eat foods based off celebrity, but not what's healthy (Watson, 2014).  Tobacco commercials illustrate popular sports or attractive people smoking and the brands with these attractive commercials are directly tied to the most smoked brands by children under the age of 18 (Bebawy & Samir, 2007). Adapted from Bebawy, M. & Samir, H. (2007). Marketing to Kids: The “Born to Buy”: Generation. Ethics-Based Marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.html & Watson, B. (2014, February 24). Child rights in marketing and advertising: The tricky business of advertising to children. Guardian Sustainable Business. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/advertising-to-children-tricky-business-subwayhttp://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/advertising-to-children-tricky-business-subway

11. Validating The Facts  The proponent arguments had no factual claims to support their premise.  The contrasting arguments list scholarly, credible sources that conducted research into the information. Miriam Bebawy and Hend Samir (2007) specifically cited S. Linn, from the Journal of Education, who studied the health effects of the commercial culture on children.  Bebawy and Samir (2007) also cited J. Tye, K. Warner, and S. Glantz for their studies on tobacco consumption in children tied to advertisement. Adapted from Bebawy, M. & Samir, H. (2007). Marketing to Kids: The “Born to Buy”: Generation. Ethics-Based Marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.html \http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.html

12. Validating The Facts  The organization of the APA is in unison on the fact that children's cognitive functions don’t fully recognize the full intent of advertisement. While no case-studies were listed this organization is built on subject matter experts for psychological studies. Adapted from Clay, R. (2000). Advertising to children: Is it ethical?. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspxhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspx

13. The Best Argument  The contrasting argument is the best because obesity, tobacco usage, and over consumption as a nation are evident and stated in the argument.  The contrasting argument also is supported by psychological experts and the APA supports the theory of lacking cognitive functions.  Lastly, the group supporting self-regulated advertisement to children has no factual evidence to support a premise.

14. References  Bebawy, M. & Samir, H. (2007). Marketing to Kids: The “Born to Buy”: Generation. Ethics-Based Marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.htmlhttp://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/6.html  Clay, R. (2000). Advertising to children: Is it ethical?. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspxhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.aspx  Clifford, S. (2010, February 14). Media & Advertising: A Fine Line When Ads and Children Mix. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15kids.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0  Johnston, K. (2014). FTC Restrictions on Marketing to Children. Demand Media. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/ftc-restrictions-marketing-children- 37251.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/ftc-restrictions-marketing-children- 37251.html  Linn, S. E. (2004). Food Marketing to Children in the Context of Marketing Maelstorm: Journal of Public Heal, vol. 25, pp. 367-378  Tye, J.B., Warner, K.E., Glantz, S.A. (1987). Tobacco Advertising and Consumption: Evidence of a Causal Relationship. In: Journal of Public Health Policy, vol.8, No 4, pp. 492-508.  Watson, B. (2014, February 24). Child rights in marketing and advertising: The tricky business of advertising to children. Guardian Sustainable Business. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/advertising-to-children-tricky- business-subway http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/advertising-to-children-tricky- business-subway