Do advertisers have a moral obligation?

The main purpose of advertising, through marketing and promotion, is to encourage consumers to purchase the goods, or services of a particular company. In a sense, it can be considered a form of solicitation, with multiple factors contributing to the style, type and ‘hidden agenda’ behind each advertisement.

A question then develops: Do advertisers have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people?

When considering a trivial stereotypical ad with controversy surrounding it, it is vital to take notice of the modern prevalence of technology and the ever growing web of mass media. When doing so, it becomes apparent that one minor advertisement can be broadcasted to over millions of people, thus conveying to the masses the said trivial matter. The messages can then influence people, both consciously and subconsciously, due to their eye-catching features and attractiveness of presentation.

So, yes, the advertisers do have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people because of the broad scope they can reach and the amount of influence they have, however, it doesn’t mean that they are obligated to follow this. The advertiser’s livelihood, after all, relies on the effective promotion of their products, with the purpose of attracting people to buy, participate in, or visit.

From an advertisers perspective, stereotyping can, in some cases have positive outcomes, for example, when racial stereotypes are used to target specific demographics, it can aid in boosting the product, or activity. On the other hand, the undeniable consequence is that it can be perceived negatively, causing offense.

Additionally,  the messages in advertisements have recently evolved, due to the increased media literacy, thus causing the advertisement agencies to shift away from traditional and gender typical roles and abstain from using particular stereotypes. However, advertisers tend to reflect their biases in concealed manners, in order to thwart the audience from recognizing the blatant stereotype.

The notion of anti-advertisements then come into play. For example, when promoting an add discouraging something that is unhealthy, or wrong, like violence, or drug abuse, in a particular area, the advertisers may use a certain gender or racial group. Since the advertisement promotes a positive idea, often, the stereotype is camouflaged. Nevertheless, the misuse of a particular gender or race is one aspect of the ‘moral obligation’ that advertisers should (but don’t necessarily) avoid.

Additionally, efforts to breakdown stereotypes completely is shadowed by a grey area, since, people rely on them to understand the well-established knowledge of the world. This is, hence, another effective way in which advertisers influence people, and forgo their morale, as they use the fear of what is not ‘normal’ to resonate with the audience in a particular area.

Moreover, advertisements mirror the real world, in which people look to it as a means to understand the different cultures and people. Therefore, who is to say when someone crosses a line? People too, are aware that advertisements are not there to educate, but rather, to persuade, however, a trained eye to recognize the stereotypes and anti-adds can enable people to become informed viewers, rather than manipulated consumers.