Bishop – The Ethics of ‘Self-Identity Image Ads’.
The Point:
Self-Identity Image Ads (image ads) are not intrinsically unethical because, for the most part, they do not make false-promises, they do not usually rely on unethical presuppositions, and they do not threaten individual autonomy.
The Strategy:
Part I: Introduction and presentation of two examples of image ads to consider in light of the relevant ethical facts.
Part II: Consider the possibility that image ads make false-promises.
Part III: Consider the impact of the presuppositions made by image ads.
Part IV: Consider the impact of image ads on individual autonomy.
Part I:
In order to assess the ethical impact of image ads, we need to consider what impact those ads have on individuals.
Definition of ‘Image Ads’: ads that present an idealized person type and invite viewers to identify with some aspect of that type… the product is not the emphasis; the ideal person as a user of the product is the emphasis of such ads.
Example #1: Chanel ‘perfecting cream’ ad that shows nothing more than the face of a beautiful woman with flawless skin.
Example #2: Calvin Klein ad for jeans that portrays four ‘sexy-teenagers’.
Part II:
Are these ads false/misleading?
They can be interpreted as making false promises, but they are not typically read as, for example, promising flawless skin, nor are they intended to be interpreted as making such a claim.
Even if these ads actually do mislead some uncritical consumers, it is not the fault of the ads that this occurs, because they are not intended to be interpreted in this way.
So no, the image ad type is not intrinsically misleading.
Part III:
Do these ads rely on false/ethically questionable presuppositions?
There are three means of analyzing the presuppositions made by these sorts of adds that ought to be considered: a. The specific presuppositions they make. b. The cumulative effects of their specific presuppositions, and c. the gaze that is presupposed.
a. These ads can both be read as making a number of specific, ethically questionable presuppositions because they reinforce specific values by which individuals are encouraged to judge themselves and others. But it is not clear that the actual values these ads endorse are unethical, or that endorsing these types of values is itself unethical.
b. The cumulative effect of the sorts of specific presuppositions discussed above can be unethical inasmuch as it presents a threat to individual self-esteem. By creating a false-emphasis on an idealized and unattainable person-type, the cumulative effect of these ads may the creation of a standard that none can meet, and as a result, will undermine individual self-esteem. This is the biggest ethical concern facing image-ads.
c. The ‘gaze’ created by such ads can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit gaze is the idea that the perfect image in the ad stands as a mirror against which the individual viewer might judge themselves. The implied gaze is, if the viewer assumes the gaze of the figure in the ad, what would they be looking at? (e.g., in the Chanel ad, probably a man that the viewer wishes to attract). There is not anything obviously unethical with the explicit gaze. The implicit gaze could be unethical, but only inasmuch as it contributes to undermining individual self-esteem.
Part IV:
Do image ads undermine autonomy?
Again, we must consider this question in light of three versions of autonomy, which are: a. Autonomy of Choice, b. Autonomy of desire and c. Social Autonomy.
a. The vast majority of image ads are viewed by choice, i.e., in magazines or on television. Therefore, since most viewing are the result of free-choice, it must be the case that the ads themselves do not undermine free-choice.
Nor do these ads have any impact on our ability to choose whether we will purchase a product.
b. Image ads do not themselves create compulsive behaviour, so they must not have any impact on the creation of desires.
But maybe they create 2nd order desires, i.e., desires upon which we have to act, without being able to evaluate the quality of that desire. There is no evidence that they do. Even if they did in some rare instances, the affected individuals, as discussed above, retain the ability to choose to stop consuming those ads.
Some charge that the appeal is to our unconscious desires as a means of controlling our conscious desires… but how would this ever work???
c. Maybe the unethical impact of these ads is on our Social Autonomy, i.e., the nature of our social relations. To the extent that they convey images of social power/domination in our interpersonal relations, they are unethical, but this effect is rare.
So, image ads are not intrinsically unethical; indeed they create value, and they are fun.
Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp. (1999).
Sanfield is an independent jeweler in Rockford. Finlay is a large chain of jewelry stores. Sanfield argues that Finlay is misleading consumers by advertising their products as ‘On-Sale’ because the ‘sale’ price is the only price at which Finlay ever sells its jewels. This is detrimental to Sanfield’s business because consumers wrongly believe that Finlay’s sale prices are lower than Sanfield’s regular prices. So Sanfield brings this action.
The Court decides that Sanfield’s action is without merit because Finlay is not actually deceiving its consumers. Consumers understand when a seller’s ‘sale’ price is actually the ‘regular’ price. This might have an impact on the efficacy of Finlay’s ‘sale’ as a means of moving product, but since consumers have this expectation, Finlay’s practice is not actually deceptive.