Back to PHl205 Table of Content
SAMPLE CASE
Sharing the Blame
SCENE: The office of the director of a midwestern advertising agency
CHARACTERS: Donna Ellis, assistant director of advertising; Bryan Lavelle, director SITUATION: Donna Ellis is vehemently protesting the agency's complicity in an ad campaign commissioned by Mid-Valley Gas and Electric, a utility firm with pronounced antienvironmental tendencies. Mid-Valley has consistently propagandized for increased electric power use. Its latest campaign solicits public support to build more power plants. Some persons doubt whether such plants are needed. Vigorously promoting less power use might accomplish what additional plants would be intended to do. Ellis is particularly incensed about a leaflet her agency has worked up to accompany the bills consumers will receive in the months ahead. The content of the leaflet is captured in the bold-print headline on the first page. It reads: "Balance Ecology with Power."
Ellis: The point is that ecology is not a thing to be balanced against anything else.
Lavelle: What do you mean?
Ellis: I mean this ad is tremendously misleading. It misses the whole concept of ecology, its essential meaning. "Ecology" refers to a science of the interrelatedness of everything. To speak of balancing it with anything else is just plain dumb. In fact, it's downright distorting. It gives the impression that somehow we must be just as concerned with energy as we are with ecology.
Lavelle: But isn't that true?
Ellis: It's not so much a question of truth as one of emphasis and impact within an advertising gestalt.
Lavelle: Gestalt?
Ellis: That's right. Look, we both know that for years now Mid-Valley has been trying to get people to use more power. Now with the energy crunch on, they're obviously concerned with maintaining their mind-boggling profits while not appearing to be callously indifferent to environmental concerns. The result is this ad. Taken within the total framework of where Mid-Valley's coming from, it amounts to a not-so-subtle pitch calculated to marshal public support for building additional power plants, which they've already begun to lobby for in Washington and in the state capital.
Lavelle: But you can't expect them not to. I mean, calling for power conservation and a moratorium on plant construction just isn't in their best business interests.
Ellis: Obviously. But that doesn't mean we should assist them in furthering what may be of highly questionable social value.
Lavelle: But Donna, that's totally unrealistic. You're asking us to sit in judgment of the moral worth of our clients' interests.
Ellis: I'm suggesting that on matters as serious as a firm's environmental responsibilities, we must act in a socially responsible way.
Lavelle: You realize, of course, that we already devote 20 percent of our advertising time to what we consider sound social causes? Nobody can accuse this agency of being socially indifferent.
Ellis: But that's a cop-out. Remember, only a small fraction of that time is earmarked for environmental matters. What's worse, it seems to me we're undoing what little good we may be achieving when we run ads like this. It talks about the research necessary to deal with environmental pollution, but we both know Mid-Valley has done no research at all.
Lavelle: But it's not our job to sit in judgment of our clients' interests. That's the job of government.
Ellis: But certainly we should sit in judgment of our own activities, shouldn't we?
Lavelle: Okay, let's do that, let's really do it. Do you think we'd be doing the right thing if we jeopardized Mid-Valley's three-million-dollar annual account with us by imposing our own environmental philosophy on their ads or telling them to peddle their propaganda elsewhere? What about our stockholders? Our own employees? Our other accounts? We've got obligations to them as well, you know.
Ellis: Sure we do, but that shouldn't blind us to our social obligations. Simply because we function in this society as information communicators, we're not relieved of the obligation to examine the likely impact of that information, the impressions it gives, the opinions it helps form, the attitudes it molds. That we ourselves don't operate belching smokestacks or discharge waste into rivers doesn't mean we have no business responsibilities to the environment. The fact is that on environmental questions our role is a pivotal one. We control what the most obvious vested interests can say to generate public opinion. If Mid-Valley persists in behaving in an environmentally irresponsible way, we share the blame.
Lavelle: Donna, I hear what you're saying and appreciate your concerns, but this is a decision I'm going to have to mull over. I may even have to go to the board.
Ellis: I think you should.
Discussion Questions
1. Is Donna Ellis right in speaking out? Would you, too, be critical of Mid-Valley's campaign?
2. What should Lavelle do? If he takes the matter to the board, what do you think the board should do?
3. With respect to the environment, do you think advertising agencies have any general responsibilities?
4. If the board chooses to take no action, what should Donna Ellis do?
Case Study: Sharing the Blame
Introduction
A. Purpose: I intend to fully analyze the case, "Sharing the Blame", and to develop a reasonable, moral solution.
B. Problem: Should businesses have any social obligations or any responsibilities towards the environment, even though the responsibilities may contradict with the purpose and goals of the company?
C. Procedure:
1. Analyze and summarize the case.
2. Identify facts and main characters.
3. Identify options and alternatives.
4. Establish central issues and themes.
5. Identify any assumptions and ambiguities.
6. Examine all major considerations.
7. Establish priorities of the case.
8. State conclusion to case.
9. Discuss meta-ethics relative to case.
I. Case Summary
A. Situation and facts:
1. Donna Ellis is protesting the advertising agency's complicity in an ad campaign for a utility firm that has been known for anti-environment tendencies.
2. The advertising agency has created a leaflet that headlines, "Balance Ecology with Power".
3. The agency currently has a three million dollar annual account with the Mid-Valley Gas and Electric Company.
4. The utility company's latest campaign is trying to obtain public support to build more power plants.
5. 5.Some people doubt that more power plants are needed to provide adequate service to customers.
6. Mid-Valley has done no research to deal with environmental pollution.
7. The agency devotes twenty percent of its advertising time to social causes.
8. The ad agency helps form opinions and impression by communicating information in a certain way, to the public.
9. Ecology is the science of interrelations between all living and non-living things that make up the whole ecosystem.
B. Dilemma: Bryan Lavelle, the director of advertising is faced with a decision to either go ahead with the ad campaign for Hid-Valley Gas and Electric, to promote the building of more power plants, or follow Donna Ellis' request to deny the Job of promoting the utility company's three million dollar campaign because the ad agency should follow social obligations and responsibilities to the environment.
C. Options:
1. Lavelle can go ahead and OK the ad campaign for Hid-Valley, and ignore the pleas by Ellis for social obligations.
2. Lavelle can choose to drop Mid-Valley's ad campaign, and lose the three million dollar account, and promote awareness in environmental and social obligations within the business world.
II. Central Issues and main Characters
A. Natural Issues:
1. Is the ad agency willing to lose the three million dollar account with Mid-Valley Gas and Electric in order to promote business responsibilities to the environment?
2. Is the ad agency willing to face the idea of promoting a campaign that will have effects on the general ecology and environment?
B. Main Characters:
1. Donna Ellis is the assistant director of advertising to a midwestern advertising agency.
2. Bryan Lavelle is the director of the advertising agency.
3. Mid-Valley Gas and Electric is a utility company that has a three million dollar annual account with the ad agency.
III. Ambiguities and Assumptions
A. Ambiguities:
1. Has Mid-Valley been successful so far i~ promoting the increase use of power in spite of the recent energy crunch?
2. Has Mid-Valley recently built any new power plants in the more recent years?
3. Will the lost of Mid-Valley's three million dollar account have any damaging affects on the ad agency's stockholders, employees, and other accounts?
4. Will Donna Ellis resign her position as assistant ad director if the Mid-Valley campaign goes through?
5. Who are the "persons", mentioned in the situation segment of the case study, who oppose the building of more power plants?
6. Would promote less power use help accomplish the goals that Mid-Valley have for the intended new power plants?
7. Is Mid-Valley doing all this campaigning in order to maintain their profits?
8. Does the ad agency have very strong views toward responsibilities to the environment?
9. Is there public protest about the promotion to build more power plants?
10. Is Mid-Valley the only three million dollar account or are there larger accounts at the ad agency?
B. Assumptions:
1. Hid-Valley has been steadily successful in promoting the increase use or power, but needs the help of ad campaigns to maintain their grip on their customers.
2. Mid-Valley has not built any new power plants lately, and that is why they are pressing for public support through ad campaigns.
3. Mid-Valley's withdrawal from the agency would moderately affect the financial status of the ad agency because Lavelle mentioned that it would have an affect, in the case.
4. It seems that Donna Ellis has very strong beliefs in the business' social obligation and environmental responsibilities, so she would probably look for another job that would not greatly conflict with her own moral beliefs.
5. The "persons" whom have opposed the increase use of power are the local environmental groups, and any one else like Donna.
6. The promotion of decrease use of power would help achieve adequate service for existing customers because there would not be such a high demand if people used less power in their daily chores.
7. Mid-Valley is doing this promotion in order to maintain profits because of the latest energy crunch, and because of the bottom line, money!
8. The ad agency has minimal views in responsibilities towards the environment because the agency only puts in twenty percent into social issues, and only a fraction of that time is given to environmental issues.
9. There is some public protest against the building of more power plants because the case situation tells the reader that there is opposition to the Mid-Valley campaign for more power.
10. There are more than one major campaign project besides Mid-Valley, or how would the ad agency financially survive with only one three million dollar annual account?
IV. Considerations
A. Obligations:
1. Fidelity - Duties of fidelity include not to remain faithful to contracts, keep promises, and repair wrongful acts. There are several situations, in this case that relate to fidelity.
a. The ad agency has a duty not to lie to the public through the production of leaflets that mention research into environmental pollution when in actuality, the utility company did not do any research at all.
b. The ad agency has an existing contract and promise with the utility company to work on promoting the Mid-Valley power campaign.
c. The ad agency has an implied contract with the stockholders and employees of the agency.
d. The ad agency has an obligation to repair the wrongful act that the utility company is doing in harming the existing environment.
2. Beneficence - The duty to improve the lives of others whenever an opportunity arises. In this case, the ad agency has the opportunity to save the environment by refusing to promote the campaign to build more power plants. This action would benefit the environment by making people aware of business's obligation to the environment.
On the other hand, the utility company would benefit from the promotional ads that the agency has come up with currently.
3. Fairness - The duty to treat fellow humans justly in giving out goodness and punishment among them. The ad agency must be fair to both the utility company and the environment. The agency cannot ignore the contract it has with Mid-Valley because that would make other accounts distrust the credibility of the agency. The agency must also be fair to the environment by not giving out false information about the ecology.
4. Self-improvement - The duty and ability to improve one's own virtue, knowledge, health, and happiness. Many people would benefit from the cleaner environment. The clearer air and water would help improve people's health, while enjoying the pleasant sights and sounds from the natural resources, and animals. People would also financially improve if the new power plants were being built because it provides new Jobs for the unemployed.
5. Gratitude - The duty that people have towards the agent, for what the agent has done for its people. There would be much gratitude from the public knowing that the environment was being saved from construction of new power plants.