Advertising

       Through the years, advertising has evolved greatly, from printed slogans, pictorials, to motion pictures and coloured animations. No doubt the purpose of these advertisements never changed. I personally believe that these advertisements survive for one main purpose: to con the innocent buyers into buying their useless products. 

       Advertisements may not always work for our benefit. It can influence us in a negative way. Companies with private and selfish goals may choose to prioritise profits over righteousness and morals. They can take advantage of consumers’ trust for their own use. These companies misuse information and even twist information to an extent that consumers will believe what they say. All these methods are used solely for one goal--profits. In the case of tobacco companies, some of them tout their products as healthier and even contain less harmful ingredients. This may be contradicting to the real ingredients they use. Sometimes, the cheekier companies play on real information and facts to suit themselves. Their play on words may leave consumers confused and will even let them end up on the losing end. Smokers who trust what the labels say would believe that their daily dose of cigarettes contain less nicotine, for example, even when the nicotine level is equal to that of other companies. This irresponsible play on words not only leaves consumers in the dark, but can also lead to deteriorating health on smokers. In this case, consumers are the losers while the companies are laughing their way to the bank

       Although this type of advertisements is morally wrong, I do not think that this type of misleading advertisements should be actively restricted. Advertising is still business and tobacco companies are just trying to make money. There is responsibility on the consumers’ part to think critically about any advertisements they come across. They should not accept any “facts” they see blindly. Companies also have a part to play. They have to come across as credible and trustworthy companies in order for more customers to patronise them. On the government’s part, they can indirectly restrict this type of advertisements by creating a blacklist of untrustworthy companies. Concerned about a public backlash against them, these companies would think twice before lying to customers. I do not support active regulation in this area because of the fact that in a free market, the government should limit its intervention. It should advise, not rule the economy. It can educate the public about certain areas to allow them to think critically before trusting an advertisement, but it should not ban anything unless it blatantly flouts the law. The capabilities of the government in this area should be limited only to giving advice, warning irresponsible companies and informing the public about these irresponsible companies.

       If I were a creative director in an advertising company, I would never compromise on honestly and integrity. This may contradict with the above paragraph, but I believe that if I have the power and ability, I would not compromise on honesty. However, I do not feel angry at those who compromise on honesty as it is their own choice and they will face the consequences later, such as decreased trust among consumers. I would not compromise on honesty even if I were creating an advertisement for a tobacco company. It is hard to sell cigarettes as everyone knows that they are harmful. However, I would rather not tell than to lie. This way, I am still being honest with the consumers. I believe that honestly is the best advertisement. People buy products which they understand and from companies they trust. Building trust is a better long-term solution than to tell a lie. Telling consumers that your cigarettes are healthier even when they are not may increase tobacco sales, but will it increase the company’s sales and the company’s image in the long term? I do not think so. Gradually, people will stop patronising companies who breach their trust.