Supplemental Case 1: Great State Wheat Flakes Can't Be Beat

190supplemental Case 1 Great State Wheat Flakes Cant Be Beatsupplem

Identify the ethical issues facing Betty regarding the nature of the proposed “implied superiority” advertising claim. What are the ethical issues Betty encounters with respect to organizational relationships and conflicts? What are Betty’s possible decision alternatives, and what are the ethics of each alternative? Which alternative would you recommend to Betty, and why?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape surrounding advertising claims is often complex, particularly when it involves subtle implications that can influence consumer perception. In the case of Betty, an advertising copywriter at HK&M working on a campaign for Great State Wheat Flakes, her primary ethical concern revolves around the proposed “implied superiority” claim embodied in the slogan “Great State Wheat Flakes can’t be beat. No other wheat flakes offer you more vitamins and minerals for fewer calories.” Although Charlie, the brand manager, considers this a permissible exaggeration or puffery, Betty perceives it as potentially misleading and crossing the boundary into deceptive advertising.

One of the fundamental ethical issues is whether the claim suggests a false impression of superior health benefits, which the available evidence does not support. Since all wheat flakes are nutritionally similar, the claim that Great State’s cereal offers more vitamins and minerals for fewer calories than competitors implies a false superiority. This can be misleading, especially given the consumer research indicating low brand loyalty and high switching tendencies, suggesting consumers might be influenced to choose this cereal based on an unsubstantiated claim. Such advertising risks deceiving consumers who may believe the product confers unique health advantages, which it does not, thus violating principles of honesty and transparency.

Another ethical concern touches on the concept of puffery itself. While legally acceptable, puffery often toes the line between acceptable exaggeration and deception. Betty’s discomfort is rooted in her perception that the line might be crossed here. Ethical advertising best practices advocate for truthful, substantiated claims, especially when targeting health-conscious consumers, who are likely to scrutinize such assertions more critically.

Regarding organizational relationships and conflicts, Betty faces tension stemming from her professional integrity versus her obligation to her employer and client. Charlie’s insistence on the slogan reflects a corporate desire to differentiate the product competitively, even if it entails stretching truthfulness. Betty’s concern indicates a conflict between adhering to ethical standards and meeting organizational goals—particularly to produce advertising that is persuasive and commercially effective. Approving potentially misleading claims could damage her credibility as a professional and tarnish the agency’s reputation if exposed or found to be deceptive.

Betty’s possible decision alternatives include: (1) voicing her concerns and advocating for truthful advertising, (2) complying with Charlie’s proposed slogan to maintain her job and align with organizational pressures, (3) proposing alternative claims that are truthful and not misleading, or (4) refusing to participate further if she believes the claim is inherently deceptive.

Analyzing each alternative from an ethical standpoint, taking a stand against misleading advertising aligns with professional integrity and consumer protection principles, promoting honesty and confidence. However, this risks conflict with organizational authority and potential career repercussions. Complying with the slogan safeguards her job but compromises ethical standards, risking future credibility and potential legal ramifications if the claim is challenged. Suggesting truthful, substantiated claims would represent an ethical compromise that preserves integrity while still enabling effective marketing. Finally, outright refusal to participate might be ethically justified but could lead to professional isolation or conflict within the organization.

Given these considerations, the most ethically sound recommendation for Betty is to advocate for honest, substantiated advertising claims. She should present evidence clarifying that all wheat flakes are nutritionally comparable and that any claims of superiority are unsupported by the data. If the organization refuses to modify the slogan, Betty must consider her professional ethical obligations and the potential harm to consumers from misleading claims. She might also explore the possibility of proposing claims emphasizing the brand’s actual strengths—such as taste, affordability, or convenience—without overstating health benefits.

In conclusion, Betty’s ethical dilemma highlights the importance of integrity in advertising, emphasizing that truthful communication not only aligns with legal standards but also upholds moral responsibilities towards consumers. Organizations and professionals in marketing must balance competitive strategies with honesty, ensuring that claims are supported by evidence and do not mislead consumers, especially on issues as significant as health and nutrition.

References

  • American Marketing Association. (2017). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/
  • Federal Trade Commission. (2020). Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. FTC.gov
  • Lantos, G. P. (2015). Ethics and Marketing. In Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (8th ed.). Nelson Education.
  • McGuire, W. J. (1985). Theories of mass communication effects. In G. S. Mediation (Ed.), Handbook of Communication Science. Academic Press.
  • Perner, L. (2014). Advertising and Consumer Protection Law. Cambridge University Press.
  • Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: Factors, causes, and consequences of ethical judgments of advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(2), 129-141.
  • Richards, R. (2005). Ethical branding and marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 377-388.
  • Schaeffer, K. (2019). Consumer perceptions of health-related advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(3), 238-251.
  • Sevilla, V., & Wilson, H. (2012). Puffery and its legal implications in advertising. Legal Studies Journal, 34(1), 45-67.
  • Vallari, R. (2016). Ethical considerations in advertising: Balancing persuasion and truthfulness. International Journal of Business and Society, 17(2), 231-245.

Related Assignments