Introduction
Advertisements are an essential part of any market system. They also contribute towards economic development in the country because they enhance competition among industry players. Additionally, advertising informs people about product availability and empowers the consumer. However, if done unethically, advertisements can also bring about irreparable harm to society. For instance, some advertisements may contain false information hence misleading consumers about the product. Similarly, there are advertisements that encourage prejudice against sidelined groups such as the physically disabled and racial minorities. In addition, some advertisements may aim at exploiting certain members of society who may not necessarily know what is best for them (such as children). In doing so, advertising can be deemed unethical. These and other issues need to be considered in the process of advertising. The essay will examine the ethical implications in five sports advertisements. (BBC News, 2000)
Christopher Reeve’s commercial aired in the Super Bowl 2000 (Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/
The latter advert drew sharp responses from a wide spectrum of consumers after being aired in the 2000 Super Bowl event. In the advert, well known actor Christopher Reeves (who is a paraplegic in real life) can be seen walking from his wheelchair – they asserted that this was some sort of miracle. First of all, there were some ethical implication on the product itself. The advertisement was trying to show what Nuveen company products could achieve as a result of technological advancements; they could create miracles. This was in fact a false implication of what the company’s products could do because none of them can achieve this. Additionally, such a marketing approach is quite distasteful because it did not adhere to one of the most important ethical principles; respecting secluded groups in society. In this case, the marketing approach hurt physically challenged persons. The intended audience was composed of all sports loving persons at the Super bowl and enthusiasts watching from home. Some of the persons attending the 2000 Super bowl may have been physically challenged thus offending them. In the end, the audience may not purchase the product. The company made an assumption that all sporting enthusiasts would be open minded about the approach yet this was not necessarily true. The company had also made the assumption that consumers would find computer trickery interesting regardless of which actor was involved. On the contrary, many people felt that the advertisement abused Reeve’s dignity as an actor. (Springer, 2000)
The Nike advertisement at the Sydney Olympics
This advertisement depicts well-known athlete Susan Hamilton running in Nike shoes. The advertisement drew inspiration from the movie; Texas-chain-saw-massacre in which a murderer attacks his victims with chain saws. The Nike advert depicts Hamilton escaping from her assailant who is outrun by the athlete. He eventually collapses and opts to let her go. Nike finally gives a last tag in the advertisement by asserting that Nike shoes help users to live longer. The company was trying to show that their shoes enhance one’s performance in the field which could be regarded as a true affirmation. However, such a marketing approach tends to encourage violence against women; an assertion made by many women’ groups. The advertisement intended on reaching women athletes but instead ended up offending them. Nike was seen as a company sending mixed signals to large portions of its audience because advertisements targeting men come out as humorous yet this one (targeting women) was insensitive. The company assumed that female sports has come a long way and that depicting a woman outrunning an assailant could imply that she is empowered in the sports arena as well as in real life. However, this message was not achieved. The company also assumed that all consumers would welcome strong assertions about the role of women in sports. However, the reactions turned out to be negative. (BBC News, 2000)
Mountain Dew’ advertisement
The advertisement tries to capture audiences through the action of a biker racing alongside a cheetah. After a while, the biker stops and attacks the cheetah head on. Thereafter, he passes his arm into its throat and draws out a can of the sports drink –Mountain Dew. The advertisement was trying to indicate that Mountain Dew can give consumers energy to take up hard challenges such as attacking cheetahs. The ability of the product to cause such a reaction is questionable. Such a marketing approach is quite daring because it may prompt audiences to react sharply both negatively and positively. However, the depictions may affect some consumers negatively because it shows someone reaching into a cheetah’s throat. This may be a disgusting act to some individuals. The intended audience consists of all present and potential sports drink lovers. Some of them may be offended by such graphical images. The company assumed that a sportsman can perform well after taking sports drinks. This could be true because sports drinks are rich in carbohydrates and boost performance. (Springer, 2000)
Nike and the dying elephant
In this advertisement, Nike depicts a sports personality Lance Armstrong. The cyclist approaches an elephant that has collapsed. He attempts to revive the elephant by breathing into its mouth. At some point, the elephant comes to life after Armstrong’s resuscitation. The advertisement ends by asserting that sporting gives one healthy lungs. Overly, the advertisement was promoting the spirit of sports and the Olympics since it was a major sponsor at that time. (BBC News, 2000)
The Nike advert did not connect its products directly to the advertisement so there were minor ethical implications in this regard. On the other hand, such a marketing approach was a big exaggeration because no one can link a human being’s lung capacity to that of an elephant. However, such exaggerations can be forgiven if they do not mislead audiences into purchasing the product. The advertisement was advocating for the greater good; it was promoting sports. Consequently, such an advertisement contributes towards society’s development and rarely had ethical implications to the audience. Nike had assumed that sports enhance fitness which is true. They had also assumed that their audience would be drawn by such a sharp contrast without necessarily taking the comparison literally. This means that it can create interest in the product and prompt consumers to purchase it. (BBC News, 2000)
Mike Jordan and the Gazorde commercial
In this advertisement, Michael Jordan is depicted playing basketball with himself. However, one Jordan is much younger than the current Jordan. They used computer tricks to achieve this feat. Such a marketing approach is captivating because it draws on the audience’s imagination. On the other hand, it may solicit negative reactions because it reminds some viewers of the tricks employed to make Christopher Reeve walk. This could harm sales. The company intended on targeting young people in the market because they are the ones who are dazzled by celebrities and computer imagery. The company assumed that people value all sports legends. However, some young critics believe that the advertisement only brought out the fact that Michael Jordan’s best days were behind him. Nike thought that they would capture their audience with these gimmicks but the advertisement has instead drawn a number of sharp reactions. (Mahoney, 2008)
Conclusion
Advertisement may be considered ethical when they depict true information. However, some exaggerations may be forgiven if they come out as such. The advertisements that draw the sharpest reactions are those ones that mock minority groups or those that mislead audiences indirectly.
References
Springer, M. (2000): Advertising Roundup Super Bowl XXXIV, retrieved from http://www.popculturecorn.com/article-bowlads reeve.ht accessed on 24th June 2008(Mountain Dew and Christopher Reeve)
Mahoney, D. (2008): Super bowl ads: A postmortem, retrieved from http://www.morningnews.org/archives/opinions/super_bowl_ads_a_postmortem.php.ht accessed on 24th June 2008 (Michael Jordan)
BBC News (2000): Olympic Nike Chainsaw ad axed, 19th September 2000, retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk accessed on 24th June 2008 (Nike adverts)