Good and Bad in Advertising

The inception of advertising is not exactly known but since it was traced, advertising has evolved in many ways. Some say it has indeed become virulent while others claim it hasn’t. Criticisms and support focus on whether it is ethical to advertise to children and/or whether modern day advertising has crossed ethical lines. All these arguments are vividly trying to address advertising ethics. What is an ethical ad? How should an ad be executed? Etc.

Marc Jacobs Ad featuring Dakota Fanning

Advertising ethics is so sensitive in some countries and once an advertiser crosses what is considered ethical lines, he or she is likely to face harsh consequences. An example: in November 2011, British Advertising Standards Authority banned Marc Jacob’s perfume ad that featured a 17year old actress. The ad standard authority said the ad sexualised a child citing how the actress positioned the perfumed bottle on her body.  In Kenya, ethical lines have been considered crossed during the mobile phone price wars where two major competitors, AIRTEL and SAFARICOM, are seen to be sacrificing advertising ethics. These examples and many others seem to strengthen the stand of advertising critics.

Critics assert that advertising lures us into confusing dreams and reality, as Klempner (2004) puts it. They claim that, for example, an advert features a famous celebrity driving a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV), entices those cannot afford it into believing that they can. Critics therefore hold that advertisers sell people dreams, dreams that are in reality literally inconceivable.

Advertising advocates on the other hand defend this art strongly. They assert that advertising doesn’t entice people into believing in inconceivable dreams. They hold that advertising is directed into many forms of need fulfillment ranging from basic necessities like food and shelter to psychological phenomena like self esteem and self actualization (Dominick, 2011, p 344).

Advertising advocates further claim that critics have no authority, have no right to tell consumers what they need and what they do not. They also assert that most heavily advertised products and services fail in the market; therefore refuting claims that adverts make people buy things they do not need.

Klempner (2004) says that advertisers ponder for our desires for things that are bad for us. Other critics have also asserted that advertisers never give us consequences of consuming their products. Just to illustrate their point, a chocolate company sells people chocolate but never tells them that over consuming chocolate could be harmful. Critics also claim that although modern day advertising is governed by codes of ethics these codes aren’t being adhered to.

In reply to this criticism, advertisers claim that it is not entirely true since they do issue warnings for certain products like beer and cigarette ads as stipulated in the law.

Criticisms hold that advertising encourages materialism. According to critics, advertising makes people disapprove moral believes apart from emulating celebrities featured in adverts, whether their character is ethical or not. Critics, as Dr. Dominick puts it, also charge advertising with stimulating avarice and envy. Just to illustrate, a man is lured into buying Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) TV yet his Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) TV works fine. Extreme greed makes the man buy an item that he doesn’t even need.

To counter this criticism, advertising advocates claim that advertising presents what exists in a particular society. They further defend advertising by claiming capitalist economies emphasize on production and consumption. This therefore means advertising in a capitalist system will present what capitalism stands for (Dominick, 2011, p344).

Critics also point out a very interesting fact that advertising interrupts ones’ private life. For instance, in some countries, one can receive adverts in his or her mobile phone once in a particular locale. In my opinion, these text messages can be at times annoying since they come frequently.

Advertising practitioners partly agree with this fact that adverts can be hard to avoid (Dominick, 2011, p344). Interestingly they defend advertising by claiming it brings greater societal benefits, citing cheaper TV& Radio services and cheaper newspapers & magazines.

As I earlier cited, arguments on the good and bad of advertising have taken a new dimension. Is advertising to children ethical? Just like earlier cited arguments, advertising to children has brought both criticisms and backing.

Advertising critics claim that children are unsophisticated and therefore vulnerable to advertisers’ persuasive tactics and somehow immoral tactics (e.g. the earlier cited advert banned in the UK).

In reply to this claim, advertising practitioners assert that children are sophisticated than parents and critics think. They further say that children are capable of seeing through the lies in adverts and are therefore capable of making sound choices.

Criticisms also hold that advertising encourages children to pester their parents therefore creating rifts between the two parties (Dominick, 2011, p360). Just to illustrate, now that we are approaching the festive season, most children will frequently ask their parents to buy them nguo za krismasi (Christmas attire) among other paraphernalia for celebrating Christmas. When parents combine this and the tough economic situation in Kenya, they are likely to feel disturbed.

On the other hand, advertising practitioners claim that children get valuable information from adverts, information that could help them in their adulthood (Dominick, 2011, p360).

A controversial art it is but advertising plays a positive role in society: we are able to know about new products in the market and we are also updated on sociocultural opportunities, all because of advertising. All in all, the art of advertising will always be subjected to aspersions, genuine criticisms and support from every sphere of the society.

Rationalize expenditure on democratic practice

It is extremely unlikely that Kenyans are happy about our current constitution simply because it promises greater democratic opportunities. I think majority expect that the constitution will make possible to have good politics and good life for the people of Kenya.

As we pass laws to implement the constitution, let us ensure rationalization of expenses associated with the practice of democracy to avoid, for example, a situation where the country appears democratically advanced yet the citizens live poor quality lives due to lack of finance for basic services. Good life should take priority at all times. From Busia to Faza Island, from Mandera to Migori, the state should accept responsibility for influencing the distribution of material goods to ensure that people get a certain minimum below which no person is allowed to sink while encouraging all to raise their status above the minimum by their own effort (Leslie Lipson).

As part of rationalization of the cost of democracy, I am happy that members of parliament are proposing that recall of MP’s as per constitution be made very difficult. If we make it very easy, managing by elections in Kenya will be a major problem.

In addition, in any election petition, if a re-count of votes is made and it is found a politician “A” got more votes than “B” who was declared a winner, why not just declare “A” the winner and have him sworn as MP rather than go through a by-election? A by election corrupts the whole issue as the dispute has to do with the most popular in the circumstance the elections took place and not in the current circumstance.

Also any project started by an MP using Constituency Development Funds should be completed. Due to puerile hatred of previous MP’s new MP’s abandon projects that would have otherwise been useful to the residents of the constituency. The state would continue to have a lot of funds held by white elephants due to bad politics.

Let us be guided in our constitutional implementation by a sound moral principle and never make it appear that democracy is an end in itself. More national income should be directed to human welfare. 

Featured article.
By

J. M. Mugeni

josephat.mugeni@yahoo.com

People and Nature: earthquakes

A number of cities e.g. Christ Church, San francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver etc are located near plate boundaries. I find it dangerous to establish a city near plate boundaries and this is why:

Japan quake 2011 (Science Cheer Leader)

• If tectonic movements trigger a strong earthquake, the cities near plate boundaries will be hard hit- loss of life and destruction of property.
• A tsunami might be triggered and if so, it will sweep anything on its way and once it makes a landfall, it will destroy life and property. 

Haiti Quake (BBC)

The world has seen a number of earthquakes in the recent past the most recent being the magnitude 6.7 earthquake that hit the Canadian city of Vancouver (9/9/2011), the worst being the magnitude 9.0 quake that hit Northern Japan triggering a 10metre high tsunami (March 2011).

After reflecting on these accounts, it would therefore be logical not to establish cities or any human settlements near earthquake zones, especially plate boundaries, unless buildings that could withstand earthquakes and tsunamis are put in place.  

For more info, go to Fan Page 

Revolution

Even a casual reading of world history in 19th and 20th century you will not fail to note the impact of revolution as a tool of political change. Whether it succeeds or not, revolutions leave behind many mass graves and immense destruction of infrastructure and life as people have got used to. 

Since there are many other ways of bringing about political change, knowledge and wisdom demand that a revolution should only be an ultimate tool for political change. It's very clear from history that sometimes the good that is intended to be achieved after a revolution may not at all be achieved. In fact sometimes the consequences have been worse against expectation. Just like allowing immature people to handle nuclear weapons, those who very casually use revolution to bring about change are themselves a problem to human well being on earth.

Recent events in the world indicate that this tool is not understood. World leaders should make effort to prevent use of revolutions just like they prevent use of nuclear weapons.  

Computer Aided Catastrophe

We people are now experiencing a technological revolution, where computers are being used in almost every aspect of life. Some people think that it would be good if computers are used without any human touch in areas such as defense, among others. This will of course be more efficient but we should consider this; some people will always find a way to destroy what is good. An example ,in this case, is  some programmers making computer viruses in order to disrupt the daily activities of fellow human beings. With this Kind of people, we are warned not to entirely rely on computers to anticipate failure. There should be a human touch in every aspect of life where computers are in use.