No, businesses serve themselves. Corporations are not your friends. Sometimes their interests align with consumers' but not always.
> Has any advertiser ever claimed to give you the full picture? Both sides of the argument? No, of course not. It's a sales pitch. You know it's a sales pitch. They know you know it's a sales pitch. They know that you know that they're only presenting the positive sales points. You know that they know that you know.
> Where's the dishonesty, exactly?
Your claim is basically that if they don't claim to tell the truth, and everybody knows they're lying, it's no longer lying.
> How freakishly up-front do you need the world to be to live up to your standards?
How about we start with something simple like not pretending that advertisers jamming their ads down my throat is an altruistic act?
And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of lying. So does the dictionary.
If you want to argue that presenting partial information with the intent to deceive isn't within the strict lying, fine, I'll concede that pedantic point. That's a rather silly hill to die on, though: do we really care about the difference between two different ways advertisers might attempt to deceive us? I think it's pretty reasonable for me to say that I don't like people who try to deceive me, regardless of whether they do it by lying, or by presenting an unbalanced, partial section of the facts.
As for deception, I don't think we're going to agree, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. But for the sake of clarity:
- If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal.
- If I say something is technically true but implies something that is untrue, I still consider that a deception. (For example, I recently saw an episode of Patriot Act that said clothing from H&M had labels that something about being made from recycled material, but in truth the only recycled item was the label itself. Technically, not a lie. But obviously deceptive, because they relied on our assumption that they were referring to the clothing item and not the tag that the claim was printed on.)
- If I say something that is true but is used to cover up other things I don't want you to know, that's deception. So if I promote that my product uses recycled materials, and it really does, but it also pollutes the environment in other ways, that's deceptive too because I was trying to imply that my product was good for the environment when it really wasn't.
- HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.
It's not illegal in any meaningful way. Whatever law you think makes it illegal, is not being effectively enforced. Companies lie in advertising constantly. Subway "footlongs" are less than a foot long, "Bifidus Regularus" in Activia yogurt is literally two made up words, Dr. Oz can make all sorts of claims about new medical products because it's "not a medical show", Vitamin Water supposedly "boosts your immune system" and "helps fight free radicals", many herbal supplements are literally grass clippings. Even in cases where companies have been successfully sued (which is different from it being illegal) settlements have been meaningless compared to the profits: the possibility of being sued is a line item in the expenses of a lying advertising campaign.
I think we're on agreement in your middle points, but I'm a bit confused about how you think this applies to advertising. The vast majority of advertising is dishonest under these points.
> - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.
I think it depends on context. You have people on this thread claiming that their job as advertisers is to help consumers find products that fit their needs. The implication here is that they're providing a valuable service to consumers. If that's the case, then you're absolutely misleading people by only providing information that's favorable to your product.
But if we're honest that the job of advertisers is to sell people products, regardless of whether those products fit consumers' needs, then sure, they're giving all the information they're obligated to give. But let's not pretend that that's altruistic, or good for consumers and society. It's not--it's actively harmful.
You can't have it both ways. Either:
1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job...
2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers.
Either way, advertisers are a blight on society.
(Side note: Some of the most effective ad campaigns of all time, and some of the most revered in the industry, came out of DDB in the 60s. Their trick: in a sea of blatant lies and deceptions, they told the truth. Instead of saying "this is an amazing car", they'd say "this is a small car for people who don't want large ones". It worked, and they proved that respecting the consumer was not only moral but good for business, too. If you don't think today's regulations have had any meaningful impact, I recommend taking a look at the ads that came out before regulation.)
The distinction about lawsuits vs criminal prosecution is something you'll have to take up with the legal system. I don't know why it is that if a corporation does something illegal, the only recourse is usually financial, where as when a person does the same thing, jail time is on the table.
To your comments on context, I genuinely apologize, I wasn't reading other comments in the greater thread, only the ones in response to what I initially posted (because if you took the time to read what I wrote and replied, I feel I owe you a response in return). I didn't realize that's what you were referring to.
I 100% agree my job is to sell products. Others in the greater thread and in my industry may believe their jobs are more altruistic than that. I can't speak for them. I'm certainly not a saint, and simply aim to avoid doing work that I'd consider harmful to anyone.
I disagree that selling products is inherently bad. I maintain that if the product is good, then promoting it is good or at least neutral -- with the previously noted exceptions for deceptive advertising.
I don't agree with your contention about the vast majority of advertising being dishonest, but I'm not sure either of us is prepared to conduct a proper and objective study on the matter. We probably both have confirmation bias on this issue.
> You can't have it both ways. Either:
> 1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job...
> 2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers.
I would propose a third option, spinning off of option 2 that you presented: Advertisers sell products. Some of them care about whether the products are good for people, some don't. Some of them care about whether their advertising is honest, some don't.
I think the idea that the act of promotion (advertising) is what's wrong with the world is putting the cart before the horse. Fix the product. Fix the business. The advertising will follow suit. If you think that's naive, you may be right. But it's how I think about the matter. Honest businesses produce honest advertising. Dishonest businesses don't.
Advertising helps businesses. Businesses serve consumers. Businesses wouldn't spend a dime on advertising if it didn't need to in order to stay in business. Ergo, advertising serves consumers, albeit indirectly.
> They aren't honest about it.
Has any advertiser ever claimed to give you the full picture? Both sides of the argument? No, of course not. It's a sales pitch. You know it's a sales pitch. They know you know it's a sales pitch. They know that you know that they're only presenting the positive sales points. You know that they know that you know.
Where's the dishonesty, exactly?
It's like going on a date and saying "You know, sometimes I don't shave. Or brush my teeth. Or wear a nice outfit. I only did those to make a good impression. There's a really good chance there's someone better for you out there."
Of COURSE advertisers are putting their best foot forward.
Does your resume list every time you were ever late for work? When you signed up for a credit card, did you tell the bank that you were late on rent a few months ago? When you applied for post-secondary, did you tell them about that math tutor you needed to get through trig?
How freakishly up-front do you need the world to be to live up to your standards?