Kyle Hoffman, a fellow classmate, raised the issue of ethics in marketing, with his discussion of a hoax video campaign put on by Hi-Tec Waterproof shoes.
Ethics in marketing, and business in general, tends to be a grey area, but where do we draw the line from being concerned about the safety of consumers, to recognizing the difficulty of maneuvering the constraints that society places upon marketers?
It’s gotten me thinking about how we define the phrase false advertising. What Reebok did with its EasyTone campaign was take advantage of consumer’s belief in data and statistics, with unfounded claims that the shoes toned up to 28% more than regular shoes.
What Hi – Tec did was create an amusing video that was clearly a spoof on the typical sports documentary. The difference between what they did and what Reebok did, is that the information they provided allowed consumers the opportunity to recognize that the campaign was a joke. Reebok provided pure numbers that implied real research and qualification. How easy is it to believe that shoes can help you tone your muscles? Pretty easy. Reebok took advantage of the window for belief. How easy is it to believe that people can walk on water? Not very. Hi-Tec did not take advantage of a window for belief, and it can be considered that for this reason, their campaign was not false advertising.
These are not dictionary definitions for false advertising, but simply my interpretation of what it means. How do you define it? And how can we can ever properly regulate it if we all define it differently?
Advertising Standards Canada might be the answer for some, but is there room for progress? Take a look and decide for yourself.
