This paper examines the ethical dimensions of advertising directed at children, using utilitarian and duty-based ethical theories as analytical frameworks. It explores the tension between advertisers' commercial interests and the vulnerability of children as consumers, drawing on examples such as Michelin's banned French television campaigns and a snack company's juice labeling dilemma. The paper evaluates how utilitarian principles—maximizing benefit for the greatest number—apply to marketing decisions, and considers the challenges of establishing universal advertising standards across different national regulatory environments. It concludes that clearer ethical frameworks are needed to guide marketers in treating consumers as human beings rather than profit-generating targets.
Different researchers have developed differing theories regarding ethical principles. However, none of these ethical decisions, principles, or theories has offered absolute guidance toward good actions. These theories do, nevertheless, provide frameworks for making informed decisions, because they seek to define the moral limits of acceptable behavior. This is achieved by laying down guidance for decision-making based on those limits.
For decades, ethics has been grounded in two main theories. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham developed the utilitarian theory, whereby they defined the moral value of actions through the consequences those actions produce. For a long time, the utilitarian theory has distinguished the good from the bad by placing defined emphasis on the advantages of acts — specifically, those actions generating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. At times, the utilitarian theory requires that people sacrifice some good. For instance, a severely impaired newborn baby is likely to burden both the family and society as a whole. In such a case, the utilitarian calculus might suggest that the best decision would be to let such a child die (Vaughn, 2010).
The utilitarian theory emphasizes that people are responsible for their duties by distinguishing right from wrong in the course of their work while maintaining adherence to their responsibilities. According to this theory, we do not determine the appropriateness of an action through its consequences alone, but also through its intentions. This theory examines the choice of actions rather than solely the consequences of those actions, and it is deeply embedded in the principle of respect — leading to the concept that respect for other people includes recognition of their autonomous decisions. The respect principle applies informed consent (Hill, 2009).
The utilitarian theory is both confronting and appealing because it provides a source of rules applicable across different situations. It enables people to feel confident that they will always know right from wrong by abiding by these rules. Nevertheless, this theory's greatest strength also serves as its main weakness. Critics have argued about the inflexibility of the concept in operating equitably across different circumstances.
In this context, the focus falls on advertisements directed at children. Although gaming advertisements and emerging technology adverts have intensified attention on advertising to children, this has been an issue of concern for decades (Nurses Association, 2001). One of the main points of contention is whether advertisers should direct their communication toward children directly, or whether they should communicate with parents instead.
Concerning young children, it is reasonable to direct advertisements for snack foods, toys, and games toward parents, since parents are the primary buyers of such products. Nevertheless, advertisers are aware that better commercial results can be achieved by directing messages to children — partly because children lack the capacity to analyze advertisements and their underlying messages critically. Similarly, children tend to want products regardless of whether they are affordable, expensive, or even suitable for them. While pressuring parents, children substantially force them to decide whether to give in to their wishes. This has the potential to strain parent-child relationships when parents do not wish to make the purchase (Hitchcock, Schubert & Thomas, 2010).
A recent media article published in a U.S.-based marketing magazine focusing on children's products recognized the unethical nature of certain promotional efforts, attracting significant public and parental response. The article, captioned "Monsters Inc.," emphasized how marketers can undermine billions of dollars in family relationships by infiltrating children's friendships, hijacking their imagination, fragmenting their attention spans, and driving wedges between children and their parents (Cournoyer, 2011). From the perspective of duty-based ethical theory, it is potentially exploitative to direct advertisement messages to children; in any form, this is ethically wrong.
Although strong support exists for substantial restrictions on advertising aimed at children, most people agree that certain advertisements are morally acceptable within defined limits — for example, advertisements for older children promoting beneficial products such as healthy food options and exercise. If a categorical imperative were formed maintaining that advertising messages directed at children is inherently unethical, there would need to be room for accommodating exceptional cases to that principle (Hill, 2009).
"Michelin ad ban and French vs. U.S. regulations compared"
"Juice labeling dilemma illustrates utilitarian trade-offs"
Advertisements for children have pitted parents in an oppositional position against their children, with the utilitarian concept assuming an adversarial association between stockholders and consumers. Although the majority of advertisers are committed to ethical and legal behavior in the marketplace, clear frameworks for drawing the line between unethical and ethical behavior do not yet exist. In this regard, participants in the marketplace are required to continue wrestling with the challenge of how to advertise their services and goods to consumers in ways that are respectful — treating consumers as human beings rather than as profit-generating items to be exploited (Vaughn, 2010).
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.