The American Advertising Federation (AAF), the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the American Marketing Association (AMA) all have their own separate code of ethics, even though all of these industries are used for promoting their clients and their clients’ products. One value in each code is being truthful by giving correct information; however, even this value is surprisingly slightly different in each code.
These codes have very few similarities, but in all three of them they state that a professional should give truthful information at all times. There is a difference in this value in all three of the codes though. The AAF does not go into detail defining what it means to be truthful like the other two do, and it also never uses the word honesty in the definition of what truth is. In class, we discussed that people use the words interchangeably, but that does not always mean that the truth is honest or that it is the honest truth. We defined truth as what each individual thinks is correct. This means that my truth might be different from yours depending on what our beliefs and values are and on our perspective of the situation.
The only time the word honesty is used in the AAF code of ethics is in the testimonial section where it states that all “advertising containing testimonials shall be limited to those of competent witnesses who are reflecting a real and honest opinion or experience.” It is interesting that the people in the advertisement giving a testimonial should be honest, but the advertising professional creating the commercial shouldn’t.
The AAF only gives one sentence about truth, while the others give multiple points as to what constitutes honesty. Here are the statements for this value from each code of ethics:
Truth, according to the AAF, means that advertising professionals “shall tell the truth, and shall reveal significant facts, the omission of which would mislead the public.”
The PRSA states that in order to be honest there should be a free flow of accurate and truthful information; professionals should work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession; professionals need to be honest and accurate in all communications; they need to disclose information; and they should tell the truth in wartime communications.
The AMA defines honesty as being “forthright in dealings with customers and stakeholders.” Then it points out how marketing professionals will carry out this value which includes: striving to be truthful in all situations, at all times; offering products of value that do what [professionals] claim in all communications; standing behind [their] products if they fail to deliver the claimed benefits; fostering trust in the marketing system; and honoring [their] implicit and explicit commitments and promises.
It is almost disturbing that there is only one statement about truth in the AAF code of ethics, which does not include strengthening the public’s trust in advertising like the others do about their industries. This is especially interesting considering consumers usually do not trust advertising professionals or their advertisements.
The value of truth for the AAF and the value of honesty for the AMA and the PRSA should be more similar. Honesty should be the key value in all three, but surprisingly it is not for the AAF. The AMA and PRSA both give several statements and key points as to what constitutes honesty, making honesty the most prevalent value. The only reason why truth stands out in the AAF code is because it is the first bolded word on the document. The fact that honesty is not upheld in the same light for each organization was the most surprising difference to me while reviewing all three codes of ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment