Corporate Advertisements and the Government

            The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects our right of freedom of expression. The amendment gives us the freedom to express ourselves without government interfering. In order to uphold this right, the government should not regulate corporate advertisements. However, given the vulnerable state of childhood, the industry should continue to self-regulate advertisements directed at children placing the burden of responsibility with the industry.

            Placing responsibility in the corporations hands benefits the corporation by helping to build ethics that will lead to better relationships with the consumer. By focusing on “enhanced advertising ethics”, corporations instead “build trust in the company and its brands” (Snyder 477). Certain categories or audiences require a higher level of ethics including legal advertising, pharmaceutical advertising, and advertisements directed at children.

            According to material presented in Bob Garfield’s, “The Upside of Legal Advertising”, legal advertising serves a couple of roles. According to Elizabeth Talbert, a regulator for the Florida bar association, legal ads serve the purpose of informing “consumers of their legal rights” (Garfield). The ads are regulated by each state’s bar association. For some attorneys like Boston’s personal injury lawyer, James Sokolove legal advertising allows for “expansion in the marketplace” (Garfield). Sokolove feels that current regulations “restrict” him in the area of advertising (Garfield). Bar associations typically prohibit the use of “storytelling” or “silly” content within legal advertisements (Garfield). These regulations have been relatively successful in protecting the consumer, but these ads are directed towards adults. What about children?

            Today more than ever children are bombarded with advertisements. Points of engagement for advertisers and children range from cell phone ads, to DVDs, to television and the list goes on and on. Many studies currently hold strong correlations “between the amount of advertising content” and the rate of childhood obesity (Ron Warren). One study found that “food products” constitute “as much as half of all child-targeted advertising” (Ron Warren 232). The study also found direct correlations between food advertising and children’s purchase requests (Ron Warren 232). The truth is these ads have dominated children’s programming for years. Children viewing these ads should understand “the persuasive nature of advertising” (Snyder 478).

            In order to combat any issues with corporate advertisements the industry should continue utilizing agencies like CARU, that self-regulate, leaving the government out of the picture. CARU, founded in 1974, promotes responsible children’s advertising (CARU). CARU does not rely on government to regulate the industry; instead, “CARU seeks change through the voluntary cooperation of advertisers.” (CARU). As mentioned above, this approach also strengthens the relationship the consumer has with the corporation. In order to regulate advertisements directed at children, CARU performs “high-level monitoring”, by the “scrutinizing” of ten thousand commercials, radio, print, and online ads (CARU). CARU’s self-regulation should be continued and supported by the industry in order to keep the federal government from interfering.

            Ultimately, the decision to watch corporate advertisements lies with the consumer. However, certain audiences are more sensitive to information conveyed in advertisements. In order to combat any arising issues, the industry should continue self-regulation through its agencies or organizations like CARU. Exhibiting stronger ethics in advertising will only serve to strengthen the relationship between the corporation and the consumer by building trust and loyalty. Legal advertising, pharmaceuticals and ads directed at children would all benefit from the continued self-regulation of the industry.