Prose Page

thewordshop.biz

You've come to the right place

Prose - personal thoughts

Choose the prose you would like to view:
Planning Obsolescence
        What's It Worth?
        Depreciation - Concept or Reality?
        What About Real Estate?
        Book Versus Market Value
Do Ads Make You Buy?
        Demand
        Advertisement
        The Role of Advertising
        Understanding Demand
        How Advertising and Demand Interact
        Why the Controversy?
        Advertiser Responsibility
        Public Responsibility
        Closing Thoughts

Planning Obsolescence
“Nothing lasts forever… Thank God!”
Walter Jameson - "Long Live Walter Jameson" (The Twilight Zone)
By Ken Holmes

Ever notice how things break down at the worst possible moment? Things like appliances, tools, cars, even toys seem to wear out when you can least afford to replace them. Which, to me, begs the question, “Did I ever really afford it if I cannot now afford to replace it?” We typically plan poorly our purchase and replacement of ordinary consumer goods – assuming we plan at all. Even real estate, though it usually appreciates in value over time, is often poorly evaluated. Is there a solution?

Minimizing unpleasant surprises is an attainable goal. Let’s have a look at some simple principles of accounting (uh-oh!). Shall we? Often when people hear the word “accounting”, it sends shivers up their spine. Why? Many reasons. Perhaps they can relate to comical TV and radio commercials where a high-strung accountant tries to take the fun out of the bargain purchases of bedroom furnishings by cautioning his business owner boss about handing out too many bargains to the customers. How many TV and movie dramas have cast accountants as killjoys? Accountants, by definition, exist to take emotions out of purchase decisions and to attempt to ensure common sense prevails. That’s why I’m concerned simply mentioning “principles of accounting” may turn some of you off. But please stay tuned. Most everyone who ever purchased or sold a car is familiar with the notion of depreciation. Simply put, depreciation is the concept of lost asset value over time. Most of the items we purchase and use will wear out or lose value, whether we like it or not. Why not accept this in order to understand and benefit from it?

I believe it’s gratifying to know that I can control when and how I replace things I own and use, once their useful lives end. That’s why I took some of the “secrets” applied by accountants and incorporated them into my household purchase planning.

I don’t know about you, but unless it’s a birthday party, I hate surprises – especially unpleasant ones involving my money. You too can be happy knowing more about what’s around the corner, especially if you see it coming. Let’s take a look at some simple accounting techniques. Lead on.

Back to Top

What’s It Worth?

I remember years ago, observing various auctions, when I had free time. I never purchased at auction, but I did learn some important lessons about goods and commodities. One thing I’ll never forget is that no one truly knows what anything is worth until somebody buys it. Nowadays, the whole concept of auctions has reached levels unimaginable just a few decades earlier - with online auctions. There have been wild stories of how simple, mundane items, like ink pens, have sold at foolishly high prices. This happens for several reasons the social scientists can explain. One thing is certain: people buy with their emotions. Eliminate emotions and most items might sell for drastically less (or more). All things considered, items are worth whatever the market will bear – meaning, whatever someone is willing (and able) to pay for them. Hence, an immutable law of supply and demand. A high-demand item will sell, whatever the price. If there’s no sale, there’s no demand.

For this reason, it’s extremely difficult to say with absolute authority what any item is truly worth, prior to sale. The concept of market value cannot be overemphasized when discussing valuation of goods. Any discussion of depreciation has to include this concept. It’s sort of like admitting that while we do our best trying to make sense of reality, we still come up short. We like to think we’ve got it all figured out. It makes us feel in control. Yet, why don’t more of us win the lottery or pick the darling stock? We settle for “best guesstimate” evaluation of things – valuation. Hence, the concept of depreciation.

Depreciation is a general concept that describes techniques to determine worth in case of immediate sale (liquidation). “If I had to sell my car to raise cash for an emergency, what could I get for it?” “If I took my gold watch (I don’t have a gold watch!) to the local pawn shop for quick cash for gasoline (whew!) to commute to work, how much might I get?” These are common scenarios that might require simple valuation. In these cases, the age and condition of the car and the gold watch might figure in.

Back to Top

Depreciation – Concept or Reality?

Depreciation involves the intangible (i.e. time, calculation) as well as the tangible – things such as wear or damage. Typically, simple (or complex) formulas aid valuation. A pawn shop dealer may use their intuition – based on experience and knowledge of the local market to valuate an item. Whether formulas or intuition are used, one thing is certain, until there’s a sale, we only have estimation.

Using estimation can be very practical. Remember, if you (like me) loathe surprises, use principles. If you can’t truly know what your fancy red sports car is worth, prior to trading it in for a more practical mini-van (Yeah, I know! Yuk!), at least you can have some idea. Additionally, when using depreciation, it should be done regularly, while you own the item. What about regularity of calculation? How often should you depreciate an item? Take your pick: annually, quarterly, monthly (these are the most common time periods of calculation). If you see your “brand new” refrigerator losing value (at least on paper or spreadsheet) regularly, you’ll spread the pain over time – versus facing it all at once. What often happens is we wake up one day and our appliance breaks down and needs immediate replacement – its a financial emergency. Or maybe we go to trade in our car and try to bargain (based on little factual data) for trade-in value we can’t really support with logic. How about this one? We need to replace a now obsolete TV for a comparable new one, but experience sticker shock because the new TV costs much more than was paid for the old. Although consumer price inflation may cause some shock, at least can we better-prepare for a new purchase if we’ve kept up with the old – by watching it “rot” on paper. So, what depreciation method should you use?

Straight-line depreciation will usually be best. Here’s how. Let’s say you just purchased a brand new bed. A good bed will probably last about 10 years. If you bought your bed for $400 and you think you would like to plan the purchase of a new bed ten years from now, all you need to do is keep a book (or spreadsheet) of all such assets that you purchase in which you annually deduct one tenth (or, $40) each year from its value. In most cases, it’s probably best to deduct the first $40 as soon as you get the item home and are sure that you will not return or exchange it for one of different value. Keep meticulous records for all but the most expendable merchandise. For example, the bed linen is usually so easy to replace (expendable), it would be impractical track its value. The mattress, however, should probably be tracked. How ever often you choose to depreciate an item, be sure it’s appropriate for that item. If, say, you replace your prescription eyeglasses every two years, you may want to depreciate it monthly or quarterly, rather than annually. By depreciating items on a straight line (versus curved or irregular basis) you enable depreciation by the same amount every time. Keep it simple as possible. Otherwise, you won’t want to do it consistently. Also, keep an eye toward the replacement purchase.

This means that you would save a portion (or all) the funds you will need for the next purchase. You would save regularly – just as you are depreciating. In a perfect world, savings would be at least as much as all household depreciation amounts.

The idea of depreciation with comparable saving is to minimize unpleasant surprises. Therefore, you should think about your next purchase as much as possible. What does that entail? Well, let’s say you now own a treadmill and other exercise machines that you’re sure you’ll replace in five years (since as you mature, you’ll want to maintain your physical health). Perhaps in five years there will be improved exercise devices that combine various functions (including treadmill and other), enabling you to purchase less fitness equipment with more functions per item. But let’s also say that you’ll need to spend more for those few items because they cost more. As the five-year mark approaches, you’ll also need to plan for a more expensive purchase. Why not remain aware of what’s new out there and what’s old (that you currently own and are depreciating)? In this case, you would ideally save more than the amount of depreciation.

Back to Top

What About Real Estate?

We know some things don’t depreciate. Some things actually appreciate. Real estate is one of the most well-known (and most coveted) assets of appreciation. Other items may appreciate over time: fine autos, wine, artworks, defective postage stamps or coins; you name it. Many things appreciate, but none quite so predictably as real estate. Most grade-school children are familiar with one of the greatest real estate deals of all time. Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan for about $24 from the Lenape Native Americans in 1626. Look what happened. The island is now worth much, much more. One thing we can be sure of is real estate will continue to appreciate for the foreseeable future (with few exceptions). What does this mean for the average American home-owner? It means that a home purchased today will probably be worth much more in 10 to 20 years. But what is often not said, however, is there’s more to it than that.

When real estate is purchased, it appreciates and depreciates. “How can that be?”, one might ask. I’ll tell you. While the land certainly appreciates in almost every case, the structures depreciate! Any landlord accounts for this fact. (Or, their accountant does!) However, the average homeowner probably does not. This can lead to problems.

One thing is the lack of planning for structural wear. Houses and other structures (e.g. garages, storage sheds, septic systems) wear out over time. Failure to plan for this decay is a common error. As I mentioned at the beginning, if there’s no ability to replace (e.g. a heating system, central air-conditioning system or roof) affordability is questionable. One common way to cover such expenses is to dip into equity – what a home and land appraise for, less what is owed on them – rather than into carefully planned savings.

Using equity involves borrowing – often additional borrowing. Second (and third, etc.) mortgages are plentiful in the U.S. “Loan-stacking” assumes property appreciation will “compensate” for the added liability. Why try to compensate? Well, let’s take the “worst case” scenario.

What if there’s financial distress? Hopefully, the property will be sold and the proceeds used to pay off the loans – with funds remaining to help start life over. But, there’s a catch.

Appreciation, like depreciation, is non-tangible. Home appraisals are “best guesstimates” – just like depreciation methods. The appraised value of a home is no guarantee of market value. Remember, no one knows what anything is worth until someone buys it! Many-a-homeowner has tried to sell their home under distressed circumstances, only to find they can’t get the price they wanted. When they do sell (if they sell), they’re often disappointed with the price.

This is because the appraised value of the property was merely a “best guess.” Add the fact that the buyer may know the seller is in financial (or other) distress and you have the makings of inevitable disappointment for the seller.

One more thing about real estate. Not only does structural property depreciate in value, due to wear and normal usage, the very land may decline in value, from time to time. While it seldom happens, land can go down in value. Just ask the residents of some disaster areas. So, while the structures almost always depreciate, sometimes, even the land depreciates.

Back to Top

Book Versus Market Value

While we cannot know what something is worth until a transaction takes place – market value – we should not give up estimation. Book value is the concept through which we do our best to try and valuate what we own. High-value items, should be tracked for their estimated value on a regular basis. Cars, jewelry, fine furniture, etc., should be part of our estimation of our assets’ value. If you don’t know the value of your assets, how can you know what you’re worth, financially? But, that’s a question for another discussion. For now, just realize that many things change value. Whether it’s a well-maintained “classic” car that happens to be 30 years old or a hi-fi sound system stored in the attic because it no longer works, chances are your asset is not worth what it once was. It’s either more (sometimes much more!) or less - due to depreciation.

One last thing. When you use depreciation to valuate an item down to zero book value, don’t take this to mean that it has zero market value. The numerous yard sales that take place each weekend testify to the notion that one person’s junk is another person’s treasure. If you can, you should try to sell that “piece of junk” and make yourself some money. Proceeds of such a sale are referred to by accountants as salvage value – a term for another discussion.

Good luck keeping your scales – savings versus depreciation – as balanced as possible.

END

NOTE: The preceding article Planning Obsolescence ("the article") is for demonstration of writing ability only and should by no means be taken as financial advice nor followed as financial advice. Neither the author, Ken Holmes, nor the Web hosts, High Five Domains and WebSite Tonight, assume responsibility for actions taken or results experienced by any reader or associate of any reader of the article.

Back to Top

Do Ads Make You Buy?
In Other Words, Does Advertising Control Decisions?
By Ken Holmes

Purchasing a luxury car when an economy car is more appropriate; purchasing and abusing a controlled substance; or, perhaps dropping too many coins in slot machines at a casino are some examples of misguided consumption. There are many more. They often materialize on the heels of some sort of persuasion – such as advertising. Therefore, questionable buying decisions are the fault of advertisers… Right?

“If only they hadn’t run such creative ads for luxury cars.” “If only the liquor advertisers didn’t place such colorful ads on big billboards.” Or try this one, “If the casino had not suggested so vividly how easily I could go from rags to riches, I wouldn’t have… over-extended my credit…” “…Abused alcohol…” Or, “…Become addicted to gambling.” Therefore, the car maker… the liquor bottlers… the casino proprietors are to blame… Right?

I believe most of us know the answer. “No one put a gun to your head!” is a truthful reply that many might voice. Meaning, many of us know no one makes anyone buy anything and responsibility for buying decisions lies solely with the consumer. Advertisers are not responsible for purchasing decisions consumers make.

Still, there’s an ongoing debate that comes up in business and political circles. "What is (or is not) responsible advertising?" In order to answer the question, let’s look at a few simple concepts of business and economics: supply, demand, price, advertisement and consumption.

Back to Top

Demand

The list of things we will trade for – usually by purchase – is long. Homes, cars, furniture, clothing, food, gasoline and many others. Successful acquisition demonstrates something called demand. Wanting alone is not enough. If we can’t get something we want for the going price, we’re not part of the demand for that item. Demand is both willingness and ability to obtain. So, where does advertisement fit in?

Back to Top

Advertisement

We’re inundated with advertisement. Someone is constantly attempting to get us to part with our money – in exchange for what’s advertised. Ideally, they have something of equal (or greater) value to exchange. Believing they can make a trade, they attempt to do so through persuasion. If you’re the target of advertisement, there are certain assumptions about you.

The advertiser believes you are (or could be) part of her market – the group of people who demand what’s being sold. The advertiser believes a deal can be transacted with you through persuasion and your ability to purchase. Persuasion would foster your decision to buy.

If there’s a transaction against your will, it’s not the result of advertisement. One example involves fear. Although some advertising plays on our fears, it still requires our purchase decision. For example, many SUVs are purchased due to fear of collision. SUV occupants statistically fare better in collisions than those in smaller vehicles. Therefore, fear of injury due to collision may be used to persuade buyers. In this example, advertisers don’t create road collisions, although they certainly use facts about collision in their persuasion process. There are scenarios, however, in which the consumer may fear something the advertiser does create.

If, for example, the consumer is physically threatened by the advertiser, in order to induce a purchase of what is advertised, this is coercion. Do we still have the element of persuasion by the advertiser? Yes. Do we also have the element of decision by the consumer? Yes. But, in this case the “advertiser” is also the provider of that which is feared – physical harm. By providing the element of fear and also providing the remedy, the “advertiser” hardly needs to advertise. They need only inform, “If you don’t buy my product, I will harm you!” This is more along the lines of imparting information in the form of a threat, not of advertising. Worldly examples might include totalitarianism.

Under a dictatorial government that monopolizes politics with its own political party, there’s no need of political campaigning – a form of advertising. Without competition, voters don’t require persuasion. Furthermore, refusal by citizens to support and assume membership in the monolithic party may be met with the threat of physical harm. How to avoid this? Support the party.

Thank goodness if you live in a society inundated with advertising. This is preferable to one without. Of course, some may feel differently. There are those who believe advertising should be curtailed due to lack of customer ability to make wise decisions. However, because some consumers make bad buying decisions, possibly influenced by advertisement, should certain advertising be banned? To answer that question, let’s take a look at just what the purpose of advertising really is.

Back to Top

The Role of Advertising

Persuasion is the goal of advertising. Does it use additional ploys? Sure. Advertising may come with education, coercion, even intimidation. Even so, persuasion is always at the core. Advertising alone, however, goes only so far – allowing freedom of choice. Advertising doesn’t command, “Buy, or else.” It merely commands, “Buy”. Some might insist that when ads use fear or intimidation, a line of morality has been crossed. But I must point out that certain fears (real or imagined) are always present among consumers. Things that should be feared but are not created by advertisers are fair game for advertisers to use. Advertisers don’t twist consumers’ arms or even threaten to do so. It is not the role of advertisers to coerce or to create danger. I’ll share a personal example of persuasion.

I might never have served in the U.S. Army had I not seen a TV ad that implored by jingle, “Be all that you can be!” For that reason, one might conclude the ad made me join the Army by playing on my fear of not "being all that I could be." After all, take the ad out of the picture – one might say – and you prevent the enlistment decision. Many who joined the service might not have done so without that catchy ad. However, it’s a gross misconception to believe the ad made people enlist in the service. Ads don’t control voluntary decisions. This might seem so obvious that some might issue the challenge, “Who ever said ads control consumers?”

Unfortunately, some do take action to curtail public advertisement, based on the false belief that certain ads will push people “over the edge.” This popular army ad connected with young people because of something already within our hearts and minds. We on some level had already wanted to serve. The advertising campaign only served as a catalyst to “speed the reaction.” Here’s a recent example of ad controversy.

A billboard ad appeared in Chicago, advertising divorce services. The ad read, “Life is short… Get a divorce.” It also displayed one photo of a scantily-clad young woman enticingly presenting her cleavage. Another photo displayed the washboard abs of a young man. Of course, the advertiser – a law firm – included contact information on the billboard. Needless to say, the ad raised controversy on the premise that it “encouraged divorce.” Understandably, the terse copy, coupled with sexy photography would seem to encourage hedonism in the form of impulsive divorce decisions. It was considered bad taste. Here again, the fear was that it would cause some who were sitting on the fence – considering divorce – to be “pushed” over the edge and to go ahead with it. However, it would seem that marriages susceptible to ads were probably doomed, anyway. If not one thing, then another could adversely affect such marriages.

The law firm spokesperson stated that the ad was intended for those headed to divorce court anyway, but were hesitant. This, before she succumbed to social pressure by pulling the ad, due to the complaints. The misguided fear of complainers was that the ad will make people divorce. This, of course, is not correct. Ads don’t make people go through the horrible experience of divorce – no matter how creative the ads. Perhaps a better understanding of our hearts and minds will reveal more about advertising success. Let’s turn to analysis of demand.

Back to Top

Understanding Demand

People are sometimes dismayed by what’s in hearts and minds. Sometimes, people do things they’re not proud of. We’ve all made purchasing mistakes. We’ve all done things with our money that we later regretted. This may be why the warning, caveat emptor, is taught to students of consumer education.

Let the buyer beware

What must the buyer beware of? Anything involving a purchase. Due diligence – the process of checking out the seller and the product to determine everything is on the “up-and-up” – is indispensable. Additionally, whether or not to buy from this or that provider; whether or not this or another time is the best time to buy; these and other questions with answers are part of the decision-making process. Other questions might be necessary: “Why do I want this product?” “What is in my heart and mind that this product might fulfill?” Due diligence or not, the purchase says it all. Advertisers count completed sales.

Completed sales demonstrate true demand. They tell advertisers a lot about the success of a product or an ad. Increased sales let advertisers know they’ve struck gold. Here’s a good analogy.

Some petroleum seeps from the ground without human effort. No drilling is required. However, this is not how most of the world’s oil reserves are discovered and acquired. Most petroleum is discovered through exploration. It is then pumped from great depths with tremendous effort. Without oil exploration and drilling, most marketable oil would go untapped. Does all oil prospecting result in marketable petroleum discovery? No. Sometimes there are dry wells that result in loss to the prospector. However, many times prospecting results in the discovery of oil reserves in large quantity. The prospector successfully tapped into a “gusher”. This is comparable to the advertiser who successfully taps our hearts and minds.

What they find may or may not be something we are proud to have there. But it’s there, nevertheless. They tapped into it and capitalized on it when they – through their advertising – got us to consume their product. We don’t blame the oil prospector and driller for the oil reserve in the ground. Why would anyone blame the advertiser for the contents of consumers’ hearts and minds? Advertising does not create – nor is it responsible for – the heart’s desires. The “raw materials” were already there. At best, advertising creates demand by increasing willingness to purchase. Increasing willingness helps overcome pricing.

What about price? Price affects demand. People buy watches in certain amounts, for example, based on the price per watch. If the price of watches increases, the demand will probably decrease. Price increases typically decrease willingness to buy; while price decreases typically increase willingness. As most people know, prices of many things tend to increase over time, largely due to inflation or limited supply. Sometimes, good advertising can help demand keep stride with rising prices. This leads to a look at how demand and advertisement can interact.

Back to Top

How Advertisement and Demand Interact

If advertisement works the way it’s supposed to, more consumers will buy what’s advertised. This will increase demand. Advertisers assume more people are able to buy their product than are currently doing so. All it takes is persuasion. Convince customers to re-appropriate or increase funds for purchase. There are several ways to persuade. As mentioned earlier, emotions such as fear, ad creativity, and suggestion of dream fulfillment work sometimes. Other factors, such as the desire for social status, self-improvement and even self-aggrandizement can be used by advertisers to increase demand. If the advertiser can successfully tap someone’s deepest thoughts and emotions, he can actually convince them to rearrange their priorities. Instead of going to the theater three times a week, that money can be diverted toward the down payment on a new car – leaving only enough for movies once a month. Instead of saving for a new home theater system to be purchased later, a new system can be purchased now with a deferred payment plan – even though the plan involves accrued interest. Or, why go without a digital camera indefinitely when you can moonlight for a few months and earn the extra money to buy that camera? There go your evenings and weekends for a while! But a good advertiser probably made the sacrifice seem worthwhile.

When consumers make the decision to purchase, they often figure how to pay after the decision is made. Successful advertising enabled them to “see the light” – they must buy. They work out the details afterward. Although they could have bought before seeing or hearing the ad, they didn’t. Successful advertising provided the willingness needed to increase demand. In order for advertising to work, advertisers worth their salt spend a great deal of time and expense understanding the “viscera” of their market.

What makes people “tick”? What are their thoughts, dreams and behaviors? Most importantly, what are their feelings? Because many purchase decisions are visceral – based on emotions or impulses – it’s important to know the innards like a road map. Failure to understand the hearts and minds in a potential market can lead to “drilling a dry well.”

With so much at stake for advertisers, why does subjective disapproval by critics come with calls for ban? In other words, why do some who cite bad taste or obscenity fail to understand effective advertising will not please everyone? Furthermore, why do they take steps to ban such advertising?

Back to Top

Why the Controversy?

It’s necessary to understand why some advertising is met with opposition by those without a stake in the game. Let me make clear at this point that inappropriate advertising to children is not what’s under scrutiny. Advertisers should not target their cigarette or liquor ads, for example, directly toward minors. Ads appropriately geared toward adults should not have mature adult content displayed where minors can see it. There should be no debate about shielding children from inappropriate content. But what about adults? Why is there controversy over what’s allowable for adult advertisement. One can speculate based on what’s been said by ad protesters. “Not everyone who sees a Lexus commercial will buy a Lexus. But some do,” goes one paraphrased quote of a protester. The implication is that although people have choices, some will make the “wrong” choice, precisely because of a tempting advertisement. Therefore, if the ad is removed, the few who would make a less-than-ideal choice will be “saved” from themselves. This sentiment presumes a world without profit motives or competition. It presumes a world of irresponsible adulthood.

A determined entrepreneur will find a way to meet a demand and profit from her efforts. This occurs even with outlawed markets, such as illicit drugs or ticket scalping. The pure entrepreneur cares little about the well-being of the target, insomuch as it does not affect their entrepreneurial activity. Hence, bootleggers care little about the long-term health affects of liquor on their customers. Although a bootlegger might be a little concerned that their customer could be unable to provide repeat business in the short-term, they figure the customer’s long-term health is the customer’s (or their family’s) own concern. “If my client isn’t concerned about the long-term health effects of alcohol use, why should I be?” a bootlegger might wonder.

A common moral retort might be something to the effect, “Because, you are your brother’s keeper, after all!”

The final reply of the bootlegger might be, “Well, while I’m ‘keeping’ my ‘brother’, some other bootlegger will be selling them the liquor I could be selling them. Someone else will make the profit. My ‘brother’ will not stop imbibing, simply because I stopped selling.” The threat of competition spurs entrepreneurs to continue their activities to meet demand. This would seem to disprove the notion that ads or product availability alone cause people to buy. Ad controversies are based on notions such as the idea that banning product availability or removing ads will destroy demand. We must examine the notions.

Historically, the banning of products or advertisement has only resulted in black marketing. Black markets for highly demanded goods create more trouble than they prevent. There are excellent historical examples for this phenomenon, not the least of which is the U.S. Prohibition from 1920 to 1933. Bootleg alcohol created a criminal gang underworld that thrived and gathered momentum until Prohibition was finally repealed. In the mean time, Americans continued to drink because the demand for alcoholic beverages never went away. Is there a better way to curtail demand? Perhaps.

Banning cigarette ads on television is not what ultimately curtailed cigarette smoking. Peer pressure and education about the harmful effects of tobacco enabled people to make wiser choices about whether or not to smoke. Therefore, one might conclude an effective way to influence demand is through sound education about a product. (Beware that education may increase or decrease demand.) This is how drug- and alcohol-abuse are curtailed among American youth. (What a coincidence! Education about destructive substances can help prevent future indulgences just as education about advertising can help prevent controversy over what is deemed as destructive or distasteful advertising.)

Back to Top

Advertiser Responsibility

By pointing out how advertisers take a bum rap, I’m not saying there’s no responsibility in advertising. There’s actually tremendous responsibility, both to producers and the public at large. Here are some requirements of advertising on the producer’s behalf. Advertisers should do all they can to persuade as many customers as possible. They should present the producer in the best light possible to enable product sales. They should fulfill their duty to serve that producer’s and only that producer’s interests. As for the public, there are some civil requirements that advertisers must comply with.

Depending on the laws governing advertisement in any given jurisdiction, the advertiser has a duty to fulfill them. Some examples of lawful compliance by advertisers are as follows. Avoidance of calls to disrupt governments, laws or legal contractual arrangements; avoidance of known false claims; and, as mentioned earlier, avoidance of targeting minors with products intended for adults only. As an advertiser is fulfilling these and other reasonable requirements, no demands for censorship on grounds of vague or ambiguous claims such as obscenity or distastefulness need be met.

Advertisers should stand up to “morality bullies” or “taste police” when confronted with spurious claims. Not that such groups or individuals should be totally dismissed. (They may be potential customers.) Their points of view should be considered. But when it’s obvious that their sentiments lack logical merit and would not withstand the scrutiny of pubic or judicial opinion, those sentiments' effects should be thwarted. The advertiser’s responsibility practically ends there.

Back to Top

Public Responsibility

As great as advertiser responsibility is, the public has an even greater one. In a free market society, such as ours in America, the public has the responsibility to not only monitor business and assure its adherence to laws and valid public sentiments. It also has the responsibility to allow businesses to operate as freely as is reasonable and possible. For example, based on religious faith, I may not agree that bars should open for business on Sundays. If however, bars can operate responsibly on Sundays, and there’s a sufficient demand for such service in my local area, my attempt to try to hinder the business serves no one. This assumes, of course, that the only issue is whether or not bars should open for business on Sundays in my area. If there are other important issues to consider, such as, a greater likelihood of bar patrons driving while intoxicated on Sundays, these concerns should be weighed separately. This scenario leads to controversy over advertising. A bar is advertisement in and of itself. It’s an advertisement to walk in and partake of the activities one might find in a bar – billiards, darts, dancing and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Although some might find these offensive on Sundays, there’s no inherent social effect – at least not one that has a direct impact on other members of society.

That’s really the key to weighing validity. When determining what battles to fight over advertising, one should ask how an ad would harm members of society that would not otherwise be harmed. Typically, ads don’t harm people, unless elements such as previously mentioned are present: false information, inducement to violate a contract, adult products targeted to minors. What this means is the common assumption that some adults are as naïve as minors should not hold water in logical discourse. That some adults may in fact be as immature as children is noteworthy to social scientists. But in law and in business, all adults are deemed true adults – physically and mentally – unless declared otherwise by certified authorities.

One such authority is our judicial system, which makes provisions for adults considered as legally incompetent when it comes to making contractual arrangements. Sometimes, this incompetence is temporary – as with someone on medication. But every adult is considered a worthy target of public advertisement. End of story. The public’s responsibility ends with legal public advertisement; no matter how distasteful; no matter how offensive; and, no matter how enticing. As said before, that’s where the individual’s responsibility begins. And rightfully so.

Back to Top

Closing Thoughts

Attempts at shifting blame or responsibility from rightful owners is not new. It’s gone on practically forever but it should be challenged. The causes of such phenomena as blame-shifting are rooted in human emotions – just like overconsumption. In this case, indulgence in temporary escape or diversion may be the motive. If one can escape – just for a time – the reality that their own actions got them where they are, they can experience a sense of relief, albeit a false one. Similarly, if people believe those of their ilk or those with whom they sympathize were wronged in some way by others, they may temporarily escape an agonizing truth. The truth is the actions of the pained – not advertisers – are probably what led to the mess in which they find themselves. Attempting escape or divergence from reality is an indulgence. However, as with most indulgences, one must return to reality, sooner or later. This editorial on the false criticisms leveled toward advertising is an encouragement to return sooner.

END

Back to Top