Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

TOK Presentation: Megan Holmberg and Anah Soble

Works Cited

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1539715/Colgate-gets-the-brush-off-for-misleading-ads.html

http://www.blisstree.com/2012/06/20/food/this-is-why-mcdonalds-burgers-look-better-in-ads-147/

http://www.alphaila.com/articles/failure/fast-food-false-advertising-vs-reality/

http://time.com/2013/ftc-faults-nissan-for-misleading-ads/

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/10/majority-tv-drug-ads-make-misleading-or-false-claims-study-finds

http://www.colgate.com.au/app/ColgateTotal/AU/commercials.cwsp

Claim:

The use of disclaimers in advertising does not change the fact that the advertisement is dishonest to the public.

To what extent does manipulation of perception in advertising become more ethical when a disclaimer is used?

  • Disclaimers are often not noticed, leaving the view with a misguided perception because they perceive the actions and not the hidden language.
  • Customers may not know to look for disclaimers.
  • Dishonesty
  • Exaggeration

Disclaimers say that what the viewer is perceiving is fantasy, fictionalized, or dramatized.

Stakeholders:

  • Company values lawfulness, and financial security.
  • Audience values personal happiness and honesty.

Counterclaim:

Advertisements that use disclaimers are ethical because they are being honest about the exaggerations in the ads.

  • Disclaimers add honesty to advertisements.
  • Viewers are made aware of any dramatization.
  • The advertising company needs to be able to display their product in the best possible light.
  • Disclaimers allow ads to emphasize a product's properties.

How are ethics affected when the manipulated advertisement concerns human health and well being?

Stakeholders:

-Sanofi Pasteur

(financial security)

-Babies (personal safety

-Family (caring, honesty)

Is it ethical for a company with certain values to be owned by the the same parent coorporation as a company with opposing values?

"Researcher's found up to 80% [of infants] get [pertussis] from family members"

"6/10 claims made in TV drug ads are misleading (2008-2010)"

-Adrienne Faerber and David Krelling, Journal of General Internal Medicine

Claim:

Manipulation in advertising is not ethical under any circumstances

Adult Pertussis vaccine advertisement

  • Language, Perception, and Emotion are manipulated to mislead the consumer about where babies are most likely to get whooping cough.
  • The company is putting their values over those of the consumer to make money.
  • Consumers should be able to get accurate information about the vaccine without having to look for fine print.

A Pertussis vaccine

Counterclaim:

If a product will positively affect the health of the general public, manipulation of perception in advertising is more ethical

  • End justifies the Means
  • Family values the health of their child, and the vaccine protects that. The company also makes money, so their values are also satisfied.
  • People are manipulated into *helping their child*.
  • The CDC agrees with the ad-- it is better to protect the child with a vaccine.

Manipulated WOKs

-Reason

Conclusion

Claim:

It is unethical because the parent company is supporting two opposing values

  • The parent company just wants to make money and reach a larger audience so they don't care about the individual values of the smaller companies.
  • The individual company values oppose each other.

Manipulated WOKS:

Emotion

Reason

Language

It is ethical because the values of one company do not affect the values of another company.

  • Advertising has an effect on public opinion of products.
  • Perception is manipulated through language and emotion as well as photoshop and misleading statistics.
  • Companies also have values that have an effect on consumers.

The CDC

Stakeholders:

Companies (financial security)

Audience (various values depending on the brand.

Counterclaim: It is Ethical because brand values are still being supported

  • It is just great that body positivity and other values are being supported at all
  • Values of the consumer are still promoted.
  • Anyone can easily find out which parent companies own which brands through a simple google search

Knowledge Question

How does manipulating the perception of a commercial audience affect the ethics of the advertising?

Perception is fooled in ads by McDonalds and Burger King where the burgers look bigger and more appetizing than what you get in real life.

Manipulated WOKs

Perception

To what extent is the manipulation of language, perception, and reason through misleading advertising ethical?

Stakeholders:

  • the advertising company (financial security)
  • viewers of the ad (personal happiness)
  • the company selling the product
  • buyers

WOKs and AOKs

WOKs:

Perception

Reason

Language

Emotion

AOK:

Ethics

Claim:

It is unethical to change the how a product looks for advertising purposes.

Counterclaim :

Altering the perception of the product is ethical

  • Preparation of burger in the ad makes it look tastier.
  • Photoshop shows the audience a burger that doesn't exist.
  • Rights of a company put before the rights of the people.
  • Consumer needs to know exactly what they are buying
  • Consumers are aware that the image does not always match reality
  • Consumers need to be able to see what the product contains
  • They company needs to be able to make money by showing their product in the most favorable light

Colgate's manipulation of the facts

  • Colgate claimed 4 out of 5 dentists recommended their product in multiple TV commercials.
  • By manipulating the statistics they made viewer perceive that the dentists recommended their product over other toothpaste brands.
  • In fact, dentists could choose more than one brand and chose others almost as much as Colgate.
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi