HOW ADVERTISING PRACTITIONERS VIEW ETHICS

Moral Muteness, Moral Myopia, and Moral Imagination

Minette E. Druni^vright and Patrick E. Murphy

ABSTR A( T: This study examines how advertising agency personnel perceive, process, and think about tchicai issues. Wtconiiucrc'ii in-deprh, elite interviews with advertising practitioners at ad levels in 29 agencies in eight cities. Many of ourinfotmants reported few ethical concerns in their own wotk or in advertising in general. They exhibited "moral myopia,"a distortion ot moral vision that prevents moral issues from coming into focus, and "moral muteness," meaning that theytartly talk about ethical issues. We fmd that the reasons for moral muteness and moral myopia are caregorizable. Therewere, however, "seeing/talking" advertising practitioners who demonstrated "moral imagination" when responding toethical problems. We compare the manner in which the ethically sensitive practitioners contemplate and respond toethical issues with those characterized as having moral muteness and moral myopia. We also find that the agency contextin which advertising practitioners work is important in terms of ethical sensitivity. We discuss implications for theory,research, practice., and education.

Advertising practitioners face ethical issues chat are commonto all professionals, but they also encounter issues related tofactors utiique to advertising. Despite some academic andpopular discussion of ethics in advertising, ranging from itsbroaci social consequences to consumers' perceptions of po-tentially objectionable ads, we know little about how adver-tising pracntioners react to ethical issues when they arise.This paper is an attempt to address this relatively neglectedatea. Our focus i.s to examine how advertising practitionersperceive, process, and think about ethical issties. Summariz-ing our findings, within our sample of the advertising com-munity, significant numbers of practitioners either do not seeethical dilemmas that arise or their vision is shortsighted.Reasons or justifications for this visual impairment can becategorized. When ethical issues are recognized, there is littlecommutiication about them. There ate exceptions, however-some practitioners do see and talk about ethical issues. Fi-nally, the type of organizational community has an impact onawareness oi ethical issues and ways of dealing with them.

BACKGROUND

Cunningham (1999> p. 500) defined advertising ethics as"what is right or good in the conduct of the advertising func-

Minette E. Drumwright (Ph.D., University of North Carolina atChapel Hill) !s an associate professor in the Department of Adver-rising, (~ollege of (Communication, University of Texas at Austin.

Patrick E. Murphy (Ph.D., University of Houston) is C. R. SmithCo-director oi the Institute For Ethical Business Worldwide and pro-fessor of marketing, Mendoza College of Business, Universicy ofNotre Dame,

tion. It is concetned with questions oi what ought to be done,not just with what legally must be done." Although ethics isconsidered a mainstream topic in the advertising literature(Hyman, Tansley, and Clark 1994), the amount of academicresearch on it has not been commensurate with its impor-tance. Historically, the topic of ethics in advettising has beenexamined largely through commentary and philosophical de-bate (Drumwiright L993) and from a "macro" perspective ofadvertising's effects on society rather than at the "micro" levelof the firm and the practitioners working ia it (Hunt andChonko 1987). Drumwright (1993) characterized this workas pertaining to one of two discourses: (1) a legal discourseamong lawyer^ and regulators that locases largely on the rightsof advertisers and on what they can and cannot do vis-a-visissues such as deception and fraud (e.g., Federal Trade Com-mission 1980; Preston 1994, 1996; Prosser I9S4; Stern andEovaldi 1984) and (2) a moral discourse primarily amongphilosophers, social critics, and ethicists that raises broad andfar-reaching questions related to advertising's societal effects(e.g.. Bishop 1949; Brenkett 1998; Galbraith 1938, 1967;

Tht authors rhank, firsi ot alE, their iniormiirits ior their participailon.We also rhank the Editor, Rassfl! I^oniiik, and [hree anonymousrevicwtrs. We thank Sandy Palmt-r, (Jiristy Miimmseii, and Deb Coch fortheir assistancf in transcribing interviews, fn addition, wt* arc indebtedto seminar comments offered by the faciilries at the University of Texas atAustin, Santa Clara Univfrsiry, and rhe University of Mocte Dame. Weespecially thank Paul Bloom, Guy Bommarito, George Urenkert, MaryGentile, William Ghormley, Glenn Griffin, Jai-seokjcon^, Mary AnnLeeper, James Leigh, Elizabeth Moore, Deborah Morrison, H. W. Perry,Jr., Craig Smith, and Patricia Werhanc for their helpful comments onearlier versions of the manuscript. 'I'his research was supported withresearch grants from the University oi Texas at Austin,

tmrnci! <,i Adii!'-ts;nii. vol ^'., no, 2 (S.mHiitr 2004), pp. 1-I'k.2004 Amt'rita!! AcLidtmy (if Advcrtiiinj;, All rights rcscrvfd.

iSSN (IO9i-i*67 / 2O(!4 $9 50 * 0,00.

Thejnurnal oj Advert h'lng

Lciscr 1979; Pollay 1 986; Pontifical Council for Social Com-munication 1997;Santiili 19S3; Waide 1987). These debatesand commentaries have a long history and cut across academicdisciplines. In recent studies of ethics in advettising, the em-phasis has been on developing an understanding of consum-ers' perceptions of potentially objectionable advertising (e.g.,ads with persuasive appeals, ads with idealized imagery, adsfor politicians, ads for dangerous products, and ads targetingchildren) through empirical studies (e.g., Gulas and McKeage2()(}0; Latour and Henthorne 1994; Tinkham and Waver-Larisay 199* ; Triese et al. 1994). Much of this work has beendescriptive as opposed to normative, as has been the case forresearch in marketing ethics more generally (Dunfee, Smith,and Ross 1999).

Relatively tew studies have examined the views of adver-tising practitioners. Of those that exist, most have used sce-narios to assess the perceptions of respondents regarding theethics of certain behaviors and practices (e.g., Davis 1994;Ferrell, Zey-Ferrell, and Krugman 1983; James, Pratt, andSmith I 994; Pratt and James 1994). Moon and Franke (2000)provide a thorough review of the literature and proceed touse scenarios to collect data regarding practices that Koreanadvertising practitioners viewed as objectionable and com-pared the responses to those of American advertising practi-tioners in a small survey reported in Advertising Age (19^8).They found that Koreans were more ethically sensitive intheir reactions to the scenarios, on average, than were Ameri-cans. Reactions to the ethical scenarios reflected a variety ofcultural influences, and Hofstede's (1980, 1983) typologyof cultural dimensions helped explain certain patterns ofcross-cultural differences. In another study, James, Pratt,and Smith (1994) used scenarios to identify differences inreactions of students versus those of practitioners. For ex-ample, students were more likely to apply deontology (i.e.,duty-based thinking) to ethical decision making than werepractitioners.

A small body of work has surveyed advertising practi-tioners to ascertain perceived ethical problems. For example,Rot;ioll and Christians (1980) and Hunt and Chonko (1987)mailed questionnaires to advertising agency employees andasked them to describe ethical dilemmas they had encoun-tered in response to open-ended questions. In Rotzoll andChristians' study (1980), "most respondents reported that theyt//( encounter ethical decision making in their work" (p. 426),and "{m}ost of the responses show a lively interest in doingthe right thing" (p. 429). Rotzoll and Christians ascertainedthat the major areas of ethical concern involved the contentand creation of advertising messages and the agency—clientrelationship. In Hunt and Chonko's study (1987), 8^% ofrespondents reported ethical problems in their daily work,and Ay/c perceived their most difficult problem occurringwith "a frequency significantly beyond the mere 'isolated in-

cident"' (or five to seven on a seven-point scale) (p. 22). Theyreported that more than half of their respondents saw prob-lems involving treating clients fairly or creating honest, non-misleading, socially desirable advertisements. In a study basedon Rotzoli and Christians' and Hunt and Chonko's work, Chenand Liu (1998) surveyed Taiwanese advertising practitionersand found that 67.5% reported that ethical problems werecommonplace at work. However, 74.1% said that these ethi-cal problems affected their work "not at all" or "a little." Moonand Franke (2000) replicated Hunt and Chonko's study amongadvertising practitioners in Korea and found that 55% re-ported aspects of advertising that posed moral problems intheir daily work, and 49% perceived their most difficult prob-lem occurring frequently (five to seven on a seven-point scale).Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) found that advertisingagency personnel, in comparison with other marketing profes-sionals, "perceived their companies to have the highest ethicalvalues" (p. 84). As detailed below, out findings were consider-ably less encouraging.

Mail surveys and scenario analyses are effective in identify-ing ethical issties and determining which practices are gener-ally accepted or rejected on ethical grounds. Yet they providelittle insight into how advertising practitioners think about,approach, and deal with ethical issues—that is, the meaningsthat ethical issues have for them, the assumptions they makeabout these issues, and the paradigms from which they oper-ate. Our goal is to examine directly how advertising practi-tioners perceive, process, and consider these issues.

METHOD

When the goal of research is to understand the meanings thatindividuals give to their actions rather than to predict theirbehavior, qualitative methods are often the most appropriatemethodology (Braybrooke 1965). Field-based approaches, suchas in-depth interviews, are particularly useful when the re-search objective is to understand tacit perceptions, beliefs,and values, especially when the researcher cannot be sure whatinterpretation, code, norm, affect, or rule is guiding the ac-tors (Dexter 1970; Fielding and Fielding 19^6; Marshall andRossman 1989; McCracken 198S; Miles and Huberman ] 994;Strauss 1990).

In-depth, elite interviews constituted our primary datasource. In the social science literature, the term "elite" inter-views is commonly used to refer to interviews with decisionmakers as opposed to consumers, an electorate, or a mass popu-lation (Dexter 1970). Flite interviews differ from highly struc-tured survey research interviews in that the latter are usefulfor predicting behavior and generalizing to populations aboutbehavior, while the former are designed to ascertain decisionmakers' understanding. For all their inherent benefits, be-havioral reports that are produced by survey research often

Summer 2004 9

disregard rhe meaning co rhe actors. Wlien one wanes to knowwhat the actors rhink is happening, elite interviews often pro-vide a direct and useful tool. This type of interviewing stressesthe informant s clefinicicm of the situation, encourages theinformant to structure the account of the situation, and al-lows the informant ro reveal his or her notions ot what isrelevant (Dexter 1970; King 1994; McCracken 1988;Schwarrzman 1993). Tn short, the objectives of the researchdrove the methodology selected.

Interview Protoccjl

The interview protocol (see Appendix) was developed in con-sultation wirh five marketing and advertising professors andfour advertising.^ practitioners. Ic was pretested in personalinterviews with seven advertising agency executives. In keep-ing with acceprsfd practice for elite interviewing, most ques-tions were broad and open-ended to enable informants to definerhe situation. The interview protocol was designed to promptinformants to engage in what Waliendorf and Brucks (1993,p, 341) called "guided introspection." The protocol explicitlyfocused on eihicai issues, and the purpose was made clear whensetting up the interview. Advertising agency personnel wereselecred as informants because they occupy a critical gatekeeperrole between advertisers, the media, and the public. In thisrole, they may perceive ethical pressures from interacting withdiverse stakeholders.

Data Collection and Analysis

A total of ^ I personal interviews were conducted in 29 adver-rising agencies in 8 cities: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia,San Francisco, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Dallas, andAustin. The informants came from varied departments (e.g.,creative, media, account sei-vices, account planning) and wereat all seniority levels. Their experience spanned from 2 yearsto more than 40 years. (See Table 1 for demographics ot rheinformants.) The agencies ranged in size from small privatelyheld companies wirh less than 12 people and about a mil-lion dollars m annual billings, to large, publicly held, world-wide companies with thousands of employees and billionsof dollars m annual billings. (See Table 2 for demographicsot the agencies.)

We cyclec! back and forth berween data collection and analy-sis, as is recommended in qualitative research, to provide op-portunity for the interview protocol and the sample ro evolvein a manner that serves rhe research questions (Strauss 1990).We began our study in major agencies in major markets, andwe found, generally speaking, rhar mosr of our informantssaw few ethical concerns in their own work or in advertising.We then broadened our sample to include a more diverse setof agencies: smaller agencies in major markers and agencies

TABLE IDemographics of Informants

job assignmentSenior management /administration

(e.g., chairman, president, executivevice president, owner, managing partner)

CreativeAccount servicesMediaAccount planningStrategic planningInteractiveRelationship marketingTotal

Years of experience in advertisingMore than 25 years21 to 25 years16 to 20 years1 i to 15 years6 to 10 years2 to S yearsTotal

GenderMaleFemaleTotal

CityAustinChicagoDallasMinneapolisNew YorkPhiladelphiaSan FranciscoWashington, DCTotal

Ownership status of agencyIndependentHolding companyTotal

Number of informants

19l i96221!

5/

9698

IS4

5/

38135/

8!662

14221

51

20315/

in small and mid-sized markets. When we encountered indi-viduals who seemed ro be more ethically attuned, their com-ments about tbe contexts in which rhey were workingprompted us to interview otliers in rhose agencies to betterundersrand the cultures, dimares, and modus operandi oi theagencies. Such "snowballing" techniques (Moriarity 1983)were appropriate since we were nor using a random samplewirh a goal to predict behavior within a population. Ano-nymity was provided for both intormants antl agencies. Aoo-nymiry has obvious disadvantages, but it helps mirigate biasesand demand effects related ro social desirability and postur-ing. Absent assurances ot anonymity, we iikely would not have

10 Thejoumal of Advertising

TABLE 2Agency Demographics

Number of agencies

Annual billings of agency officewhere interviews were conductedLess than $20 million$21 million to $100 million$101 million to $500 million$501 million to $ I billionMore than $1 billionTotal

Number of employees in agency officewhere interviews were conductedLess than 2525 to 100101 to 500More than 500Total

Agency ownership statusIndependentHolding companyTotal

City of agency office whereinterviews conductedAustinChicagoDallasMinneapolisNew YorkPhiladelphiaSan FranciscoWashington, DCTotal

44

1335

29

67

106

29

101929

42822I

29

been granted many of the interviews. Widely used in the so-cial sciences, anonymity has been employed often in qualita-tive field research in advertising and marketing (e.g., Arnouldand Price 1993; Dougherty 1990, 1992; Drumwright 1994,1996; Workman 1993).

The interviews were audiotaped and then transcribed. Datawere systematically and intensively analyzed through stan-dard procedures for qualitative analysis {Spiggle 1994; Strauss1990). Data analysis involved several steps. First, the tran-scripts were reviewed individually and summarized. Second,in a phase that Strauss called "open coding," the interviewtranscripts were scrutinized line by line and paragraph by para-graph to suggest initial categories or themes. In the thirdstep, which Strauss called "axial" coding, the transcripts werescrutinized again and again to consider each of the themesacross the interviews and to assess the fit of each theme to thedata. In a final stage, which Strauss called "selective" coding,the data were examined once again to refine the themes andfindings for each.

Limitations

The limitations of this research method are well known, butattempts were made to mitigate their effects. Because somejudgment is inevitably required by the analyst (Dexter 1970),a major concern is that of subjectivity in interpreting the data.To guard against subjectivity and to establish reliability, ini-tial data analysis was undertaken by both authors workingindependently. Findings were identified and agreed upon.Another way to mitigate subjectivity is to be as transparentas possible; that is, we demonstrate as clearly as we can howwe came to certain conclusions (Golden-Biddle and Locke1993). Extensive use of quotations can add objectivity as wellas depth of understanding. We have quoted liberally, and un-less otherwise noted, quotations are representative of what wasexpressed by several informants. As acknowledged above, ano-nymity was granted to all informants to help mitigate biasesand demand effects related to social desirability and posturing.Finally, the advertising practitioners chosen may not be repre-sentative of the total population, but they do vary on manydimensions, including job function, experience level, client base,agency size, and geographic location (see Tables 1 and 2). Inkeeping with one of the goals of qualitative research, portray-ing the range and depth of the phenomena is important to de-veloping theory (Bonoma 1985; Eisenhardt 1989; Kover 199^).

FINDINGS

Generally speaking, we found two kinds of advertising prac-titioners with regard to ethical sensitivity, and as discussedbelow, generally speaking, this division was a result of wherethey worked. We first report our findings regarding the groupthat was less ethically sensitive and then contrast them withfindings from the more ethically sensitive group.

We start from a normative position. We assume that ethi-cal issues can and do arise in advertising, and that when and ifthey do arise, it is best if they are acknowledged and dealtwith in what would be considered an ethicaf way. That said,we acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree overwhether a particular situation poses an ethical dilemma, aswell as over what the ethical response should be.

Fthical issues did not appear to be on the radar screens ofour first group of informants. As one informant noted:

Usually, ethics is something that doesn'c seem co applymucii. . . . You don'r really think about it coo much.

Even when ethical issues were noticed, they often were notdiscussed. As one informant put it in what was an oft-reportedphenomenon:

It's unfortunate, buries [ethics} not a high priority. . . . This lineof questioning is so interesting because it has never come up.

Summer 2004

•'Moral muteness," a term borrowed from Bird and Waters(1989), was perviisive among our first group of mformancs.Ethical issues did noc enter into discourse at either an indi-vidual or orgiinizarionai level. Bird (1996) states that peopleare morally mure "when they do not recognizably communi-cate tht'ir moral concerns in settings where such communi-cating would be fitting" (p. 27). When they would be expectedto express themselves with respect to ethical concerns, "theyeither voice no moral sentiments or communicate in waysthat obscure their moral beliefs and commitments" (Bird 2002,p. 16).

In addition lo moral muteness, we also found what we call"moral myopia."' In fact., the myopia helped explain the mute-ness. We define moral myopia as a distortion of moral vision,ranging from shortsighiredness to near blindness, which af-fects an individual's perception of an ethiciil dilemma. Mora!myopia hinders moral issues from coming clearly into tocus,particularly those that are not proximate, and it can be sosevere that it may render a person effectively morally blind. Itmoral issues arc not seen at all or are somehow distorted, it ishighly unlikely that sound ethical decision making will oc-cur. The most proximate issues and those most likely to be infocus were at the workac'lay level of the individual, which usu-ally were intimately tied to the individual's personal self-interest (e.g., "Is iinyone stealing my ideas?"). Less proximateand more likely to be affected by myopia were issues regard-ing advertising messages and organizational practices of agen-cies and clients. Lease proximate and most likely to be affectedby myopia were is,sues referred to as "advertising's unintendedsocial conseqtiences." Pollay (19H6, p. 19) defmed the unin-tended social consequences oi advertising as "the social by-products of the exhortations to 'buy products,'" which tendto occur at the aggregate level of society. While we foundevidences of moral myopia regarding ethical issues at all threelevels—that of tiie individual, the organization, and society-moral shortsightedness was most acute at the societal level.We see distinct similarities between moral myopia and Levitt's(1960) marketing myopia in that both involve an inability to"see" certain important is,sues that are a part of the largercontext in which <.ine is working.

Not only ditl we find moral muteness and moral myopia;we also sought co understand the underlying assumptions,perceptions, and paradigms that support them. To do so, weexamined informants' responses in more tlepth to understandthe ways they frame and tliink about ethical issues. The re-sponses ranged from a rejection of the possibility of ethicalconcerns in advertising at all to a variety of rationalizationsthat largely dismissed potential ethical concerns or responsi-bility. Sometimes multiple rationalizations were used simul-taneously by a single individual—woven into a web ofsupp(jrting rationalizations. Some informants evidenced bothmyopia and muteness. Indeed, these problems frequently over-

lapped and were reinforcing. Nevertheless, in principle, moralmuteness and moral myopia are different. It is helpful to dis-tinguish a perspective that does not really see a problem froma perspective in which the problem is seen but avoided andnot discussed.

Moral Myopia

Many of our informants had difficulty seeing ethical issues orseeing them clearly. Our assessment is that people may beaffected by moral myopia in varying degrees of severity, rang-ing from blindness to shortsightedness. While some peoplefail to see the moral dimension of problems at all, others havedistorted moral vision that results largely from rationaliza-tion or from an unvi'illingness to focus on the problem sothat it is seen clearly. The rationalizations contribute to andreinforce the perceptual problem. Interestingly, these re-sponses could be categorized. We report the categories thatwe heard time and again. Although usually only one infor-mant is quoted, the quotation is representative of what oth-ers expressed,

Consumen Are Smarl

Consumers arc really smiirt, really astute. , , , I ieel like I amso unpowerfui that if I were unethical in my tcrcativel pre-sentation lof the advertising messagel and were I to oversell,] would he found out so incredibly quiikly.

We heard about a strong and unwavering faith in consum-ers. This faith asserted that consumers are smart and there-fore cannot and will not be fooled or led astray by any unethicaladvertising message. Since constimers will not be misled, theadvertising message does nor need to be ethically evaluated.This rationalization is understandable, and is certainly notunique to advertising, but in the advertising context, it seemsless persuasive. It seems somewhat surprising that peoplewhose professional raison d'etre is to create advertising thatworks would simultaneously assert the powerlcssness of theirendeavors. Some informants seemed to want co have it bothways, claiming that advertising is important, worthy, and ef-fective in selling products, but at the same time assertingthat it is also relatively powerless to mislead or have any harm-ful effects.

Passing the Buck

Personally I haven t chought much abtjut rhis issue [negativeeffects of advertisingl, but now I think the responsibility goesback to families and the law

Informants rationalized responsibility for the negative effectsof advertising by "passing the buck." The number of poten-

I 2 The Journal

tiiil parties to whom the buck was passed was large and in-cluded families, especially parents, peers, tht media, the mov-ies, MTV, videos, clients, the regulators, and others. Relatedly,often the buck was passed to society at large. Informants as-serted thar they are not creating images hue merely reflectingthe images rhat already exist in society, which is what societywants. Thus, any re^iponsibility and/or blame should be placedon society, not on advertising. This was another iteration of theagc-oid debate of whether advertising creates or reflects soci-ety (Lantos 1987; Pollay 1986). As one agency president said:

We're more slieep than we are shepherds. We follow the trends.We don'r create chem. We're too seared to create them; ourclients are too scared to ( reate them.

Another practitioner put it this way:

Are you going to use an overweight, short gal with an acneproblem to sell rhat product, or arc you going to use a modelwith big breasts and a lot of skin? Unfortunately, that is moreof a reflection ol society ant! what society wants to see thanadvertisers setting out and creating this false image. . . . I think[his is also what society wants lo believe about itself

One need not resoive whether advertising creates or reflectssociety to admit that advertising bears some responsibility.Taking an example from earlier history, advertising did notcreate racism, but many would say the industry contributedto it when pandering to racial stereotypes. The "sheep notshepherd" assumption enabled many advertising practitionersto avoid any responsibility for advertising's unintended con-sequences and for making moral judgments about them.

The buck was also passed to products and clients. The prob-lem was with the products, not with the advertising itselfClients, not agencies, bore responsibility for the products.Advertising professionals saw themselves as scapegoats. Theyand their profession were tinjuist recipients of blame that shouldhe directed at orher parties. Because advertising is visible andsalient, it is a vulnerable, convenient, and easy target. In aslight variation of this theme with a McLuhanesque twist,one practitioner explained:

We've become the scapegoat for things we don't even create.We're so easy to find on the radar screen. . . . We actually cre-ate something. We take the brunt of "Television is bad foryou," which has become "Advertising is bad for you."

What Is Legal Is Mora/

Related ro buck passing, our informants, like many orhers,olten equated the legal with the moral. Writers in ethics gen-erally view the law as the "floor"—the moral minimum—but for some of our informants, if it is legal, it is ethical(Drtimwright 1993; Preston 1994). A number of our infor-

mants assumed that because regulations exist and because at-torneys are involved, they themselves are off the hook. As anagency president explained:

1 think this is probably one of the most ethical businessesthere is. It is so regulated. Everything that we do has to gothtough our lawyers to make sure that it s conforming to law,and then our client's lawyers, and then we have to send itthrough to the networks and their lawyers. . . . It's really hardto be unethical in this business even if you wanted to.

Another senior ad agency executive framed his commentsabout a specific product, but his point was that the law, notethics, should drive advertising.

I don't feel it's ethically wrong to advertise them [cigarettes],I don't smoke. . . . My feeling is that if they want to make itillegal, tine. But as long as it's a legal product, it should belegally sold.

The two quotes above address slightly different issues. Thefirst is a position generally rejected as a sound basis for anethical conclusion, that is, the contention thar if it is legal, itis moral. The latter perspective is more complicated and hasmany adherents in advertising and beyond. Whatever one'sconclusion on this matter, the potential danger is that it canbuffer advertising practitioners (or any other professionals forchat matter) from serious consideration of ethical issues. Theworrisome thing about the perspectives exemplified by bothof the quotes above is that ethical decision making is del-egated ro attorneys or policymakers, and it assumes that theobservance of the law or regulation is sufficient. Preston (1994,p. 128) asserted that "ethics begins only where the law ends."His logic is that "the law tells you what you must do," whereas"ethics prompts you to do things even though you don't haveto." As such, Preston observed that for advertisers who be-lieved that the law was sufficient, "ethics never really starts."The "legal is moral" approach is particularly problematic givenPreston's arguments that for some advertising claims, the lawends too soon. The law is often a "blunt tool"—a cumber-some and often inefficient method with which to deal withethical issues.

The first Ammdment Misunderstanding

We heard freqtient references to the First Amendment as ajustification for not "censoring" advertising messages. Forexample, when an agency president was asked if he had con-sidered developing a code of ethics for his agency and theadvertising produced for their clients, he responded, "Howcould I? It would violate the First Amendment." He thenpledged his allegiance to che First Amendment, suggestedthat everyone was attacking it, and expounded on the need toprotect the First Amendment.

Summer 2()()4

A naive understanding, or perhaps a misunderstanding, ofrht First Amendment was prevalent among some of our infor-mants. The Siiprrme C>>urt has never afforded absolute protec-tion to speech, despite Justice Hugo Black's literal interpretationthat the free spee(-h clause of the First Amendment, "Congressshall make no law," meant that Congress should absolutelymake no law that would infringe speech. Moreover, it hasdetermined that "commercial speech" does not receive all theprotection of othet forms of speech. That said, the commer-cial speech discinction is being increasingly diminished bythe Court (see Central Hue/son v. Public Service Commission and44 LiqmrmarL Im. v. Rhode bland).

But these doctrinal issues are not the soutce of the naiveteto which we reier. The Fitst Amendment prohibits govern-ment ftom abridging freedom of speech; it does not stand forthe proposition that al! speech is equally worthy and shouldbe uttered or encouraged, or that speakeru should not be con-demned for the speech that they make. To the extent thatinformants quoted speech maxims, they only talked about apart of the story. The part they understood was that there aredesirable aspects to a "marketplace of ideas" that is free fromgovernmental control. The justification for a "marketplace ofideas" assumes that ideas, that ate not currently popular shouldnot be prohibited by the government because they may con-tain kernels of iruth. The part informants did not understandor did not remember is that the marketplace metaphor as-sumes that "had" ideas are supposed to be exposed for the liesthey perpeitiare and the damage that they do to the truth.Once exposed, they are to be roundly condemned. Indeed, thejustification for the government allowing "bad" (i.e., false,hurtful, misleading) speech to enter the marketplace ss so thatit can be discredited. That the government does not pros-ecute those who make racial slurs does not mean that racialepithets should be encouraged. In short, some of our infor-mants misinterpreted free speech law as meaning that theywere exonerated from personal and professional responsibility,or perhaps they misunderstood the First Amendment moregenerally. Advertising ptofessionals, like all speakers, have aresponsibility to make judgments about speech. This becomeseven more the case as the Supreme Coutt lessens the distinc-tion between commercial and noncommercial speech.

Going Nauve

Another reported phenomenon that distorts moral vision in-volves becoming so close to a client's business and corporateculture that one fails tt> recognize or ask moral questions. Werefer to this as "going native." This phenomenon is often as-sociated with anthropologists, foreign service officers, or oth-ers who become overly immersed in foreign cultures to thepoint that they lose their objectivity. In advertising, goingnative invcjives overidentifying with the client's perspective

to the point that one loses the ability to be critical of clientsand objective in assessing their behavior and advertising. Oneinformant elaborated on het expetience:

When you've got a group of [client} R & D people telling youthis [good things about the producr}, and the demos . . , areshowing you that maybe it's not as [good] as they make it outto be, you believe [the good things]. If you'tp living it everyday, you believe it. . . . So, when you tell the consumer aboutit, you find that you're stretching the truch. This [product] isyour life. It becomes your lite for a year. So it doesn't tecl likeyou're doing anything wrong.

When advertising practitioners go native, it can render themless able to make critical moral judgments.

7"he Ostrich Syndnmie

Like the ostrich with its head in the sand, when out of sight,looming ethical issues were out of mind. Or as one informantsuccinctly put it: "Ignorance is bliss." A seasoned veteran withmore than 15 years in the business admitted:

I think that if I did a little bit more digging into a company'sconnections . , . then yes, I'd probably have a problem work-ing on it.

Better not to dig. Again, this is not unique to advertising,but the hectic pace of the advertising business and the ttan-sient nature of projects made it easy to adopt this approach. Aless experienced practitioner alluded to this:

I don't have a lot of time co sit and think about if the peoplewho make this thing are really evil. You just don't have timeto do that. That's just the reality of it.

Moral Muteness

We now turn to motal muteness. Though moral myopia andmoral muteness are often intertwined and teinforce one an-other, it is helpful conceptually to distinguish them. Moralmuteness tefers to individuals who tecognize ethical issuesbut remain silent and avoid confronting them either person-ally or organizationally. Moral muteness occurs wheneverpeople fail to comtnunicate moral concerns that they genu-inely feel, regardless of how the failure happens. Bird (2002,p. 34) identifies tlitee forms of moral muteness: ([) negativeexpressions (e.g., not blowing the whistle on obsetved abuses,not questioning aspects of decisions thought to be morallydebatable); (2) positive expressions (e.g., not speaking up forideals), and (3) not holding others sufficiently accountable(e.g., not providing adequate feedback in supervisory rela-tionships). Upon examination of our informants' responses,we identified four categories of rationalizations that help toexplain muteness.

!4 'I'heJournal of Advertimig

Compartmentalizatton

One approach that contributed to moral muteness was com-partmentalization. The classic form separates one's work lifefrom one's personal life and convictions. The result is havmgone set of standards for work and another for nonwork mat-ters. When asked about ethical issues at both the organiza-tional and societal level, one young practitioner, a star creativetalent, described the classic case of compartmentali/:ation:

I know that things go on. When I'm at home, all of thesethings sicken me, really. But when I'm here, it's different be-cause I'm so into creatively what I'm doing, it's like a differ-ent picture.

Compartmentalization, which can occur for many reasons,is a complex phenomenon that can be driven by positive forces.The comment above illustrates how enjoyment of the workicself, particularly the creative aspect, encourages compart-mentalization. Creativity was viewed by our informants as achief virtue. Perhaps, and this is only speculation, when oneis pursuing something that is good—being creative, enter-taining the public, increasing wealth, furthering democracy,and so forth—it can serve to further compartmentalization.

Compartmentalization often involved separating one's per-sonai standards from a client's business standards. A seasonedveteran demonstrated this approach:

The [clientl company is running a business. They can choosewhat they want to convey. . . . Therefore, if they want to putin these models who look like they're taking heroin or heroincliic or ultrathin models, then thar is tiieir right because it istheir business, and they're running it the way that they wantto. On a personai level, I find it very offensive.

The informant has a young daughter and expressed concernregarding the potential influence of advertising on children andtheir conceptions of beauty. Nonetheless, she compartmental-ized those concerns, and as the above quote reveals, she didnot make a moral judgment or exert infiuence on the client.

Two issues that some respondents viewed as raising ethicalproblems were cigarette advertising and advertising to youngchildren, but these, too, were vulnerable to forms of compart-mentali:^ation. The informant quoted above illustrates com-partmentalization with respect to advertising's effect onchildren. With respect to cigarettes, we observed a differentvariation of compartmentalization. Many agencies appearedto allow their employees substantial leeway in declining towork on controversial products, and a number of individualssaid, "I'll refuse to wotk on cigarette advertising." This re-frain was sounded often, especially by the more junior adver-tising practitioners, and it represents a sea change amongadvertising practitioners, who formerly fiocked to che side ofthe cigarette companies (Rangan 1 989). Often, however, in-formants appeared to ignore the connection between their

personal position and their employers' institutional position.One senior executive did acknowledge the conflict:

I personally never, would never, will never work on a ciga-rette ad. . . - I'm a hypocrite becau,se , , . if the agency makesmoney, I g^t ;i bonus; part of that is cigarette money. \ justwon't work on it. I just feel better, but you want co knowwhat it is? It's [expletive]. We shouldn't do cigarettes.

There were many ways to compartmentalize, but they all re-sulted in the same effect. They permitted informants to avoidtaking responsibility for negative effects of advertising.

The Client Is Always Right

Most clients come in saying they want to have really terrificadvertising, . . . I found very quickly that what they want isfor us to collude with them on issues. And I never can predictwhat it wiil be. We can agree to pretend to each other thatthey have reached excellence in sotne area, , , , I 'mnotabatd-ass in that I have people who want to keep their jobs, , , , Icollude with them. . . . I always wish that 1 could be verystraightforward with my clients, but they don't want it. Theyreaily don't want it. It's just annoying to them.

The client-is-always-right syndrome means that informantsdid not want to tell clients "no" regarding ethics or anythingelse. This often led informants into the role of a "please-o-holic" or "yes-person" tather than that of a trusted businesscollaborator with an eye toward constructive advice that maybe critical at times. It reinforced the perception that advertis-ing practitioners do not have the right to pass judgment onclients. As one young practitioner explained:

Obviously, the last thing that you want to do is to tell yourclient that they're wrong. You're shooting yourself in the footif you do that,

A senior executive had this to say:

Obviously, agencies don't like saying "No" to a client. Theydon't like tetlin^ a client that he or she cannot do something,whether it's time constraints or budget constraints or it justdoesn't make sense.

'I'here were repeated claims that clients did not want to beconfronted with critical questioning from their advertisingagencies. In response, some informants came to believe thatthey should not evaluate or pass judgment on their client'sethical values:

So the last thing that you want to do i,s make them [the di-cntl feel uncomfortable about what they're doing and whattheir beliefs are.

Along with please-o-holic tendencies, avoidance of criti-cism means that an agency does not collaborate with the cli-

Simmer 2004 1 5

ent as a full-fledged partner. It keeps an agency in a su[wrdi-nate position, at times forcing it to censor what could be itsmost valuable contribution—its criticism, related to ethicsor otherwise. It also reinforces the notion that advertising prac-titioners should not exercise the prerogative of making moraljudgments about clients or exerting influence on them. Thesefindings reinforce a description of advertisers, agencies, andthe media as an "unholy trinity," in which all three partiesabdicate ethical responsibility and behavior sinks to a lowlevel (Murphy i99Bb). Fiduciary responsibility then becomesequated with doiiJg the client's bidding. To some degree, thistendency exists ui other client-related businesses; however, itappears that advertising practitioners may have a special re-luctance to assert their opinions. For example, lawyers mustrepresent their clients' interests, but pan: of the job of a law-yer is to instruct clients in what is in their best interest.

Ethics Is Bad for Business

Cultural disincentives discouraged talking about ethical con-siderations. One particularly strong disincentive was that eth-ics was viewed as a conservative constraint, a sentence toblandness in advertising messages. What could be worse inan industry that strives for scintillating messages that "pushthe edge of the envelope" and are "over the top" or "edgy"? Asthe chief creative officer of one agency e:^plained:

Unfortunately, the solution [to ethical dilemmas] is o!tcn todo even less interesting advertising that's even more accept-able to the masses by offending no one.

Another ,significanc disincentive involved inferences thatwere perceived to be made regarding people who would raisesuch concerns, i'or example, there was a fear that clients orco-workers would equate one who raises ethical concerns witha lack of business acumen. The chief creative officer quotedabove elaborated on the reasons that advertising practitionersdo not raise ethical issues with clients:

The reason the agency doesn't want to come in and say, "Hey,this isn't ethical," Is becuuse they would be laughed out of theoffice- I think rhat they're afraid that tfie client would say,"Well, if you want to run a church, run a church, but if youwant to make some money, you're going to have to do it ourway." , , , i thiiik there is a fear that if they were to talk aboutit [ethical concerns], then all of a sudden, i:hey are taken lessseriously as a business person. And they are looked upon sus-piciously as someone wlio has let their religious philosophiesget in the way of their business acumen.

Pandora's Box Syndrome

Some expressed the view that raising any ethical issues mustbe avoided for fear of opening a Pandora's box. As a result.

potentially harmful effects of advertising were simply notconfronted or discussed since considering them could be toodangerous. It could lead one to becoming less effective at workor worse. The effects of opening a Pandora's box could ulti-mately prompt one to leave the industry. As one senior execu-tive explained:

When you statt looking for ethical issues, they areeverywhere. . - . You open up a can of worms that just goes onand on and on. , , , You could get so bogged down in wonder-ing if what you are doing is tight that you would end up notdoing anything, . . , if you look and probe and focus the micro-scope, you finally get down to, "It's the darn system." . . . Youpretty much get to the point, "Are we going to be in atlvertis-ing or not?"

The Pandora's box syndrome seemed to block reflectionand critical thinking. It caused some advertising practitionersto shy away from critically examining issues affecting the largerprofession and its impact,

"Seeing, Talking" Advertising Practitioners

i think that one of the things that would be helptu! in termsof the advertising industry is to have more communicationabout marketing ethics. . , , I thmk it would make for smarterconsumers and a smarter agency and smarter clients.

Notable exceptions emerged to our findings of myopia andmuteness among advertising practitioners. There were "see-ing, talking" advertising practitioners who typically recog-nized moral issues and talked about them inside the agencywith their co-workers and outside the agency with their cli-ents and potential clients. We now examine the themes thatdifferentiated these individuals from others in our sample.We noted no systematic differences between the individualsin the first and second groups in terms of age, seniority level,gender, job assignment, or background. We did note a differ-ence in the contexts in which these individuals worked. Al-most without exception, the agencies in which the "seeing,talking" practitioners worked appeared to have organizationalcultures and climates that encouraged moral seeing and talk-ing. These agencies appeared to have some authentic normsregarding ethical behavior that were widely held and clearlyarticulated by members of the community. In addition, theagencies tended to be small, privately held agencies in onelocation or nearly autonomous units of large conglomeratestypically in only one location. As mentioned earlier, we in-tentionally conducted additional interviews in agencies inwhich we found ethically sensitive informants to gain a bet-ter understanding of both this type of informant and the con-texts in which they were working. The ways in which the"seeing, talking" advertising practitioners differed from theothers in our sample can be likened to a decision-making pro-

1 6 'I'hejiinrjial oj Advertising

cess: recognition of rhe issue, communication about it, atidthe decision itself.

Ktaignition

The "seeing, talking" advertising practitioners appeared torecognize moral issues readily, evidencing mota! discernmentand understanding. Fot example, one informant reported thathe and a colleague had recognized an unethical practice whenreviewing a potential client's past advertising and had toldthe potential client in no uncertain terms that they were un-willing to accept the company as a client if it wanted to con-tinue ethically problematic work of that nature. Anotheragency executive explained:

Whenever we get a sense that {a promise that can't be ful-fiiled] is in the back of acUenc's mincl, we point it our, and itusually yoes away.

Upon recognizing unethical behavior, one individual re-potted that he and his colleagues ridiculed it, refusing totake it seriously.

il, when we're getting creative, something that's unethicalcomes up, we laugh more than anything else. [We say,} "Wecan't do that; that's ridiculous." . . .

To me, it's almost an embarrassment to take something to aclient and have them say, "We can't do that. That's unethical."The agency should have felt that way before the client did.

This is in contrast to other advertising practitioners who fearedthat if they brought up an ethical issue, their co-workers andclients would think that they did not have business savvy.Rather than talking of "smart consumers" who cannot be de-ceived, these informants talked of "smart clients," who knowthat being unethical is not good for business. Again, this is incontrast to other informants who refrained from confrontingtheir clients, thereby supposedly "shooting themselves in thetoot." These "seeing, talking" advertising practitioners didnot conceive of their roles as merely doing their clients' bid-ding. Instead, their roles encompassed making judgments andasserting opinions, as would be expected of a trusted partner.

There was one notable exception to the moral seeing andspeaking of these informants, which frequently tended to be ablind spot. Like our other informants with moral mtiteness andmoral myopia, they too often failed to see or be concerned aboutadvertising's unintended social consequences. As one said:

I don't worry about those things. I don't believe that those arethe consequences [of advertising].

Another explained:

I do not subscribe to that theory [that advertising has unin-tended consequences]. I do not believe it. 1 think that advet-

tising is a reflection of society. . . . Maybe nobody in this busi-ness believes this. Otherwise, we'd be lawyers.

This is in keeping with Rotzoll and Christians' (1980) flnd-mg that the advertising practitioners in their sample, whomthey portrayed as ethically sensitive, "generally think in termsof the closest at hand, apparently fmding something like 'con-sequences to society' as too amorplious and involving too manyresults, which are simply incalculable. Social and institutionalqtiestions, therefore, receive only meager attention" (p. 429).

Some of our informants did, however, acknowledge adverti-sing's unintended conseqtiences:

I'll have to be honest. There is no question that there seems tobe a growing degree of expressed interest on the part of peopleas to advertising's unintended consequences. I guess we al-ways need to be mindful that the communications that weLteate can have a ripple effect—unintended and unmeant kindsof consequences. An example is video games and the contri-bution thai those kinds of messages have to promote thenation's undercuttent of aggressive or violent behavior. Yeah,1 do think that we need to be mindful of that.

Comnuinication

The "seeing, talking" advertising practitioners professed astrong belief in the importance of overt, direct communica-tion, and it was not unusual for these communications to havean ethical dimension. As one senior agency executive said,"People need to talk. . . . Communication is good. We talk15 to 20 times a day." These individuals tried to be clear incommunicating their ethical values as they solicited new busi-ness, and they reported instances in which they had been di-rect and forthright in confronting their clients and prospectiveclients about their values. They even used the values of po-tential clients as a screening criterion in accepting new busi-ness. As one individual expressed, "We do not want to workwith people who are not fair as an organization." Anotherinformant put it even more frankly:

And we try to be very clear with out clients, from the firsttime that we meet them, about what we stand for. That it'sabout the work, and they need to be able to not just tolerate,but welcome and encourage, bone honesty. And we're goingto give them out opinion, and they're not always going rolike that.

These informants often spoke of agency leaders who com-municated the importance of ethics both through the examplesthat they set and clear statements of their values. More oftenthan not, they reported that their agencies had an official state-ment that communicated a comprehensive, overarching vi-sion of the kind of culture they wanted the agency to nurture.These visions were based on well thought out principles, andthey often had been created by a group of individuals who

Simumr 2004 1 7

had gone through "'a lot of soul searching about what kind ofcommuoity we were going ro be." The visions typically wereprominencly iearurc-d in permanent displays within the agen-cies and communicated externally as well. The point is notthat these agencies had statements or codes, but that the state-ments or codes appeared to articulate authentic norms of theagency con:imuiHtjes and efforts were made to put them intoaction.

No

Some advertising practitioners had the moral courage to sayno to theit co-workers and to their clients. For example, oneagency CFX3 walked away ftom the agency's largest accountwhen the dierus CXX) insisted that he do something that hedeemed unfair and unethical. He was widely c]uoted amongworkers in his agenc y as asserting, 'Tt's OK to get fired. It'sOK to resign." fie not only said no, he obviously talked aboutit in his agency. These views were in stark contrast to preva-lent sentiments described earlier chat the client must bepleased at ail coses. A related sentiment that these informantsidentified as bemg a part of the agency culture was, "It's OKto make mistakes." 'I'his perception enabled individuals to bestraightforward about then' mistakes, freeing them from theneed to lie aboui them or cover them up.

Beyond Non/u?! Vision: Moral Imagination

At times, the ''.seeing, talking" advertising practitioners dem-onstrated what some scholars have referred to as moral imagi-nation (e.g., Johnson 1993; Werhane 1999). Moral imaginationentails bemg able to see .and think outside the box, envisioningmoral alternatives chat others do not. Our research was notdesigned lo study moral imagination, but as we studied theteal problems faced by practitioners, we saw many mstancesof where imaginative solutions were needed. Moreover, webelieve we saw some instances in which moral imaginationwas employed. For example, the agency CEO who walkedaway from his largest account when his client insisted that hedo something that he considered unethical appeared to ex-hibit not only motal seeing and talking, but moral imagina-tion. He readily envisioned the im plications that the unethicalbehavior would bring about for him, for his agency, and forhis client's competitors. He also knew that resigning the ac-count, which represented more than 25% of the agency's bill-ings, ct)uid force him to lay off a number of agency employees,but he did not succumb ro thinking he had only two alterna-tives—act unethically, keep the account, and avoid layoffs oract ethically and lay off a number of workers. Fie discussedthese problems openly and at length with his client and withhis co-workers. Through the discussions, the CEO envisioneda resourcetul way tn keep from laying ]:>eople off if they lost or

resigned the client. When the client refused to yield, the CEOresigned the account and implemented the alternative, avoid-ing layoffs. Through the combined use of moral seeing, talk-ing, and imagination, the CEO had tound an acceptable andethical solution.

The "seeing, talking" advertising practitioners appear tohave mastered the variotis aspects of Rest's (1994, p. 23) modelof four psychological components determining moral behav-ior: "l)moralsensitivity (interpreting the situation), 2) moraljudgment (judging which action is morally right/wrong), 3)moral motivation (prioritizing moral values relative to othervalues), and 4) moral character (having courage, persisting,overcoming distractions, implementing skills)." When infor-mants demonstrated moral imagination, they also exhibitedan added dimension involving unique insights, mventiveness,and resourcefulness. This enabled them to generate moral al-ternatives that others had not seen and uniquely equippedthem to engage in moral problem .solving. This dimension issomewhat akin to what Levitt (19^6) identified as "market-ing imagination," through which marketers make "an inspiredleap from the obvious to tiie meaningful," reconceptualize aproblem, and generate an ingenious solution to it."

DISCUSSION

Our findings differ from what we take to be the thrust otprevious conclusions (e.g., Hunt and Chonko 19H7; Rotzolland Christians 1980) in that a substantial portion of infor-mants did not see ethical issues or rationalized them away. Itbears repeating that there is very little in the way of previousresearch that is directly relevant. In attempting to explainthe differences in our findings and those oi previous research,we note three factors. Eirst, our methods differ. Personal in-terviews can elicit a different caliber ot data that is capable oirevealing thought processes that mail surveys cannot. Sec-ond, we note the passage of time from the 1980;; to the twenty-first century. Time passes, and some social norms and moreschange. Third, the advertising industry has undergone dra-matic structutal changes involving massive consolidation sincethe time of the previous studies. As such, agencies that his-torically have been privately owned have been acquired bypublic companies, which place mnch more emphasis on short-term financial performance that can work against ethical de-cision making. Our study was not designed to estimate theproportion of advertising practitioners in the population withmoral myopia or moral muteness. What our study docs do ishelp to elucidate the thought worlds of advertising practi-tioners who do not see and confront ethical issues. Moreover,it categorizes ways in which avoidance of ethical issues oc-curs. Some of the categories are typical of much human avoid-ance and rationalizing behavior; others, while not unique toadvertising, are certainly exacerbated by that industry's con-

18 Thtjo3irncil of Advertising

text and demands. Our study also demonstrates, however, thatthere are and can be successful advertising professionals whoare ethically aware and respond accordingly. Our study alsofinds that the context in which advertising practitioners workmatters in terms of their ethical sensitivity.

We do not believe that moral myopia or moral muteness isunique to advertising or marketing. Indeed, the recent roundof corporate scandals suggests that moral myopia and moralmuteness are apparent in many industries. Our data were col-lected before the Enron debacle, and as we watched it unfold,we saw evidence of rampant moral muteness and moral myo-pia, which paved the way for serious ethical breaches by peopleof both good and ill intent. While we found moral myopia inadvertising regarding issues at the individual, organizational,and societal levels, it was more acute at the organizationaland societal levels. As with many issues, the first step in deal-ing with an ethical problem is recognition of it. Unless aprob-lem is recognized, sound ethical decision making is highlyunlikely. Thus, myopia is a serious concern. When the prob-lem is recognized but not discussed, moral muteness is alsotroubling. Often when an ethical issue arises, if it is acknowl-edged, discussed, and debated, the "ethical" response is some-times obvious. Other times, of course, ethical people candisagree on what constitutes rhe ethical response, but rarelyis it a good thing to pretend that an ethical concern is nonex-istent. Sometimes responses require what some have describedas moral imagination (e.g., Johnson 1993; Werhane 1999),which entails being able to see and think outside the box,envisioning moral alternatives that others do not. In additionto correcting moral muteness and moral myopia, advertisingpractitioners—indeed all of us—should aspire to developmoral imagination.

Theoretical Implications: Individual Moralityand the Importance of Community

We did not fmd a continuum but essentially a bifurcation ofboth individuals and agencies with regard to ethical sensitiv-ity. Our fmdings regarding individuals resonate with cogni-tive theories about the development of moral reasoning byscholars such as Piaget (1965), Kohlberg (1967, 1971, 1984),and Rest (1984, 1986,1994). We have already noted the theo-retical implications of Rest's work for our findings. Drawingon Piaget's work, Kohlberg proposed a hierarchy of moral rea-soning in which people move beyond individualistic, instru-mental approaches to more complex problem solving that takesinto account concepts such as justice, the rights of others, andthe welfare of the social system. The "seeing, talking" adver-tising practitioners appeared to be engaged in moral reason-ing characteristic of the higher stages of Kohlberg's model,while those who were myopic or mute appeared to reason in amanner representative of the lower stages.

Otir findings regarding the bifurcation of agencies fit com-fortably within a broader theoretical context that notes theimportance of community. Moral sensitivity appeared to benurtured and developed best in group.s or communities; andthe agencies in which we observed moral sensitivity have as-pects that were quite different from other agencies. A num-ber of scholars and writers in the business ethics field havenoted that a corporation can be seen iis a moral community(Hartman 1994, 1996;Nahser 1997;Nesteruk 1996; Solomon1992, 1999). The agencies with talking, seeing advertisingpractitioners fit this description. Their employees see and re-flect upon ethical issues when others do not and tend to makedecisions on a set of principles and norms that are followednot only by the CEO and/or owners but others in the agency.Integrated social contract theory assumes that communitiesdevelop "authentic ethical norms . . . supported by the atti-tudes and behaviors of a substantial majority of the membersof the community" (Dunfee, Smith, and Ross 1999). Agen-cies with talking, seeing advertising practitioners appear tohave developed and articulated ethical norms, but it is notclear that agencies with practitioners with moral myopia andmoral muteness have done so, ar least not in a purposeful,premeditated manner. Moral virtues among individuals arebest cultivated and sustained in communities as Woodruff(2001) expressed:

Virtues grow in us through being used, and they are usedmainly by people living or working together. . . . If you aresurrounded by vice, you will find it hard to stay in tune withvirtue. . . . Virtue ethics, then, deals with strengths that peopledevelop in communities. CommuniEies, in turn, depend onthe strengths of their members, (p. 6)

Virtues are cultivated over time, and they have the great-est lasting power in close-knit communities, (p. 24)

This concept of community draws heavily from Aristotelianethics. Aristotle spoke of a "good community" as one wheregood habits are cultivated and nurtured (Aristotle 1962),Solomon (1992) and others have explicitly noted that themorals of executives, especially those most visible in the firm,are important influences on corporate morality. Equally im-portant, he asserted, are the nature and power of institutionsin shaping and sanctioning an individual's morals. It seemssafe to say that only a portion of the industry falls into a moralinterpretation of community.

Directions for Future Research

Our study points to a number of important directions for fu-ture research. A more thorough examination of advertisingagencies that have successfully cultivated ethical sensitivitycould increase our understanding of best ethical practices. Ifthe advertising industry is to place a higher premium on eth-ics, more should be known about firms that appear to have

2004

ethics as a a^re teirurc. Such research is likely ro glean a morethorough profile of both che leadership and the mnk-and-lileemployees at these "talking, seeing" agencies, Examining andunderstitnding rhr organizational policies, processes, cultures,and climates in whidi ethically aware decision makers workis at least as mtportant as [^rufiling the decision makers them-selves. As a step toward advancing Furtliet research in adver-tising ethics, we offer a k'w research propositions thatultimately totilJ become testable hypotheses. We leave it tofuture researchers ro operationalizc the propositions in a man-ner that leai- s co hypoihesis generation.

The first ptoposition links the notion ol community withactual ethical behavior withm otganizations, particularly ad-vertising firms. 'Hic immediate leadttship vv'ithin the agencyoffices in which ihc interviews were conducted appeared tobe central to the deveLopmenr of "seeing, raiking" practitionerswithin those offices. Many of these leaders wcte presidents otC EOs of smaller agencies, but in largiT fitms, local managitigdirectors exerrci-! similar positive ethical influence.

PI: Lea Jen trea/e a conlexl in which moml tiiuigirtation can

[loiirnh HI thv nfjia'S hi whtch they work.

Several characrenscics were typical ol ti:e agencies with highlevels of ethical awareness, A high degree of cotnmunicationtypified these otganizations. Furrhettnore, the comtnunica-tion between upper management atid lower-level employeeswas frequent ami dealt openly with the agency's core valuesand with t{)ygh ethiral issues. In addition, all of these fitmshad a statenieni ol values or ethics that was prominently dis-played and that had been disseminated and tliscussed through-out the organization.

P2: Agmi'ii:\ /.nth a hiii^hh commmucalivt airpuratv cidliire

dcmimstratt./ hii^hi^r Uvel nj ethical smslt'ivhy.

P3: Agencies u ilh jrequi'nt jnternal iomtnnnical'iQn ahuul core

S JtmdHslnik a hi;ihtr level oj elhical s

P4: Af^ericuj uilh freq/ient conimunicalinn between pp

nianagenwnt ana hjivei-lev'A employees about tough ethical

issues daniDisiratt a higher level oJ ethical .sensitivity.

P 5 ,• Agencies u ith jnrmiil ethics poVu les that have been wtdtly

disseminated u uhin th-s urbanization and discussed among

co-workers demonstrate J higher lerd oj ethical semitivity.

Moral myopiii also seems ro be more prevalent when thereis a lack of communicarion with cUents about values—theagency's and ^bent's tore values and the values upon whichthe advertising is bused,

P(y. Pailun I': aimtin/nuale with clients about rabies leads to

moral myopia.

Other questions regarding moral muteness and moral myo-

pia must be answered. For examjiie, how prevalent are they inthe advertising ptofession ami m marketing more generally:'Are some aspects of advertising or marketing more vulner-able to myopia antl muteness^ What are the antecedents olmoral muteness and myopia? For instance, we did not have alarge enough sample to com}-»are whether creative, iiccotuitmanagement:, or media personnel in an agency are more likelyto experience muteness and/or myopia- Obviously, the spe-cific ethical issues faced by account management (c,g,, clientmteraction antl entertaining) are somewhat different fromthose experienceil by creatives (e.g., stealing ideas) and like-wise dissimilar from people working in media (e,g,, intetat-lion with representatives of the print antl broadcast media,negotiation of contracts). Upper management experiences stillanother level of ethical challenge (e.g., comptomismg orga-nizational valties to meet client demands).

P7; The position held within an agenQ 'e.g.. ireatfve. account

management, media, or senior nianag^emeytt) is related !o specific

forms oj moral muteness.

PH: 'The position held n ithin an agency is related lo speiijic

types oj moral myopia.

We founti the type of comniLinity wirhin an agency ro be acorrelate of myopia and muteness, but what other correlatesmay come into play!- Does ihe type of edticafional backgroLincl(e.g., liberal arts vetstis business majors) matter.' Does it makea difTerence if pracniioners ha\T had formal instrucrion in atl-vertising ethics as a part of a collegiate program t>r ui work-place training [irograms:^ Are pcoi'jU- with particular religiotisbackgrounds more or less inciined to develop myt>pia or mute-ness chan others? Is rhe difference between agencies with re-gard to ethical sensitivity better explained by something theagency does, or is it explained by rhe type of peo[-)le who areattracted to that type of agency. We stispect there is an interac-tive effect. More generally, research is warranted that treats moralimagination, moral myopia, and moral muteness as deix*nclentvariables and tries to idenrify independenr variables. Of course,this would ret]uire (jperationalization and specification ofthe dependent variables. Scenarios analysis designed to de-tect and exiitnine myopia antl muteness could be helpful.

More needs to be understood about enabling ettiica! sensi-tivity ro take root and flourish m worldwitle organizationswith mtiltiple locations. The agencies in which our talking,seeing informants worked were, almost without excefition,either privately held agencies wirh one location or relativelyautonomous units of conglomerates with one location. Be-cause the advertising industry has tindergone massive con-solidation, tmderstanding how to cultivate agency ofFiees withtalking, seeing advertising practitit)ners within worldwidenetworks composed of many different subsidiaries with of-fices in many far-flung Icxations is a partictilarly important

20 The Journal oj Advertising

endeavor. This line of inquiry would also be relevant to rhemarketing functions of multinational corporations. How canmoral sensitivity best be cultivated in a worldwide network?What impacr does rhe parent eompany have, and how can itspower and influence be leveraged to encourage the develop-ment of moral sensitivity?

Our study has focused on a commercial context. Ethicalsensitivity is viral to problem solving In social and nonprofitmarketing. In addition, it is particularly important in corpo-rate societal marketing (e.g., cause-related marketing, socialalliances), which is at the nextis of the commercial and non-profit or public sectors. For example, what forms does ethicalsensitivity take when one is applying marketing to the com-plicated needs of society or rrying to manage the interdepen-dence between a company's interests and society's needs? Inwhat ways is cultivating erhical sensitivity among social andnonprofit marketers different from encouraging it among com-mercial marketers? Do skills transfer directly between com-mercial and nonprofit or public sectors, or do they have to beadapted, depending upon the context?

Finally, we believe that it is imperative that scholars con-tinue CO examine the advertising and marketing professionscritically. The advertising profession especially is one in whichthe positive is accentuated. In such a fast-paced, competirlve,creative industry, there is little time or encouragement to fo-cus on deep and troubling concerns ro the individual, organi-zation, or society. Nevertheless, critical examination plays afundamentally important role in any profession. Iti fact, one ofrhe characteristics of any profession Is the obligation to exam-ine, monitor, and revise Its ethical standards and practices. Weencourage future researchers to follow the advice of Pollay:

inquiry does not require researchers to believe rhatadvertising will be ab,solved of all charges as much as it re-quires having fairh that the institutions of advertising havesome potential for self-correction and a capacity for moral ac-tion in light of new knowledge, f-et us hope that marketingand advertising scholars have this faith and carry out theneeded researcii. Let us hope that such faith is well-fiHinded,(1986, pp, 33-34)

Poilay asserted that the institutions of advertising havepotential for self-correction and the capacity for moral action.There Is always "potential," bur likelihood is another matter,in rhe final .sections of this paper, we address rhe implicationsof our findings for practice and for education with the hopethat such a faith Is indeed warranted.

Managerial Implications

The implications of this study appear to apply nor only roadvertising pracririoners bur also ro marketing practitionersmore generally. They all face serious challenges if they want

to make moral vision, discussion, and imagination more cen-tral to their firms. Some of our recommendations involve para-digm shifts in prevailing perspectives and conceptualizationof the roles of advertising and marketing practitioners, whileothers involve changes in organizational cultures, policies, andpracrices.

A paradigm shifr seems tti be needed regarding what irmeans to serve clients well. Many of our informants generallyexpressed a strong sense that advertising pracritioners are todo the client's bidding. Fiduciary responsibi.licy, then, isequated with pleasing clients and doing exactly what theywant done. We found rhis to be a norm so srrong among someof our informants that It became something of a countervailing"moral" good in and of itself. The stronger the norm that theduty of adverrising practitioners is to do the client's bidding,the more difficult it becomes for them to Interject their ownethical judgments. To some degree this exists in other client-based btisinesses; however, there are often counterweights. Forexample, good lawyers see their job as instructing their cli-ents as to what their best interest is, not simply doing whatrhe client wants. Whatever the moral myopia of other profes-sions, the more one feels obligated to defer to the client, theharder it is to assert one's own ethical judgment. Thus, onerecommendation is that the conception of an advertisingprofessional's responsibilities be reformulated and expanded,including a more sophisticated understanding of fiduciaryresponsibility. Undoubtedly, edticatioti and training must playa role in rhis paradigm shift.

The shift described above cannot occur If organizationalpractices and policies are not altered. For example, clientsand porential clients—both their products and their businesspractices-—should be examined and discussed with an eye to-ward potential erhical problems. Nor all clients can be con-sidered to be a "good" client who must be attracted to theagency and retained at all costs. Overt discussions of ethicalvalues, both the agency's and the client's, shoukl be initiatedin the "pitch" stage and continued throLigh rhe life of therelationship. Refusing to take on potential clients and drop-ping existing clients can and .should be viewed as acceptablealternatives. When accounts are refused or resigned on ethi-cal grounds, managers should be rewarded. Agencies alsoshould set up procedures and sysrem,s that encotirage workersto blow the whistle on questionable behavior.

Leaders, of course, play an important role, C^EOs, owners,and/or managing partners should provide extensive ethicalleadership, as was the case in the agencies with ethically sen-sitive practitioners in our sample. This role is dramaticallydifferent from the roles that self-interested CEOs with exor-bitant salaries and golden parachutes ofren appear to play,Agenc y leaders should model moral seeing and speaking bothindividually atid organizationally. Too often our respondentsreporred that ethical views at their agencies were implicit

Suninm- 2004 2 f

and not overtly expressed. Leaders should seize every oppor-tunity to express their ethical values in face-to-face commu-nications with employees and with clients. They also shouldinitiate processes to formulate and articulate ethical visionsand policies. The processes Ideally should be participative,prompting discussion among workers at all levels and in allagency functions. If agencies have ethics statements and poli-cies, leaders should initiate processes to revise, communicate,and promote them internally and externally (Murphy 1998a).

We recognize that paradigm shifts such as the ones rhatwe call for are always difficult and may presently, in the con-text of advertising in partictilar and in business more gener-ally, appear unlikely, Ffowever, when paradigm shifts do occur,they typically are undergirded by major shifts in public sen-timent, cultural norms, and regulation. As an example, wecite the sea change in advertising practitioners' sentimentstoward cigarette advertising that we referenced earlier. Weare encouraged that in response to the recent corporate scan-dals, ethical behavior in business appears to be on the na-tional agenda m a renev/etl way. Legislation is changing asevidenced by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, atid the public appearsto be demanding that attention be given to issues of ethicalbehavior in business. Whether paradigm shifts occur orwhether ethics concerns are a fleeting fancy remains to beseen. When public sentiment and cultural norms meaning-fully change, education c;?rtainiy plays a role. We turn now tothe implications of our findings for educators.

Implications for Educators

We believe that educators should expose and sensitize stu-dents to ethical questions and dilemmas that they are likelyto encounter as pracritioners. After a.il, to be forewarned is tobe forearmed. Forethotight as to hov/ one might deal with asituation before it occurs often leads to better decisions at thetime of dilemma or crisis. This is a cardinal rule in businessgenerally-—indeed, in many of life's activities—and yet forsome reason, educators shy away from this fundamental teach-ing goal when it comes to ethical situarions. What consti-tutes rhe ethical thing ro do is sometimes debatable, but Itdoes not follow that we should therefore ignore the fact thatone should be the best pre].>ared to wrestle with it when Itoccurs. What constitutes the "right" action plan for a busi-ness may also be debatable, but there ofren is a set of helpfulprinciples or com epts. Likewise, there are principles and con-cepts that can be helpful in ethical decision making. Caseteaching assumes a value i:o forethought irrespective of whetherthere is a "right" answer.

Yet the educarional task is even broader than simply iden-tifying possible ethical issues. To combat moral muteness andmoral my(.>pia, siudents must also tinderstand the issues oforganizational culture and climate that encourage ethical be-

havior. Because moral myopia was most acute regarding Is-sues related to advertising's unintended social consequences,educators must help students learn ro think critically aboutthe adverrising and marketing communications industries aswell as their effects on society. To accomplish this, universi-ties should offer speciali7.ed courses dealing with advertisingand marketing ethics and also integrate ethics into requiredcourses dealing with adverrising management, creative strat-egies, advertising campaigns, and marketing management.

The question "Can ethics be ratight to undergraduate andgraduate students?" is often raised.^ Again, that often is northe right quesrion for the reasons stated above. Nevertheless,we assert that professors consciously or unconsciously influ-ence their students' attitudes and values, and rhat adults ofall ages arc capable of learning that wUl prompt rhem to changetheir attitudes and values. The question is not "Can we influ-ence our students' attitudes and values?" but rather "Mowwill we influence our students' attitudes and values?" How-ever, even if one assumes that students' values are not subjectto infltieoce in the classroom, identifying ethical issues In antinfamiliar and complex professional context can be difficult.Sttidents with the highest values and intentions need guid-ance in recognizing erhical issues. Some universities do nothave required or elective courses In advertising ethics or evenin marketing or business ethics. When universities do havesuch courses, they are often upper division elective coursesthat students take as seniors. Because industry socializationbegins early as students engage in projects and internships,we believe that exposure to ethics should ideally occur earlyin a student's academic career. Textbook authors should in-crease the coverage rhat they give to ethics in both texruaimaterial and in cases. Often, ethics material is relegated to asingle chapter or part of a chapter at the end of a textbook,which in itself sends a signal. In the light of recent scandals,many businesses and professional corporations are realizingthe need for training their employees to recognize and dealwith ethical dilemmas. It would be embarrassing for the edu-cational community to lag behind the professional one. Aseducators, we can help guide this effort in ways that are likelyro be more productive and long-lasting after the current at-tention begins to fade.

CONCLUSIONS

The first step in solving a problem Is identifying it and devel-oping a better understanding of it. In rhis paper, we haveidentified moral muteness and moral myopia and tried to shedlight on the rationalizations and communities that supportor counteract them. We have also reported evidence of moralimagination and identified the characteristics of the commu-nities in which it, along with moral seeing and talking, flour-ishes. We hope that the directions for future research that our

22 The Journal of Advertising

study has produced will serve as a catalyst for improving the

theory and practice of advertising and marketing ethics in

academic and advertising communities.

NOTES

1. In The MutedConscieme, Bird (! 996) described various moralshortcomings, including moral silence, moral blindness, andmoral deafness. Moral myopia is similar to his notion. We sim-ply label it a bit differently as it applies to our informants" an-swers. We use the term "moral" as a synonym tor "ethical" todescribe muteness and myopia. This interpretation is slightlydifferent ftom some of the moral philosophical accounts, whichdefine morality as more of a systemwide practice and ethics to bemore individually focused {DeGeorge 1999, p. 19).

2. The commonality between "marketing imagination" and"moral imagination" was suggested to us by George Brenkert ofGeorgetown University.

3. See Piper, Gentile, and Parks (1993) for an extensive ex-amination of this question.

REFERENCES

Advertising Age (19H8), "Industry Ethics Are Alive," 59 (April18), 88.

Aristotle (1962), Niannachean Ethics. New York: Macmillan.Arnould, Eric J., and Linda L. Price (1993), "River Magic: Ex-

traordinary Experience and the Extended Service Encoun-ter, " /oarW w/CV/«j-flmer i eit arf/j, 20 (June), lA-A'^.

Bird, Frederick B. (1996), The Muted Conscience: Moral Silence andthe Practice oj Business Ethics, Westport,CN: Quorum Books.

(2002), The Muted Ccmscience: Moral Silence and the Prac-tice of Business Ethics, rev. ed., Westport, CN: QuorumBooks.

, and James A. Waters (1989), "The Moral Muteness of

Managers," California Management Rei'iew, 32 (Fall), 73-88,Bishop, E P. (1949), The Ethics of Advertising. Bedford Square,

UK: Robert Hale.Bonoma, Thomas V. (1985), "Case Research in Marketing: Op-

portunities, Problems, and a Y'roQG?,'^.," Journal of MarketingResearch. 22 (May), 199-208.

Braybrooke, David (19Gy), Philosophical Problems of the Social Sci-ences, New York; Macmillan.

Brenkert, George G. (1998), "Ethics in Advertising; The Good,the Bad, and the Qhurch.," Journal of Public Policy and Mar-keting. 17 (Fail), 325-331."

Central Hudson Cas v. Public Service Co?mnission, 447 U.S. 557(1980).

Chen, Amber Wenling, and Jeanne Mei-Chi Liu (199H), "AgencyPractitioners' Perceptions of Professional Ethics in Taiwan,"

Journal of Business Ethics. 17 (January), 15—23.Cunningham, Peggy H. (1999), "Ethics of Advertising," in The

Advertising Business, John Phillip Jones, ed.. Thousand Oaks,CA; Sage,--199-513.

Davis, Joel J. (1994), "Ethics in Advertising Decision making;Implications for Reducing the Incidence of Deceptive Ad-

vertising," 'TheJournal of Consurner Affairs. 28 (Winter), 380-402.

DeGeorge, Richard T, (1999), Business Ethics, 5th ed., lJ[ipLTSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dexter, Lewis Anthony (1970), Elite and Specialized Interviewing.Evanston, IL; Northwestern Univetsity Press.

Dougherty, Deborah (1990), "Understanding New Marketsfor Products/' Strategic Management Journal. 1! (Janu-ary), 59-78.

— (1992), "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product In-novation in Large Firms," Organizational Scietice. 3 (May),179-202.

Drumwright, Minette E. (1993), "Ediical issues in Advertisingand Sales Promotion," in Ejhus in Marketing, N, Craig Smithand John A. Quelch, eds., Homtwood, IL; Irwin,

—• (1994), "Socially Responsible Organizational Buying;Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Crite-rion,"J'&/;r/?(//o/Afi^riif/zVi;, 38 (July), 1-19.

(1996), "Company Advertising with a Social Dimen-sion: The Role ot Noneconomic Crxttna" Journal of Mar-keting. 60 (October), 7 !-88.

Dunfee, Thomas W., N. Cratg Smith, and William T. Ross, Jr.(1999), "Social Contracts anti Marketing \Lt\-\k%," Journal ofMarketing. 63 (July), 14-32.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), "Building Theory from CaseStudy Research," Academy of Manageyiient Review, 14 (Octo-ber), 532-550.

Federal Trade Commission (1980), "Ciuides Concerning Use ofEndorsements and Testimonials in Advertising," 16CFR25 5, available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/endorse.htm (ac-cessed April 14, 200-1).

Ferrell, O. C , Mary Zey-Ecrreli, and Dean Krugman (1983),"Comparisons of Predictors of Ethical and Unethical Be-haviors Among Corporate and Advertising Agency Mixn-•3i.g(irs," Journal of Macromarkeling, 3 (Spring), 19-27.

Fielding, Nigel CJ., and Jane L. Fielding (1986), Tinking Data.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Galbraith, John Kenneth (1958), The Affluent Society, Boston:Houghton MifTlin,

(1967), 'I'he New Industrial State. Boston; HoughtonMifflin.

Golden-Biddie, Karen, and Karen Locke (1993), "AppealingWork; An hwestigation of How Etlinographic Texts Con-vince," Organization Science. 4 (November), 595-616.

Gulas, Charles S., and Kim McKeage (2000), "Extending SocialComparison; An Examination of the Unintended Conse-quences ol Idealized Advertising Imngcry," Journal of Ad-vertising, 29 (Summer), 17—28.

Hartman, Edwin M. (1994), "The Commons and the Moral Or-ganization," Business Ethics Quarterly. 4 (July), 253—270.

———~ (1996), Organizational Ethics and the Good Life, New York:Oxford University Press.

Hofstede, Geert H. (1980), Culture's Consequences, InternationalDifferences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.

• (1983), "The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Prac-tices and Thtont^f Journal of International Business Studies,14 (Fall), 75-H9.

2004 23

Hunt, Shelby U,. ;ind Lawrence B, Chonko (1987), "Ethical Prob-lems of Advertising Agency h'xecu.tiYes," Journal oj Adver-tising, l6 (4), 16-24.

— ^ — , V. R, Wood, and I^wrence B. Chonko (1989), "Corpo-rate Etiiiciii Values -md Organizational Commitment inMarketing,"/o//ra<-//jy/Mi/r^e/,'Kg, 53 (Jiily), 79-90.

Hyman, Micliael R,, Richard Tansley, and James W. Clark (1994),"Research iin Adveriising Ethics: Past, Present, and ¥u-zuiiii" Jnuma I oJ Advertising. 2i (3), 5-15.

James, E. Lincoln. Cornelius B. Pratt, and Tommy V. Smith(1994). "Advi-rtising Ethics: Practitioner and Student Per-spectives." lournal oj Mas.s Media Ethics. 9 (2), 69-83.

Johnson, Mark (L993), Moral Imagination: Implications of Cogni-tive Scitnce for Ethns. Chicago: University ot Chicago Press.

King, Nigel (1994), "The Qualitative Research Interview," in(^iiulitativi- Methods tn Organizational Research: A PracticalGiiuk. Catlu-nne Cassell and Gillian Symon, eds.. Thou-sand Oaks, C A: Sage,

Kohlberg, LawreiK e (I 967), "Moral and R.eligious Education inthe PLibiic S(hoois: A Developmental View," in Religion andPuhlii: Eduuilion. Thcodor R. Sizer, ed,, Boston: HoughtonMifflin,

(19"'l). "From Is to Ought," in Cognitive Developmmtand Epistemohj^y. Theodore Mlschel, ed,. New York: Aca-demic Press-

———— (1984), The P:,ych')bgy of Moral Dn>elopriient. San Fran-< isco: Har|ier and Row,

Kover, Arthur j . {1993). "Copywriters' Implicit Theories of Com-munication: An Exploration,"y^ / fWi,*/ of Consumer Research,21 (March), 396-611.

Eantos, Geotlrey P. (19S7), " Advertising: Lcwking Glass or Moiderof the M'dssfsf Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 6,104-128.

LaTour, Michael S., and Tony L, Henthorne (1994), "Ethical Judg-ments of Sexual Appeals in Frmi: Advertising," Jw/rwrt/o/Advertisiny,. 2 5 ('5S, 81-90.

Leiser, Burton (t 9^9), "Beyond Eraud and Deception: The MoralUses of AJvcrtising," in Ethical Issues in Business. ThomasDonaldson ;ui(! Patricia Werhane, eds., Englewood Cliffs,Nj: PrentHT-Hall, 59-66,

Levitt, Theotlore (1960), "Marketing Myopia," Harvard BusinessRin'/eu. 3H (July/August), 45-56

(19H6), 7/jt' Marketing Imagination: New, Expanded Edi-tion, Kcw York: l"ree Press.

44 Liquormart. hh\ v. Rhode Island, 517 U,S. 484 (1996).Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B, Rossman (19^9), Design-

ing (^ualitdtiit Re.warch. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McCracken, Gnini D, (L98H), The Long Interview. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.Miles, Marrhew \^ . and A. Michael Huberman (1994), Qualita-

tive Data Ark/lyu\. 2nd ed,, Newbuty Park, CA: Sage.Moon, Young Sook, and George R. Pranke (2()()()), "Cultural

Influences on Agency Practitionets' Ethical Perceptions: AComparison of Korea and the U.S.," Journal of Advertising,29 (Spring), 51-65,

Moriarity, Rohmd T. (1983), Indusrriai Buying Behavior. Lexing-ton, MA: Lexington Books.

Murphy, Patrick E. (1998a), Eighty Exemplary Ethics Statements,Notre Dame, IN: University ot Notre Dame Press.

(1998b), "Ethics in Advertising: Review, Analysis, andSuggestions," Jw/rtt,;;/ oJ Public Policy in Marketing, 17 (Fall),316-319.

Nahser, E. Byron {\^^l).,Lmrnini>_ to Read the Signs, Woburn, MA:Butterworth-Heinema[in.

Nesteruk, Jeffrey (1996), "Law, Virtue, and the Corporation,"American Business Law Journal, 33 (Spring), 473-487.

Piaget, Jean (1965), The Moral Development of the Child, New York:Eree Press.

Piper, Thomas R., Mary C- Gentile, and Sharon Daloz Parks(1993), Can Ethics Be Taught? Boston: Harvard Busine.ssSchool Press.

Pollay, Richard W. (1986), "The Distorted Mirtor: Rctlectionson the Unintended Consequences ot Advertising,"Jo^ra*//of Marketing, 50 (Apni), 18-36,

Pontifical Council for Social Communications (1997), Ethics inAdvertising. Vatican (jty: Vatican Documents,

Pratt, Cornelius B., and E, Lincoln James (1994), "AdvertisingEthics: A Contextual Response Based on Cliissical EthicalTheory," Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (June), 455-568,

Preston, Ivan (1994), The Tangled Weh They Weave, Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,

~ (I996), The Great American Blow-lip: Puffery in Advertis-ing and Selling. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Press.

Prt)sser, William (19H4), Handbook of the Law of Torts. 5th ed,, St,Paul: West.

Rangan, V. Kasturi (1989), "The Smi>ke Wars: The Case for andAgainst the Cigarette Industry," case no, 9-590-040, Bos-ton: Harvard Business School Press.

Rest, James R. (J984), "The Major Components ot Morality," inMorality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Dm'elopmmt. W. Kurtinesand J. Gewirtz, eds,. New York: Wiley.

(1986), Moral Developnient: Advances in Research andTheory.New York: Praeger,

(1 994), "Theory and Research," m Moral Development inthe Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. James R, Restand DarciaNarvaez, eds,, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rotzoll, Kim B., and Clifford G. Christians (1980), "AdvertisingAgency Practitioners' Perceptions of Ethical Deci;;ions,"Jo/yr-nalism Quarterly. 57 (Auttimn), 425—43 1.

Santilli, Paul (1983), "The Informative and Persua.sive Functionsof Advertising: A Moral Appraisal,"yw^-W o{ Business Eth-ics, 2 (February), 27-33.

Schwartzman, Helen B. (1993), Ethnography m Organizations,Newbury Park, CA: Sage-

Solomon, Robert C. (1992), Ethics and Excellence, New York:Oxford University Press,

(1999), A Better Way to Think Abuut Business New York:Oxford University Press.

Spiggle, Susan (1994), "Analysis and Interpretation of Qualita-tive Data in Consumer Research," _/(;«r'W of Consumer Re-search. 21 (December), 491-50^.

Stern, Louis W,, and Thomas L. Eovaldi (1984), Legal Aspects oJMarketing Strategy: Antitrust a?ul Consumer Protection Issues,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24 The Journal of Advertising

Strauss, Anselm L, (1990), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scien-tists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tinkhatn, Spencer R, and Ruth Ann Waver-Larisay (1994), 'T.rhi-cal Judgments of Political Television Commercials as Pre-dictors of Attitude Toward the Ad.," Journal of Advertising,23 (September), 43-57.

These, Debbie, Michael R Weigold, Jenneane Conna, and HeatherGarrison (1994), "Ethics in Advertising: Ideological Cor-relates of Consumer Perceptions," Journal of Advertising. 23(September), 59-69.

Waide John (1987), "The Making of Self and World in Adver-

tising,"yo/fr;//// of Business Ethics, 6 (February), 73-79.Wallendorf, Melanie, and Merrie Brucks (1993), "Introspection

in Consumer Research: Implementation and Implications,"Journal oj Consumer Research. 20 (December), 339-359.

Werhane, Patricia H. (1 999), Moral hnagination and ManagementDecision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press,

Woodruff, Paul (2001), Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue, NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Workman, John P, Jr. (1993), "Marketing's Limited Role in NewProduct f>velopment in One Computer Sysrem Firm,"Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 30 (November), 405-421,

APPENDIX

Interview Protocol

1. How do your clients communicate their values to you?

Prompts: Is this something that people talk about? Do you ever ask your clients to tell you about their values?

2. What are rhe ethical issues that advertising professionals deal with-*

Prompts: Which are the easiest to deal with? Which are the most difficult? Which concern you the most?

3. Have you ever been asked to do something that you did not feel comfortable doing?

Prompt: Do you know of anyone who has refused to do something he or she wasn't comfortable u-ith?

4. Let's talk about potentially deceptive ads specifically. Do you worry much about deception in advertising?

Profnpts: Have you ever been asked to use an approach that was potentially deceptive, or have you ever used an approach that turned out to bepotentially deceptive? What criteria do you use to guard against deceptive ads?

5. Are you concerned about what some people call advertising's unintended consequences?

Prompts: For example, does advertising help create unrealistic conceptions of beauty among teenage girls that might contribute to eating disorders .•'Does advertising play a role in making smoking or drinking appealing to underage individuals?

6. Changing gears, have you been involved in pro bono campaigns, and if so, what was your experience like?

Prompts: If yes, how and why did you become involved? How did you feel about your involvement?

7. What image does your agency try to project, and how would you describe its culture?

8. We all have our personal value systems. What do you think is the source of yours?