Associative advertising: an ethical debate
Associative advertising is the practice of advertising a product by associating it with an intangible desire such as adventure, companionship, or sexual desire (Arrington, 1982), for example, an advertisement for a car based on feelings of freedom and adventure. Associative advertising is a form of persuasive advertising and differs from informational advertising, which relies on the product’s own merits (Arrington, 1982). Robert Arrington and Roger Crisp are philosophy professors with opposing views on the subject of advertising and human autonomy. Arrington (1982) argues that associative advertising does not violate human autonomy. Crisp (1987) argues that associative advertising does indeed violate human autonomy. In my view, Arrington’s argument is flawed because real people don’t fit their model of a rational consumer.
Arrington argues that associative advertising does not violate human autonomy because it can only associate itself with another desire the person already has. For example, if an advertisement tries to induce a desire to purchase a car based on a desire for adventure, what Arrington terms a second-order and first-order desire respectively, the person must already have the first-order desire for the second-order desire to take hold. Otherwise, the person would not accept the second-order desire. Arrington argues that the fact that people often return to purchase an item over and over demonstrates that they accept these desires without regret or remorse. According to Arrington, associative advertising merely gives someone an opportunity to act on their existing desires.
Crisp argues that associative advertising violates human autonomy because it links a product to a person’s unconscious desires, leading them to purchase the product without rational decision making. When they make this purchase, they are not consciously aware that the reason they are purchasing, for example, a car, is because an advertisement has linked it to their unconscious desire for adventure. If they were aware that this advertising-created link was the reason for their purchase, Crisp argues, they would not make the purchase. He further argues that if they did not realize until afterwards, they would resent the purchase and believe their autonomy had been violated, because most people don’t like to be manipulated. He also refutes Arrington’s re-purchasing argument by pointing out that it is not proof that the person acted autonomously. Associative advertising could have been the cause of the second purchase just as it was the first. According to Crisp, associative advertising violates human autonomy by causing people to make decisions without regard to or against their rational judgement.
I side with Crisp on the issue of human autonomy. By appealing to consumers’ unconscious desires, associative advertising intentionally works against human decision making, a clear violation of human autonomy. However, both authors seem to miss an obvious part of the day-to-day human experience. Both Arlington and Crisp only take into consideration the rational consumer, but there are times when human rationality is not at full strength. People get tired, or stressed, or experience decision fatigue. Consumers sometimes act irrationally and make purchases that they later regret. Since associative advertising relies on consumers not making purchases based on rational choice, it’s most effective on irrational consumers. One could even say associative advertising targets and exploits consumers who are not acting rationally.
In summary, Arrington argues that associative advertising merely allows people to act on their existing desires. Since the advertisement did not create the desire it ties its product to, it cannot be said to violate human autonomy. Crisp argues that associative advertising seeks to bypass human rationality, therefore it violates human autonomy. Arrington briefly considers the idea of irrational consumers in his essay. However, he only considers the case where the consumers’ irrationality is the result of an addiction or an impulse control disorder, which he argues is not typical of most consumers and should not be taken into account. I find Arrington’s argument flawed because he does not consider the case where consumers’ irrationality is the temporary result of ordinary life circumstances. As noted earlier, I side with Crisp. I find that the very purpose of associative advertising is to override rational choice. The stronger the associative advertising, the more it attempts to override rational choice.