Notes

Morally Problematic Associative Advertising Outline

3 min read

Morally problematic associative advertising outline

Introduction

Hook: In 1991, a man sued the company that owns Bud Lite for misleading advertisements. In the advertisement, Bud Lite was “shown to be the source of fantasies coming to life, involving otherwise impossible manifestations of scenic tropical settings, beautiful women and men engaged in endless and unrestricted merriment”. He argued the advertisements were deceptive because “it falsely suggests that [the beer] was the source of fantasies come to life”. The case was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that puffery does not count as fraud. Although it didn’t rise to the level of actionable fraud, one might still argue such associative advertising is deceptive to the public and, as John Waide would put it, morally problematic.

[introduce John Waide]

Structure: In this short essay, I will be examining the Bud Lite advertisement as a morally problematic advertisement.

Thesis: I will take John Waide’s side and argue that the Bud Lite commercial was morally problematic.

Body

  1. Waide argues that associative advertising is morally problematic because it persuades people to find personal fulfilment in market goods.
  2. Waide argues that advertisers themselves becomes desensitized to the well-being of their customers in the name of profit.
  3. In the Bud Lite commercial, the alcoholic beverage is associated with scenic venues and beautiful women.
  4. Bud Lite does not literally promise these things, but Waide argues that it links the attainment of these things with consuming alcohol rather than actually visiting scenic venues or going out and meeting people.
  5. The Bud Light advertisement was trying to get young people to consume alcohol so they can be popular. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, especially for young people. The commercial downplays or ignores the negative effects of alcohol. Waide argues that this is morally objectionable but advertisers become desensitized to that kind of thing.

Conclusion

  1. I’m not suggesting that the legal ruling was wrong, or that there should be any laws changed. That is out of scope.
  2. Richard Overton doesn’t actually drink. He was concerned about the effect the advertising has on his young children.
  3. “I looked at them, and I thought, ‘This isn’t right,’ ” Overton said. “Here are my kids being drawn to part of the culture of alcohol because of this advertising. That’s when I figured something needed to be done.”

References

  1. Overton v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 517 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1312137/overton-v-anheuser-busch-co/
  2. Time Inc. (2009, May 19). This Lawsuit’s for You - Top 10 outrageous legal battles. Time. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1899500_1899502_1899396,00.html
  3. Waide, J. (1987). The Making of Self and World in Advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 73–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071635
  4. BetterBrandsSC. (2012, December 12). Bud Light “Spuds Mackenzie” 1986  [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWAFOPntWYc
  5. Spuds Ventures, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch In-Bev Worldwide, Inc., 1:17-cv-01877, (S.D.N.Y. 2017). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BudSpuds.pdf

Graph View