Advertising and intrinsic value
- dleach28
- Feb 20, 2022
- 2 min read
When conducting research, I came across a statement describing advertising that I thought was interesting, it stated advertising “would rather be thought of as evil than useless,”. In which the report talked about how advertising promotes values that are directly opposed to human wellbeing, environmental sustainability and a fair society. As well as It ought to be considered a detrimental influence, and regulated accordingly. When it comes to advertising, I believe companies are trying to get individuals to buy a product which is an extrinsic value and marketing towards the intrinsic side. Companies do this to make you feel like your purchase is intrinsic and has deep beneficial meaning but on the surface level it is extrinsic. I kind of refer to it as a bait and switch where a company is saying the product has such a big impact helping the environment, but it only uses 2% less plastic than another product etc. Regarding products that can hurt people. Like we have discussed in class I believe that the government should have a say and somewhat regulate advertising for products such as cigarettes but ultimately for adults they can make their own decision. Instances where the government needs to get involved is if these companies are trying to market towards children or using false deceptive advertising.
Like regulations we have seen in the past on alcohol or gambling these companies have a responsibility to let their consumers know if the product is going to potentially harm them. From there it is the consumers choice once they have assessed the risks. One of the biggest things I thought about is not only regular products like cigarettes and alcohol but for cleaning products around the world you will see in small print “do not make contact with eyes” or “do not ingest, could cause bodily harm”. Why is it that these products that can cause serious harm to people or even immediate death not putting this is bigger font? But cigarette companies have to put huge font stating they could cause cancer etc. I find this interesting, but I assume the reason is the FDA is regulating one and another organization is regulating another product since one is meant for consumption while the other is not. To make things simpler I believe the federal government should be the only regulating body for these products. When you introduce all the different state and local governments into the picture I feel as if there would be to many different regulations to follow from state to state.
Overall evaluating advertising, we have today and seeing the progression and legal cases in history. The federal government is the governing body for all corporations wishing to sell products and regulating how to market to society. We rely on the government to help protect us from potential false deceptive advertising and products that can cause harm to us unknowingly. With the government regulating such words it does balance between first amendment rights and not. Advertising being a form of deception in which intrinsic and extrinsic values are challenged regulation is something needed to protect citizens, children, and future generations to come.
Comments