Advertising, ethics and the environment: a personal view

The debate about the ethics of advertising and its role both in markets and society has evolved noticeably over the almost 14 years of my tenure at the Advertising Association. In general, I believe it has become more politicised and points of principle have been sidestepped as the forces of social engineering become more focused on the 'ends' justifying the 'means'. Distrust of the market has increased, and the calls for its regulation have increased, with less consideration of the implications of unintended consequences.

But that may be a somewhat over-simplified conclusion. There have also been countertrends centred around de-regulation and greater liberalisation, and the revolution in the media landscape has overshadowed all developments. Recognition of the inability to regulate in certain media sectors has become re-interpreted, with legislators demanding better forms of self-regulation as the best way forward.

However, my view is that common to both trends is a growing reluctance to recognise the concept of personal responsibility as central to the way that society evolves, coupled with a belief that 'experts' and politicians know best: 'intervention' is now being called for in almost every aspect of society.

In 1993 the advertising business was coming out of its worst recession since the 1930s but there was optimism. The single market had been launched in 1992; the advertising business had responded to Leon Brittain's challenge and established the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) to meet the potential consumer implications of cross-border business; alcohol as an advertising sector was going down, not up the political agenda and would soon lift, to no complaint, its self-imposed UK ban on TV advertising of mainstream spirits; children as an advertising audience were on the agenda but largely in the toy rather than food arena, and because of differing views across EU member states, for example in Sweden.

The business operated on the principle that 'if it's legal to sell to consumers, it should be legal to advertise responsibly to them'. Much important work had been done in the 1980s on the freedom of commercial speech and how Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted. The Television Without Frontiers directive had established framework regulation for broadcast advertising and the business's benign effect on media plurality was widely welcomed. As New Labour evolved its policies in opposition, its longheld view about the need for statutory rather than self-regulatory control of non-broadcast advertising was in retreat to a point where, ten years later, it welcomed the extension of the industry's established S-R system into broadcast as well as non-broadcast.

But, in the early 1990s, tobacco advertising remained a very public and contentious issue with Private Members' Bills and considerable European activity. It also divided the advertising business and sides were taken on what was called the domino theory: breaking the principle of 'legal to sell ...' would create a precedent for other markets versus 'tobacco is a unique category of goods, action against its advertising will not establish a precedent'.

With hindsight, what is clear is that it has been used as a precedent. Campaigners who fought for a tobacco advertising ban are now involved in the alcohol, obesity and social marketing debates. The Department of Health has similarly used its success in the tobacco debate as a key stimulus in its thinking in these other, more complex sectors.

The NGOs have evolved their strategies and levels of collaboration in a way that is professionally admirable and has been very effective. The voice of the consumerist bodies in the European Commission has never been stronger and it has been at the expense of those who have the responsibility for the single market, despite the political rhetoric about the need to return to the Lisbon Agenda.

The nutrition debate has turned into the obesity debate, with the attendant consequence of less science and more politics. The alcohol advertising debate is now about binge drinking and the car advertising debate may indeed move from speed to the environment: the media's appetite for the shorthand of 'junk food' is now liberally being applied to the 'Chelsea tractor'.

Aides at No. 10 have referred to a policy of 'voluntary compulsion' and the Prime Minister has acknowledged his preparedness to 'intervene' in areas unthought of ten years ago.

The climate in which our business operates is changing. Rhetoric about the importance of the market still abounds but the detail tells a different story. Points of principle are now items for negotiation. Consumers apparently believe, probably because government has told them, that government feels its duty is to resolve all their problems, and their most potent weapon is to threaten – the stick in the cupboard.

And this is before the really big, non-sectoral advertising debates arise: choice has been wonderful, but is it any longer sustainable? What is advertising's role in CSR and consequent reputation, particularly in a media environment where everybody, government or business, will be less in control of the debate?

The needs of competition are unchanged and consumers have never been more powerful, but who believes it?

This article featured in Market Leader, Spring 2007.