Puffery in Advertising

According to Hooker (2003), Milton Friedman states that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Friedman advances two main arguments for this position. First, corporate executives and directors are not qualified to do anything other than maximize profit. Business people are expert at making money, not at making social policy. Second, and more fundamentally, corporate officers have no right to do anything other than maximize profit (Hooker, 2003, Why Business Ethics,  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]). In addition, Milton Friedman point out that when a corporate executive earns profit for his organization, it is also an ethical practice towards the organization and its owners (Manuel, 2002). Same with Milton Friedman, Craig Smith also indicate the role of business is to make profit (Velasquez, 2002).

According to Appendices 1 and 2, Papa John's Pizza advertising slogan and Mueller's Pasta packaging was puffed. However, the purposes of Papa John's Pizza and Mueller's Pasta were gain competitive advantages and attract more customers, then can maximize profit. Therefore, puffery for the reason of Milton Friedman and Craig Smith is ethical.

By referring to Appendix 3, vitamins manufacturers used exaggerated statistic research to promote their product. The survey found that only 9% of the participants remembered consuming the recommended number of both fruits and vegetables on the day covered by the survey. This does not mean they were deficient in vitamins or minerals. Dietary surveys that measure nutrient intake for a single day or even a few days are not suitable for determining the overall quality of an individual's diet. Furthermore, adequate nutrient intake can be achieved with fewer than the recommended number of portions of fruits and vegetables (Barrett, S., 1998, Misleading Advertising of Centrum,  [Accessed on 6 October, 2005]). However, based on Milton Friedman and Craig Smith, the intention of this vitamins manufacturers’ statement is to make profit for company; it is also an ethical practice towards the organization and its owners. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is ethical.

Based on Appendices 4 and 5, although advertisers utilize SARS and terrorism to terrify customers and create the irrational purchase, however, according to Milton Friedman and Craig Smith, the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits or maximize profit, and this is the purpose of SARS protective advertisers and Lifeline Security. Therefore, puffery is ethical.

Therefore, purposes of five advertisings are earning more profits for the companies; even these advertisings are puffed and exaggerated. As a result, the social responsibility of business is to maximising its profits; therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is ethical.

According to Velasquez (1998, p350), the main factors that should be taken into consideration in determining the ethical nature of a given advertisement:

Table 1: Ethical Principles of Advertisement

(Source: Velasquez, 1998, p350)

According to Appendices 1 and 2, Papa John's Pizza and Mueller’s intends the effect of its advertisements to create a social awareness, and it seems does not make any social instability. Thus, it supports principle 1 and principle 2. In addition, the purposes of their slogan and packaging are trying to persuade more customers to buy their products. However, their slogan and packaging mislead and project a false image; therefore they make other companies dissatisfaction with their advertisements. In addition, the slogan and packaging of Papa John's Pizza and Mueller’s may not true, thus, they have a tendency to mislead customers. According to Haan, Puffery is language used by marketers to describe their products and/or companies in advertising and sales presentations. Puffery makes positive statements in advertising and sales about products that may or may not be true (Haan, 2004,  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]). As a result, puffery does not support principle 3 to principle 6. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery can be considered to be unethical.

Refer to Appendix 3, all the information is exaggerated in advertising, it intends the effect of its advertisements to create a social scare about health. After reading this advertising statement, people will worry about their health, then, the customers will be misleaded. Thus, it does not support principle 1 and principle 2. The manufacturers of vitamins seek to attract more customers who care about their health. Customers will feel that if they do not take vitamins, they would not have a healthy life. In addition, this advertising statement is untruthful. Therefore, it also does not support principle 3 to principle 6. According to the legal definition, puffery states no facts. Preston states that puffery often implies facts and often is deceptive (Preston, How to make a claim about truth in advertising when ads aren't saying anything?  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]). Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is unethical.

According to Appendix 4, the advertisers intend the effect of the advertisement to make a social scare during the SARS period. Therefore, it is does not support principle 1 and principle 2. In addition, the advertisement not only wants to warn people the dangers of SARS, these advertisers also want to persuade the customers to purchase their products. Furthermore, it attempts to create an irrational and possibly injurious desire to maximize companies’ profit. Therefore, it is does not support principle 3 and principle 4. Finally, those products cannot defend and avoid SARS efficiently, thus, they have a tendency to mislead customers. According to Heinz Niedermaier, chief executive of Biosafety USA confirmed that the company had not tested the product in relation to SARS and acknowledged that its claim might be exaggerated (Charatan, F., 2003, Explosion of internet advertisements for protection against SARS,  [Accessed on 6 October, 2005]).As a result, puffery does not support all the 6 principles, thus, puffery is unethical.

Similar with Appendix 4, Appendix 5 also creates a social scare in the USA. Lifeline Security looks like it is concerned about social security. However, it provides the image that if customers use the products they will safe their life in the disasters. After September 11th terrorist attack the USA, all Americans are living in the scare, the main purpose of the advertisement is to create the irrational purchase and intent to mislead customers. As a result, puffery does not support all the 6 principles. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is unethical.

Velasquez (2002, p76) states the traditional-utilitarianism theory states that an action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place. In addition, De George (2005, p56) defined utilitarianism as an ethical theory that holds that an action is right if it produces, or if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by action. Otherwise the action is wrong. According to Bowie and Beauchamp (1997, p21) utilitarians believe that the purpose or function of morality is to promote human welfare by minimizing harms and maximizing benefits.

According to Appendices 1 and 2, in the advertisement, Papa John's Pizza and Mueller’s want to misguide customers and harm their competitors indirectly. They maybe can get more benefits, at the same time; they will also lose their credibility and reduce the brand image. Furthermore, Appendix 1 and 2 clearly show that puffery in advertising is immorality, and these puffed products are of no benefit to customers. As a result, puffery does not support theory of traditional-utilitarianism. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is unethical.

In Appendix 3, manufacturers of vitamins are directly affecting the people’s health choice. The meaning of some advertisements are like “no Vitamins, no health life.” These advertisements deceive and harm people by using puffery statements and slogans. Customers may worry about their health then go and buy vitamins. According to De George (2005, p338), if what an advertisement says is true, it is morally permissible; if what it says is false, it is immoral. Furthermore, the benefits of the action may not be maximized. As a result, puffery does not support theory of traditional-utilitarianism. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is unethical.

Refer to Appendices 4 and 5, the advertiser of life (SARS) protection kits do not produce the most utility for everybody, customers will be deceived by the advertisement, contrarily, it just made the social scare for all persons who read these advertisements. Thus, the harms of people are maximized. In addition, these advertisements influenced their emotion; activities directly, even influenced the economic indirectly because of people may scare to work outside, join social activities, etc. De George (2005, p57) states that according to utilitarianism, people should evaluate an action by looking at its consequences, weighting the good effects against the bad effects on all the people affected by it. If the good outweights the bad, it tends to be a good action; if the bad outweights the good, it tends to be a bad action. According to theories of traditional-utilitarianism, the advertisement can minimize harms for customers and maximize benefits for company. As a result, Appendices 4 and 5 do not support theory of traditional-utilitarianism. Therefore, based on the above analysis, puffery is unethical.

According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone (Fieser, 2005, Ethics,  [Accessed on 15 October, 2005]). Stanford states that a rule utilitarian would obey those rules which experience has shown generally promote social welfare, even when doing so does not always lead to good consequences (Ethics in Business,  [Accessed on 15 October, 2005]).

Puffery in advertising is announced as being immoral by advertising associations in different countries, it is clear that certain correct moral rules should be followed by advertisers. Thus, puffery does not support Rule-utilitarianism. According to above analysis, the Appendices 1 to 5 do not support the theory of rule-utilitarianism. Therefore, puffery is an unethical issue.

In conclusion, puffery in advertising is a complicated social issue. It can either be ethical or unethical. Based on five ethical theories and five cases studies on this report, puffery in advertising is more likely to be an unethical issue.

Appendix 1: Pizza advertising slogan

The case, which began in August 1998, Pizza Hut brought against Papa John's Pizza has focused attention on the use of puffery. In the lawsuit, Pizza Hut claimed that Papa John's advertising was deceptive and misleading. Pizza Hut charged that Papa John's slogan -- "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." Pizza Hut thought falsely implied that Papa John's ingredients were fresh and the ingredients used by other pizza chains were not. Lawyers for Papa John's Pizza argued that the advertising slogan, like those of many American companies, was a harmless boast or puffery. Pizza Hut countered that the Papa John's claims were not puffery but rather statements of fact that could not be supported.

(Data Source:  [Accessed on 2 October, 2005])

Appendix 2: Mueller’s Pasta packaging

From 1997 to 2000, American manufactured Mueller’s brand (Mueller’s) dried pasta for Best Foods. In the fall of 2000, American purchased Mueller’s and assumed all packaging, distributing, pricing, and marketing for the brand. Since purchasing Mueller’s, American has placed the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” on Mueller’s packaging. On various packages, the phrases “Quality Since 1867,” “Made from 100% Semolina,” or “Made with Semolina” accompany the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta.” The packaging also contains a paragraph in which the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” appears. The paragraph states (1) pasta lovers have enjoyed Mueller’s pasta for 130 years; (2) claims Mueller’s “pasta cooks to perfect tenderness every time,” because Mueller’s uses “100% pure semolina milled from the highest quality durum wheat;” and (3) encourages consumers to “taste why Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta.”

(Hoffman, I., 2004. Advertising Slogans: Fact vs. Puffing,  [Accessed on 2 October, 2005])

Appendix 3: The advertising of Vitamins manufacturers

“Statistics show that 9 out of 10 Americans don't get all the nutrients they need from what they eat, and, in fact, are missing out on important vitamins and minerals.” (Statement in Advertising)

The survey found that only 9% of the participants remembered consuming the recommended number of both fruits and vegetables on the day covered by the survey. This does not mean they were deficient in vitamins or minerals. Dietary surveys that measure nutrient intake for a single day or even a few days are not suitable for determining the overall quality of an individual's diet. Furthermore, adequate nutrient intake can be achieved with fewer than the recommended number of portions of fruits and vegetables.

(Barrett, S., 1998, Misleading Advertising of Centrum,  [Accessed on 6 October, 2005])

Some Vitamin Advertising Slogans

(Data Source:  [Accessed on 7 October, 2005])

Appendix 4: SARS protective kit

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has generated nearly a half million new websites on the internet. On nearly every page, advertisers offer protection against the disease from respiratory masks and disinfectants to nutrient supplements that, the vendors claim, strengthen the immune system.

Antec International, a British company, and its American distributor, Biosafety USA, is selling Virkon, a disinfectant that they claim kills the agent causing SARS. But Dr Ronald Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia and a specialist in infectious diseases, said Antec could not have tested the disinfectant because so little is known about SARS. Heinz Niedermaier, chief executive of Biosafety USA, confirmed that the company had not tested the product in relation to SARS and acknowledged that its claim might be exaggerated.

(Charatan, F., 2003, Explosion of internet advertisements for protection against SARS,  [Accessed on 6 October, 2005])

Appendix 5: Advertising of Lifeline Security

Lifeline Security has supplied disaster relief and survival products long before the September 11th terrorist attack on this country. In 1997, Lifeline Security was one of the few companies to strongly promote breathing hoods for those trapped by fire in high rise buildings. Most of those who died in fires could have been saved if only they had a means of breathing filtered air until they reached to safety. Nearly 90% of fire deaths are from smoke inhalation and not from burns. That is why Lifeline Security offer the Exitair breathing hood respirator which is the only low cost breathing mask on the market to help you escape such catastrophes.

Since 9-11, Lifeline Security has had many inquires about its other products to address the threat of terrorism and a terrorist attack. Lifeline Security’s product lines include Rad-Block which is a Potassium Iodide tablet to protect those exposed to a nuclear radiation attack, dirty bomb attack or a nuclear radiation mishap.

(Data Source:  [Accessed on 6 October, 2005])

Reference List

Textbook:

1. Wells, W., Burnett, J. & Moriarty, S. 2000, Advertising: Principles and Practice. 5th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2. O’Guinn, T. C., Allen, C. T. & Semenik R. J. 2000, Advertising. 2nd Edition, South-Western College Publishing.
3. Velasquez M.G. 1998, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 4th Edition, Prentice Hall.
4. Arens, W. F., 1999, Contemporary Advertising, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
5. Aaker, D. A., Batra, R. & Myers,J. G. 1992, Advertising Management, 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
6. Velasquez M.G. 2002, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 5th Edition, Prentice Hall.
7. De George, R. T., 2005, Business Ethics. 6th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

List of Website:

1. Feldman, J. P., Puffery in Advertising,  [Accessed on 2 October, 2005]
2. ，H. A., 2003，Report of death greatly exaggerated，  [Accessed on 2 October, 2005]
3. Preston, I., How to make a claim about truth in advertising when ads aren't saying anything?  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]
4. Hooker, J., 2003, Why Business Ethics,  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]
5. Boudreaux, D. J., 1995, "Puffery" in Advertising,  [Accessed on 2 October, 2005]
6. Haan, P., 2004, What Would Jesus Say about Puffery?  [Accessed on 10 October, 2005]
7. Stanford, R. A., Ethics in Business,  [Accessed on 15 October, 2005]
8. Fieser, J., 2005, Ethics,  [Accessed on 15 October, 2005]
9. Richards, J. I., 2000, Texas advertising research,  [[Accessed on 2 October, 2005]
10.  [Accessed on 4 October, 2005]
11. Alinde, A. H., 2003, Report of death greatly exaggerated,  [Accessed on 11 October, 2005]

Bibliography:

1. Post, J. E., Lawrence, A. T. & Weber, J. 1999. Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics. 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill.
2. Curzer. H. J., 1999, ETHICAL THEORY AND MORAL PROBLEMS. Wadsworth Publishers.
3. Weiss, W. J, 1998, Business Ethic: A stakeholder and Issue Management Approach, 2nd edition. The Drydeen Press, United States of America
4. White, T.I, 1993, Business Ethic. Prentice Hall, United States of America
5. Weiss, J.W, 1990, Business Ethics, 2nd Edition. George Provol, United States of America